DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 22, 2007, 04:15:53 AM
-
Columbia University: Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC No
Lee Bollinger's choice.
by William Kristol
09/20/2007
TWO DAYS AGO, Columbia University announced that next Monday, September 24, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will speak and participate in a question and answer session with university faculty and students at Columbia. According to the university statement, "This opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran came about after Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations initiated contact with Columbia through a member of the faculty, Richard Bulliet, who is a specialist on Iran."
So at the request of the Iranian government, Columbia University will host the president of a terrorist regime which is right now responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Indeed, this distinguished guest, who is so honoring Columbia by his presence, will be introduced by no one less than the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger.
But not to worry: "President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government's policies." Indeed, Bollinger manfully proclaimed in the university statement: "I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the President on issues including:
* the Iranian President's denial of the Holocaust;
* his public call for the destruction of the state of Israel;
* his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;
* Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;
* his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and
* his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia's own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh."
One can imagine President Ahmadinejad nervously preparing for President Bollinger's "sharp challenges," and wondering whether those challenges will detract from the propaganda victory Bollinger's invitation has given him. He's undoubtedly concluded it won't be a big problem.
It should go without saying that the appropriate thing to do, when the Iranian ambassador called Columbia, would have been to say: No thanks. Or just, No. But that would be to expect too much of one of today's Ivy League university presidents.
In fact, the introduction with "sharp challenges" by Bollinger makes the situation even more of a disgrace. Now there will be the appearance of real dialogue, of Ahmadinejad answering challenges, which further legitimizes the notion that Holocaust denial, say, is a subject of legitimate and reasonable debate. But if Bollinger had chosen to deny Ahmadinejad's request, or not to dignify Ahmadinejad's appearance by his presence--then Bollinger would have been denied the opportunity to lecture us, in Columbia's press release, to this effect: "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible. That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here....This is America at its best."
Actually, this is a liberal university president at his stupidest. As Powerline's Scott Johnson put it, "Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing."
Meanwhile: As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus.
A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military.
Article (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/131yhgvn.asp)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg0921d.jpg)
-
Let me explain something to you about the purpose of a University, especially a great university like Columbia. (Bias alert: proud parent of a Columbia alum)
Universities educate. To educate, an exchange of ideas is often beneficial. The identical idea recycled endlessly back and forth is not an "exchange" of ideas. Ahmedinejad has ideas that are at variance with some of the ideas held at Columbia. He is coming to exchange ideas with people at Columbia. This is a GOOD thing, get it? (Oh, sorry, you DON'T get it - - the only people who should participate in exchanges of ideas at Columbia are those whose ideas are pre-approved by sirs or his ilk. Oh-Kaaaay. Got it. That should make for some great university. Turn out historians like . . . like . . . . well, like people who think that Nazi Germany ran France through a German Occupation Government and that the Vichy government did everything the Germans told them to do.)
U.S. Army ROTC is not exactly an educational institution. It recruits. It's not there to exchange ideas. The only idea the U.S. Army is interested in "sharing" is "Lissen up raghead/faggit/etc. if yew do not start showin me how much yew LOOOOVE democracy, ahm gonna blow yore haid off with this here M16 DOO YEW REED ME?" In most educational circles, this does not count as an exchange of ideas. Columbia figures if the Army needs cannon fodder so badly, it should look for anyone dumb or desperate enough to respond in some other place in New York City, not a prestigious educational institution. It's a big, big city with a lot of rental space available.
-
Bravo Michael, that is exactly the answer.
The ROTC is not an combatant in the world of ideas, It is a trainer of combatants.
It might be patriotic to join the military at this point, but it sure doesn't look like a wise thing to do.
-
The ROTC is not an combatant in the world of ideas, It is a trainer of combatants.
The ROTC trains leaders.
Perhaps that is why they frighten you so.
-
D'OH ;) (touche' Bt)
-
Touch? my arse.
Sirs, you are truly a dimbulb.
There is absolutely no reason why a private university should be harrassed in to training officers. There are plenty of places where they can be trained.
The purpose of a university is to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas. It is not intended to train Amway salesmen, shoe repairmen, vulcanizers, cheesemakers or officers for the war machine unless the directors think it is in the interests of the university.
-
Perhaps BT or sirs can explain why they think anyone should be "frightened" of "leaders" trained by the ROTC.
-
Touch? my arse.
There's not enough money on this globe for that to occur, Xo :P
-
Perhaps BT or sirs can explain why they think anyone should be "frightened" of "leaders" trained by the ROTC.
There has to be a reason for the University and it's supporters to deny students the right to associate as well as enjoy subsidies to the expenses incurred at said institution.
What would the outcry be if Columbia disallowed a Jewish Student Union center?
-
<<There has to be a reason for the University and it's supporters to deny students the right to associate as well as enjoy subsidies to the expenses incurred at said institution.>>
Anybody who's denied a presence on the campus can claim that the students are being deprived of the right to associate. That's a totally bogus argument. They can associate off-campus with anyone they choose. The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life.
<<What would the outcry be if Columbia disallowed a Jewish Student Union center?>>
I'd be delighted, as long as the other religious organizations were banned as well. Religion belongs in the churches. The educational institutions should be secular. Unfortunately they always cave to pressure groups.
-
The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life.
Is that the official definition of the military?
would Castro's army fit that definition?
-
Is that the official definition of the military?
would Castro's army fit that definition?
===================================
The Cuban Army has not fit that definition since they left Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique.
The US Army has been far more active that the Swedish Army, the Swiss Army, the Cuban Army, or even the People's Red Army, with invasions of Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Iraq again.
US Soldiers and Marines are trained to shout "Kill! Kill! Kill!" I am nit sure that the Swedes, Swiss, Cubans or Chinese do this.
And I meant to write "touch?, my arse", The accent did not print on the screen.
I do not think that touching my arse would be appropriate behavior.
I meant to indicate that despite BT's comment, I do not feel that sirs' dippy comment merited any recognition for cleverness at all, as it was actually rather unclever.
-
<<Is that the official definition of the military?>>
Probably not, if the official definition of the U.S. War Department is the Department of Defense, I'm sure the official definition of the U.S. military would be something at least equally Orwellian.
<<would Castro's army fit that definition?>>
I don't know about official definitions, but I personally would define Castro's army as the Cuban people in arms for the defence of the Revolution.
-
I don't know about official definitions, but I personally would define Castro's army as the Cuban people in arms for the defence of the Revolution.
So the definition is subjective. So why should i accept your definition?
-
A good point. The US somehow changed the name of the War Department to the DEFENSE Department after WWII, I think.But the US Defense Department actually is on the offense far more often than on the defense. The US has invaded Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Iraq twice. Bosnia was under international auspices.
The Swiss, Swedish and Canadian armies do a lot more defending than offending, on the other hand. The Israelis and the Iraqis under Saddam are the only ones that have recently been more offensive than the US. Iraq started the Iran Iraq War, and invaded Kuwait more or less unilaterally, though not withoutr provocation, as the Kuwaitis were sucking Iraqi Oil from Iraqi deposits by using diagonal drilling.
The Israelis have used preemprive strikes on several occasions, and have colonized captured territory, which is a no-no since WWII.
The Cuban Army is somewhat between these extremes, having sent troopps to Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique, where the rightwing factions posed no threat at all to Cuba.
-
<<So the definition is subjective. So why should i accept your definition?>>
Didn't you just ask me what it was? That's my definition. Why should I accept YOUR definition?
-
Why should I accept YOUR definition?
You don't have to.
But your definition was central to your argument backing Columbia's actions.
-
I have my own disclaimer: Columbia was on my short list of universities to attend and remains one of my favorite institutions just because of its sheer intellectual quality. We don't want a cookie-cutter array of institutions of higher learning; we want a patchwork of quality and character. As Michael and XO elliptically argue, Columbia's unique mission may be depleted by a ROTC connection (and, remember, a friendly West Point is only thirty miles up the Hudson), and their choice should not be burdened by yahoo sentiment, presumably at odds with harboring (formerly) scholars like Edward Said. Indeed, what is the record of other Ivies and their cognates, and leading universities in general, to ROTC participation?
-
I guess if Columbia doesn't accept a single taxpayer dollar they get to ignore any string attachment.
-
The "strings" are in the "details." Do you know the details?
-
I know that Ciongress can stipulate that any educational institution accepting federal funds must allow ROTC on campus.
-
CAN they? HAVE they?
-
Yes they can.
And they have at the high school level.
-
So, we've established, as I asserted, that Columbia is free in its discretion to deny participation in ROTC. Any other gems you want to add to cloud the issue?
-
So, we've established, as I asserted, that Columbia is free in its discretion to deny participation in ROTC.
Have we?
Or have we established that they haven't been challenged thus far?
Stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool huh?
-
You're assuming too much, and you're unsuccessfully trying to change the issue. If I remember correctly, the high school case had to do with RECRUITING on campus, something I believe Columbia does not interfere with. Besides, the folly of your proposition is revealed not only in the difference between recruiting and a modicum of control over curriculum, but also in the absurdity you present of high-school age (18-year-olds) assuming the ranks of officers in our reserves with not a college course under their belts. Further, a "stroke of the pen," as you assert, ignores legal and political realities often compartmentalizing a university's finances, one separate undertaking from another, and the overall question, previously stated, of just how far the government can penetrate a private institution with curriculum mandates at the university level based on tangential or peripheral notions of "monolithic funding."
-
I heard the president of Columbia University on Washington Journal this morning. He answered this question by saying that their rules do not allow some group who has discriminatory policies to speak there. At least that's what I heard.
-
Yes, Lanya, that jogs my memory. Many university types oppose ROTC as a protest (actually, as unlawful, ironically) against "don't ask, don't tell," a policy which presents moral and perhaps legal tensions.
-
I heard the president of Columbia University on Washington Journal this morning. He answered this question by saying that their rules do not allow some group who has discriminatory policies to speak there. At least that's what I heard.
But an individual who run's a country that's chalk full of such policies can?? ???
-
Ahmadinejad's Speech at Columbia University Is as American as Apple Pie
By Rebecca Evans and Brandon Hammer, AlterNet
Posted on September 24, 2007, Printed on September 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/63355/
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, in condemning Columbia's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that he's tired of free speech. Ironically, in doing so, he exercised that specific freedom, a privilege that allows critical engagement with elected officials and forces them to defend their actions. He used a right that the people of Iran do not enjoy.
Unlike Americans, who are able to challenge the legitimacy of the Patriot Act or take issue with America's continued presence in Iraq, Iranians cannot question Ahmadinejad's nuclear program or theocratic laws. Due to government control of most major media outlets as well as the threat of imprisonment for dissent, they are forced to accept these policies. This lack of freedom of speech gives Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei both a bully pulpit and immunity from accounting for policies.
It is for this reason that Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University on Monday is so vital. He will be challenged by students who will exercise their right to free speech in the way that their counterparts in Iran cannot. They will question his absurd ideological views that the Holocaust never occurred and that Israel should be wiped off the planet. They will force him to account for Iran's burgeoning nuclear program, interference with American efforts in Iraq, and ongoing support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Most importantly, they will be given the opportunity to impugn Ahmadinejad's abhorrent oppression of the Iranian people, disputing the rationality of Iran's misogynist, homophobic, and other malicious laws. In short, Columbia students will get to demand answers to questions that the Iranians cannot so much as utter publicly.
Moreover, Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad not only shows the world the importance of free speech, but also demonstrates what free speech means. Free speech does not simply allow individuals to express their views. It also forces them to defend and validate those views.
Those who oppose Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia argue that we are giving him a soapbox. Ahmadinejad is clearly not challenged for venues in which he can promote his twisted ideology. His ability to spread his heinous views is evidenced by the fact that Americans are well aware of these positions. If we didn't let him speak here, he could just as easily spread hate from Iran. The difference in bringing him to Columbia is that we will have the opportunity to challenge his claims, whereas we can only cringe when he speaks from Iran. What Columbia has chosen to do is to put him in a context where he cannot take advantage of the bully pulpit, where he must defend his actions to students and academics, where, for once, he is in a conversation rather than a monologue.
There are concerns that the invitation confers on him some degree of legitimacy. But when a man can menace Israel and the United States in the Middle East and keep the world on edge with threats of nuclear proliferation, he is already a legitimate force in global politics. Columbia's invitation does not provide further recognition. Instead, by creating a critical dialogue, it challenges the authenticity of Ahmadinejad's ideology. Columbia President Lee Bollinger's statement makes it clear that the event will be divided evenly between speech and questioning, and that he sees this event as part of a longstanding academic tradition of "confronting ideas" whose determination to engage, rather than ignore, speaks to America's confidence in its beliefs and values.
Old film clips of Hitler depict him ranting from a podium about the supremacy of the Aryan race and the sinister nature of the Jews. Because the Nazis had taken control of the media and imprisoned dissenters in concentration camps, no one in Germany had the opportunity to challenge his racism or impugn his persecutions. The result was that he managed to indoctrinate millions and galvanize them to support his mass murder.
Many of those who oppose Ahmadinejad's visit call him the second Hitler. If this is the case, why should we allow him to spread his hate without having to account for his claims? Why would we not embrace and take advantage of this opportunity to question his actions and challenge his ideology, as those in Iran cannot? Exemplifying free speech within this country, especially to those whose views are so repugnant, will challenge hateful ideologies and demonstrate the importance of discourse.
Rebecca Evans and Brandon Hammer are Columbia sophomores and members of the Roosevelt Institution.
? 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/63355/
-
Let him speak.
-
The ROTC is not an combatant in the world of ideas, It is a trainer of combatants.
The ROTC trains leaders.
Perhaps that is why they frighten you so.
Of course he is frightened. All panty-waist draft dodgers are. All such people should be incarcerated.
-
Touch? my arse.
Sirs, you are truly a dimbulb.
There is absolutely no reason why a private university should be harrassed in to training officers. There are plenty of places where they can be trained.
The purpose of a university is to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas. It is not intended to train Amway salesmen, shoe repairmen, vulcanizers, cheesemakers or officers for the war machine unless the directors think it is in the interests of the university.
I actually agreee with the testicle-less draft dodger here. If a college or university does not want ROTC, then sobeit. That is certainly their choice. If Columbia wants to invite the Presidnet of Iran, then fine. If you do not like it, then withdraw your student and/or do not support them financially or in any other way.
-
<<There has to be a reason for the University and it's supporters to deny students the right to associate as well as enjoy subsidies to the expenses incurred at said institution.>>
Anybody who's denied a presence on the campus can claim that the students are being deprived of the right to associate. That's a totally bogus argument. They can associate off-campus with anyone they choose. The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life.
<<What would the outcry be if Columbia disallowed a Jewish Student Union center?>>
I'd be delighted, as long as the other religious organizations were banned as well. Religion belongs in the churches. The educational institutions should be secular. Unfortunately they always cave to pressure groups.
"The issue is whether or not the campus of a great educational institution should host an organization whose main purpose is not the advancement of knowledge but the anihilation of human life."
My estemmed Canadina colleague fails to note that this taking of human lifei nwarfare has kept places like Canada an indepedent nation. When it is called for, thne the tkaing of human life is certainly necessary.
-
H00t!
Many moons have passed since the Fascist H00t posted in this forum, Now, it would appear, he has returned.
-
H00t!
Many moons have passed since the Fascist H00t posted in this forum, Now, it would appear, he has returned.
No, I am still on consultancy in the Middle East, currently on a frigate.
-
Well, when all was well & done, apparently he did a good job in making a complete fool of himself. I guess there was something positive out of this whole fiasco, after all
-
<<My estemmed Canadina colleague fails to note that this taking of human lifei nwarfare has kept places like Canada an indepedent nation. When it is called for, thne the tkaing of human life is certainly necessary.>>
I have no problem with any of that. The military is a tool, and when used in the right hands it can accomplish great things. I think it's also important to note that when used in the wrong hands it can accomplish terrible things. I don't fault the tool if someone uses it to loosen my brakes and I crash the car, I blame the guy who used the tool. If the Army commits atrocities, I blame the perps, but more than them, I blame the commanders from the top down, for it was their responsibility to see that no atrocities occurred on their watch, whatever discipline or exhortations they had to use. The conduct of the troops reflects on the command structure.
None of the foregoing makes the military in any reasonable sense educational - - they are trained and paid to kill and in my view, however useful their killing skills may be at times, they do not belong on the campus of an institution whose purpose is to educate and hopefully to find ways of improving human life on earth in non-violent, creative and constructive ways. The army may be at times a necessity, but keeping in mind its ultimate function, it's an ugly necessity and more often than not these days, it's used more to enslave and oppress than it is to liberate. If Columbia wants to keep its campus used for purely educational purposes and/or culture, I'd say it has every right to keep ROTC off campus.
-
Of course he made a fool of himself. There is no lack of smart patriots at Columbia, many of them Jews.
-
<<Well, when all was well & done, apparently he did a good job in making a complete fool of himself. I guess there was something positive out of this whole fiasco, after all>>
There you go. He entered the marketplace of ideas but nobody was buying his stuff. Why anyone would be afraid to let that jackass speak to an educated crowd is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
-
Of course he made a fool of himself. There is no lack of smart patriots at Columbia, many of them Jews.
What does patriotism have to do with this?
-
Why anyone would be afraid to let that jackass speak to an educated crowd is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
Because it gives his position & rhetoric a sense of credibility, by providing him such a podium, at what I once considered a prestegious University
-
It only gives him credibility if you're the shallow, hollow sort who doesn't pay attention.
-
It only gives him credibility if you're the shallow, hollow sort who doesn't pay attention.
No, actually providing the forum at such a location provides him the pseudo credibility, not to mention those that agree with him
-
I fail to see why Columbia University has lost any prestige because they have permitted Amedinejahd to speak there. This is not the same thing as endorsing him. I think Hitler made Time Magazine's Man of the Year once, not because he was a great guy, but because he was an important one.
I suggest that the elected leader of any nation of 77,000,000 people is sufficiently important to merit a podium at any great university anywhere.
-
I fail to see why Columbia University has lost any prestige because they have permitted Amedinejahd to speak there.
Because they did, they have in my book.
-
Your book is not one that is easily admired.
-
Well, we know what you tend to admire.....or is it envision. And your opinion of my book has about as much credibility as Ahmimanutjob had speaking at Columbia
-
<<I fail to see why Columbia University has lost any prestige because they have permitted Amedinejahd to speak there.>>
That's because you obviously fail to understand the mind of the right-wing jackass, of which our friend sirs provides an excellent example. The fact that Ahmedinejad presented his ideas to Columbia, and the fact that the Columbia audience heard his ideas, ridiculed them, reduced them publicly to the absurd insanities that they are, are all of very minor significance. The SYMBOLISM of Ahmedinejad being asked to present his ideas to a great Ivy League university is of cosmic significance.
In the loony world of the right-wing fruitbat, IMAGE trumps reality every time. This is because right-wing fruitbats do not live in the real world but in the world of ideas, which means their own sick, diseased and crazy ideas (and images) are the only "reality" they can relate to. Their own ideas become a sort of substitute reality that relegates actual reality to an insignificant corner of the universe reserved for all fact, logic and theory that contradicts their worldview.
Here is their theory in action. In the real world, Ahmedinejad is humiliated publicly for his ignorance, stupidity and irrationality. He's beaten like a dog and even his own body language shows it. However, in sirsworld, the irrational, disturbed world of the crypto-fascist, Ahmedinejad has actually triumphed. The public humiliation counts for nothing. Ahmedinejad has triumphed not because he was publicly humiliated, but because he was publicly humiliated at Columbia.
-
Yea, all that applause I heard as well was just soooooo ridiculing
::)
-
The applause could be for his courage in attending and/or merely the politeness of hosts thanking a guest for coming.
It's yet another unfortunate illustration of your denial of reality that you would take a wave of applause which is obviously incapable of being accurately analyzed for meaning, against the cold, hard reality of being publicly thrashed in the battle of ideas.
-
Reality, Tee, is a concept so foreign to you, you wouldn't even be able to get a visa for it. Again, try watching vs simply reacting with your template. There was applause DURING his speech, not some arbitrary courtesy clap for attending or leaving. Yea, just so ridiculing
-
I'm sorry, sirs, I can't watch the speech because the sound quality of my system is poor. The sound card is probably OK but maybe the speakers are fucked. I hear about 30 to 70 percent of the spoken words, depending on the file. It's too fucking frustrating for me to listen to, and it's not what I use this for.
I just don't see any amount of applause - - which could come from a variety of motives - - as wiping out the fact that he looked like a jackass, was soundly whipped in the exchanges, and appeared to realize this by his very body language. You have to give people credit for the ability to analyze what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears - - if they see the guy lose the debate, he loses the debate. How stupid do you think the viewers are? If he can't produce a valid answer to a legitimate question, do you think the viewers are too fucking dumb to know that?
-
I'm sorry, sirs, I can't watch the speech because the sound quality of my system is poor.
Well, I can't help you there. Instead of continuing to speculate, based on your already made up mind of what was supposed to happen, the facts are he had several rounds of applause for much of his commentary. He received an equal amount of booing, but the point is the applause he received was hardly ridiculing, or simple courtesy.
-
Without the introductory scathing attack on the Iranian leader, all of the preconditioning by this administration to trivialize and demonize him might have become more manifest today, but since this idiot president of Columbia chose to try to close him down before he was able to speak, Ahmadinejad was able to establish credibility to the world and to the people of the United States. Pat Buchannon, agreeing with Chris Matthews and others, capsulized it by saying that Ahmadinejad ought to take the Columbia president "on the road with him."
In the first place, Americans learned that Admadinejad wore no tinfoil hats, took no haldol, needed no haldol, and did not rave in the least.
This is a far cry from what most of the commentators have echoed on MSM, with, of course, the predictable parrots at Fox working overtime to paint him as the next Hitler.
You can take that history of faux attacks and justaposition them against his performance today and can reach your own conclusions, as will the world.
His biggest faux pas was to respond to a question about homosexuality in Iran by stating there is none. What he meant is what most other nations of the world mean when confronted with a political nonissue issue: there is no Fire Island, no San Fran bathhouses in their country. Most of the world will not hold this against him, especially after they have seen the american press glom onto his only boo boo and try to metastacize it into proof of his irrational, tyrannical demonhood.
Today's results:
Ahmadinejad l.
Neoconj-influenced attempts to slur the Iranian leader 0.
Better luck next time, warmongers. You'll have to work overtime to reline the presses to get with fresh ratfuck headlines. Until you do, you guys lost--both the pols hard at work at this anti-Iran, stage-two propaganda and the compliant press which is losing credibility faster than anybody currently leading Iraq. Or even anybody currently occupying a slot in the Democratic Congress, for that matter.
His highest point was his response to acetalyne queris about his remarks about his denial of the Holocaust. He simply acknowledged that a broader dialogue should ensue, with more discoveries made about the accuracy of the Holocaust, and that that would produce a greater clarity about it. He also followed by saying that in any case, Israel should stop trying to pretend that the Palestinians were responsible, and not the Europeans who actually were culpable.
-
sirs: <<the facts are he had several rounds of applause for much of his commentary. He received an equal amount of booing, but the point is the applause he received was hardly ridiculing, or simple courtesy. >>
sirs, THINK about it. How could a guy who is the leader of 73 million people, receive nothing but boos for every single word that came out of his mouth? He must have made SOME valid points. He can't be a TOTAL idiot. He represents a regime that tortures and kills prisoners, but so does George W. Bush. I'd be in favour of banning both of them from campuses, but why would it be OK to invite one and ban the other?
Crane: <<His highest point was his response to acetalyne queris about his remarks about his denial of the Holocaust. He simply acknowledged that a broader dialogue should ensue, with more discoveries made about the accuracy of the Holocaust, and that that would produce a greater clarity about it.>>
Well, it's almost like saying a broader dialogue should ensue about whether the earth is flat or round. But I guess it could be more accurate - - did six million really die or was it really "only" three million? But what is the point? That if it's "only" three million, the Germans aren't so bad after all? What if it should turn out to be ten million? Should the Jews nuke Germany?
<<He also followed by saying that in any case, Israel should stop trying to pretend that the Palestinians were responsible, and not the Europeans who actually were culpable.>>
Well, in the first place, I never heard of any Jew who claimed the Palestinians were responsible for the Holocaust. But in any case, that doesn't sound to me like a Holocaust denier.
-
sirs: <<the facts are he had several rounds of applause for much of his commentary. He received an equal amount of booing, but the point is the applause he received was hardly ridiculing, or simple courtesy. >>
How could a guy who is the leader of 73 million people, receive nothing but boos for every single word that came out of his mouth?
Perhaps because he's the leader of the largest state sponsored terrorist regime on the globe, furnishing weapons, logistics, and terrorists to kill not just our soldiers, but innocent men, women, and children as well?? To deny that his country has any homosexuals, and even if they did, not one was ever executed?? That would do it for me
He must have made SOME valid points. He can't be a TOTAL idiot. He represents a regime that tortures and kills prisoners, but so does George W. Bush. I'd be in favour of banning both of them from campuses, but why would it be OK to invite one and ban the other?
Besides the utter idiocy of the comparison, and the fact that at least now you also have concided that he wasn't completely ridiculed, and even had some "valid points", I can't think of one
-
<<Perhaps because he's the leader of the largest state sponsored terrorist regime [Iran] on the globe . . . >>
Nonsense. You've confused the guy with George W. Bush.
<< . . . furnishing weapons, logistics, and terrorists to kill not just our soldiers>>
Who, BTW, are legitimate targets
<< but innocent men, women, and children as well>>
No less than the U.S.A. has done. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
<< To deny that his country has any homosexuals, and even if they did, not one was ever executed??>>
OK I didn't claim that he said NOTHING stupid, just that in all that hour, he must have made some good points. And not unexpectedly.
-
<<Perhaps because he's the leader of the largest state sponsored terrorist regime [Iran] on the globe . . . >>
Nonsense. You've confused the guy with George W. Bush.
Your moronic obsession with Bush the evil has reached its threshold on this end. Best find that poster of his, and start firing some BBgun pellets into it. Make sure it has that Hitler-like mustache, and a few teeth blacked out for good measure
-
President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University
CQ Transcripts Wire
Monday, September 24, 2007; 4:25 PM
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
SPEAKER: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful...
TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness.
Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.
At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.
Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.
Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political, sort of, mainstream line that you read here that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.
Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But as for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we, for ourselves, can see how things fundamentally work.
It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness. And the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity.
The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered. Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion.
In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence.
If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given.
The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his prime gift enabling him to know his God.
In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels call human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation.
But the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth. And on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.
The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human being.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote.
In this way the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.
In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words -- piety, faith and wisdom -- have been spread to all mankind.
Regarding the holy prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty, holy Koran (SPEAKING IN PERSIAN)," unquote.
The first words, which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote, the Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote. Quote, "The Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.
You see, in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduced the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of.
In another part of the Koran, on the mission of the holy prophet of Islam, it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "read for them the divine verses," unquote, and quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination" unquote, and quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and Solomon and Moses, to Jesus and Mohammad delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior, and corrupted ways of thinking, with respect to knowledge, on the path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.
In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination. In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
AHMADINEJAD: My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities.
They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Are these weapons to protect global security?
What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity?
If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?
Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come.
Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly.
These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets.
Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God. But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice.
I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.
Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Right now, as president of Iran, I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic, myself. So I speak with you from an academic point of view, and I raised two questions.
But, instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced.
For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.
And as an academic, I asked two questions; the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge, for yourselves, whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations, and all the words and the negative propaganda or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not yet become silent until I get the answer. So I'm awaiting logical answers instead of insults.
My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?
Our friend referred to 1930 as the point of departure for this development. However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.
My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?
I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it.
But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age?
AHMADINEJAD: Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.
And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.
And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.
But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?
Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?
And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.
We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.
Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.
But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They keep saying...
(CROSSTALK)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you are deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.
If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed.
It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.
We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.
Let me begin with the question to which you just alluded...
AHMADINEJAD: Just one by one, one by one -- could you just...
MODERATOR: Yes.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security.
You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament.
So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself.
This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is...
(APPLAUSE)
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no?
(APPLAUSE)
There's the plight of a people.
QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum.
Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.
AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists?
Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?
Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group?
Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.
My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For --26 years ago, where I worked, close to where I worked, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.
A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest-ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government.
They're secured by the U.S. government. Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questioners -- sorry -- a number of people have asked...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes. We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers, sort of, incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation.
We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves. And it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is most regrettable.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact.
Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is -- what are incontrovertible?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well.
Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event?
There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge?
You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that's questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research?
Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years. But new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years.
So, we must allow researchers, scholars, they investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history and civilization. Why should we stop that?
I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here.
I said, in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is a serious question. There are two dimensions. In the first question...
QUESTION: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further.
It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis, some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me move on to...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Allow me. After all, you are free to interpret what you want from what I say. But what I am saying I'm saying with full clarity.
In the first question I'm trying to actually uphold the rights of European scholars. In the field of science and research I'm asking, there is nothing known as absolute. There is nothing sufficiently done. Not in physics for certain. There has been more research on physics than it has on the Holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There is nothing wrong with doing it.
This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of view. Scientists want to do that. Especially an issue that has become the foundation of so many other political developments that have unfolded in the Middle East in the past 60 years.
Why do we stop it altogether? You have to have a justified reason for it. The fact that it was researched sufficiently in the past is not a sufficient justification in my mind.
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation?
We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl -- is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are.
They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have two questions which I'll put together.
One is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today? And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, here, I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here. But I do want to say something here.
In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them. This is our tradition, required by our culture. And I know that American people have that culture, as well. Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, to show my sympathy with their families.
But our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings until midnight. And they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So, I told my friends then that they need to plan this for the following year so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects.
Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event. This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said, "What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that?"
Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach toward a lot of people, because of a certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move toward peace?
What was the second question?
I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11 Afghanistan was occupied, and then Iraq was occupied. And for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear.
If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it was happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law.
And, second, under the inspections of the IAEA.
And, thirdly, they are completely peaceful.
The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level.
AHMADINEJAD: And any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program.
We are all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue. It's not a legal issue. The international atomic energy organization -- agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes.
But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself, to humble itself. And then they would, of course, refrain from giving it to us, too.
So we're quite clear what we need.
If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power?
We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.
(APPLAUSE)
So let me just joke -- try to tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them, politically, they are backward, retarded.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a final question. I know your time is short and that you need to move on. Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States?
What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions?
How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established, we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship. We announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world.
One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated. And the second was the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties. The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nation. It seeks -- it wants talks and negotiations. It's for it.
We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats. We don't need to point bombs or guns. We don't need to get into conflicts if we talk. We have a clear logic about that.
We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.
You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States, and last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before the all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations.
I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.
For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another.
You all know Saddam, the dictator, was supported by the government of the United States and some European countries in attacking Iran. And he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of the war.
He used chemical weapons. Thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us.
Today, Mr. Noble Vinn (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in the U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.
And since then, we've been under different propaganda, sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? That, we can't understand.
We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Would you allow me to thank the audience a moment?
Well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked: Would I allow the faculty at Columbia and students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You're officially invited.
(APPLAUSE)
University faculty and students that the university decides, or the student associations choose and select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with the list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country. And you can choose whichever you want to go and visit. We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.
Right now in our universities on a daily basis there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions. They welcome it.
In the end I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University. And there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations.
I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University, I apologize -- the people who so well organized this meeting today.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood.
Best of luck to all of you.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
END
.ETX
Sep 24, 2007 15:24 ET .EOF
Source: CQ Transcriptions
? 2007, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved
-
"Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established"
Wasn't the taking of hostages in the U.S. embassy in Tehran part of this "revolution?"
Too bad I was not the CA. I would have taken them back by force, regardless the cost in soldiers and resources and glazed over the capital city.
Go ahead: I dare any one of you to seriously state this was NOT a violation of international law.
These type of actions must not be allowed to go ahead without repercussions.
Nations need to be able to be somewhat assured that other nations act predictably if not sanely.
-
Ahmadinejad handled himself very well, IMHO. Obviously, he's no dummy. Just as obviously, your own "President" will NEVER accept Ahmadinejad's challenge to a debate. He'd be massacred.
OTOH it was very disappointing to see the performance of Columbia's questioners, or perhaps it was the format of the debate. Given the evasiveness of the speaker, which was very well known, the format should have allowed for three to five follow-up questions for each question asked.
Iran's record on human rights is just deplorable. When Ahmadinejad waffled (as in "We have no homosexuals in Iran") he could easily have been pinned down by specific references to the two teenage boys who were publicly hanged from a crane, had follow-up questions been allowed and had the questioners been better prepared. Absolutely nothing was asked about Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi, tortured to death in Ervin Prison in Teheran, or about the Ba'hai women tortured, raped and then executed in the same prison - - a little preparation, names, dates, sentences, and he wouldn't have been able to wriggle out of the accusations so easily.
But I thought he brilliantly turned the tables on the questioners in a number of other fields, including the "terrorism" one, where the pitcher lobbed an easy one right over the plate and Ahmadinejad sent it straight back in a line drive, nearly taking his head off with it.
And he started off on the right foot, earning a good round of applause, by reminding his hosts of such things as courtesy and respect for a guest, but that was more of a culture clash - - Americans are more brash and in-your-face, niceties be damned, and a lot of people love them for it. They don't always stand on ceremony.
-
>>TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic. <<
What he was doing was giving us all the chance to convert to Islam before he kills us. It's part of Islam. Bin Laden did it in his latest propaganda film.
So now the little Nazi's conscience is clear and he can go on with his lies. Which of course is also a part of the teachings of Islam.
-
From our resident sociopath:
>>Ahmadinejad handled himself very well, IMHO. Obviously, he's no dummy.<<
He's at least as mentally unstable as you Mike. Read the first paragrah, then see a doctor because you are seriously deranged.
A Maniac in Morning Side Heights
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/25/2007
Contrary to what you may have heard, Iran doesn?t ?believe? in nuclear weapons. And pay no heed to reports of young Iranian women being stoned to death for adultery. Actually, Iranian women are among ?the freest in the world.? In addition, further research is needed to determine whether the Holocaust happened, and to discover who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Oh, and there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic.
These and other pearls of wisdom were brought to you by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he took the stage yesterday at Columbia University to deliver a rambling and often incoherent speech that should never have taken place.
But grant the genocidal maniac this: he knows how to make the most of an occasion. Surrounded by running cameras and a rapt audience, Ahmadinejad delivered a memorably opposite-world rendition of Iran?s political activities. Typical in its sinister absurdity was his lofty judgment that in ?a university environment we must allow people to make up their own mind.? Coming from the head of a regime that has launched vicious crackdowns on universities, students, human-rights activists and political dissidents, the statement might almost be amusing, were it not tragic. Ahmadinejad seemed all too aware of the fact, and throughout his remarks he wore a sly grin that seemed to say, ?Can you believe I?m getting away with this??
That he has gotten away with it is principally the fault of one man: Columbia president Lee Bollinger. To give Bollinger his due, he was impressively severe in introducing Ahmadinejad yesterday. ?Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,? Bollinger said, pressing him to account for Iran?s successive crackdowns on dissent, for its funding of terrorist groups, and for waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq. Addressing Ahmadinejad?s doubts about the destruction of European Jewry, Bollinger appropriately called it ?illiterate and ignorant? and ?dangerous propaganda.?
There were some stumbles. Bollinger?s strained attempt to defend the invitation as a victory for free speech was feeble and unconvincing. By what obscene standard is the participation of a Holocaust-denying Islamic zealot a prerequisite for ?vigorous debate? about any subject? Even so, his reference to the need to ?confront the mind of evil? at least cast the guest in his proper light. If not quite a proud moment in Columbia?s history ? the mere fact that Ahmadinejad was accorded a platform precluded the possibility ? it was at least not another embarrassment.
Alas, the damage has been done. Simply by appearing at Columbia, Ahmadinejad could claim the unearned legitimacy imparted by the esteemed location. As one might expect, Iran?s government-owned media were quick to pounce on the propaganda coup. In its account of the speech, Iran?s official news agency gleefully recorded the ?standing ovation of the audience? and its ?repeated? applause for the president. They needn?t have bothered. Why waste energy singing the president?s praises when a modern university, in the heart of the Great Satan no less, is happy to provide free publicity?
Not the least destructive consequence of Ahmadinejad?s appearance is that it has humanized the leader of a rogue regime that has the blood of American soldiers on its hands and the murder of Israeli Jews on its mind. Bollinger seemed to anticipate the possibility. In his introduction yesterday, he revealed to Ahmadinejad his ?yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.? Here is some novel advice for Bollinger. For future reference, the best way to show your complete and utter disdain for a fanatical dictator is not to offer him a forum for his hateful views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com
-
>>TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic. <<
What he was doing was giving us all the chance to convert to Islam before he kills us. It's part of Islam. Bin Laden did it in his latest propaganda film.
So now the little Nazi's conscience is clear and he can go on with his lies. Which of course is also a part of the teachings of Islam.
For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.
-
You and Laskin are both nuts. The only thing you can fault Bollinger for is discourtesy to an invited guest, and some might even consider it an example of homespun American plain talking. Whoever approved the format for the question period fucked up by not allowing for several follow-up questions to pin the guy down. Whatever victory Ahmedinejad achieved (and let's be honest, he was impressive and he did score points) was due at least in part to inadequate preparation, although on some points, since his country's in the right and yours is clearly in the wrong, no amount of adequate preparation would suffice. I refer to:
1. accusing Iran of "terrorism" - - ludicrous when the world's biggest terrorist nation is the U.S.A.;
2. arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder - - ludicrous case of the pot calling the kettle black
3. nuclear weapons - - ludicrous, since any nuclear attack by Iran on the U.S. would be signing its own death warrant; plus Iran is
complying with IAEA inspector protocols
I don't think "the U.S.A. does it too" is a good defence to anything, so he could definitely have been taken to task over his country's abuses of prisoners.
I think he could have been vulnerable to attacks based on persecution of gays, but since America's GOP is resolutely anti-gay, he's probably have a lot of good counter-arguments; America hasn't executed gays (officially) but the killers of Matthew Sheppard had a lot of public support from Christian churches (manifested as further attacks in the form of public demonstrations against gays, including signs that Matthew was burning in hell) and officially supported by the failure of the justice system to deliver death sentences to the perps.
What Ahmadinejad was not easily contradicted. He said a lot of truths about his country and the U.S.A. that the leaders of the U.S. would rather see buried. Probably made Americans think. Even his Holocaust research questions made sense - - why SHOULD further research from various perspectives be rejected? If currently-held concepts are true, they can only be reinforced by further study; if the studies are flawed, they will not damage the current perceived truth. If they are flawless, they will either support or alter the current view and either way, it's a good result. This is a win-win situation.
-
>>For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.<<
What's the big deal? They all do it, and you can't deny it's part of the religion. What's to defend?
-
>>Even his Holocaust research questions made sense - -<<
Like I said, see a doctor because you are one sick fuck.
-
>>For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.<<
What's the big deal? They all do it, and you can't deny it's part of the religion. What's to defend?
Total bullcrap.
-
She's right, Rich
-
The truth is that the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, but it was the Palestinians who lost their country as a result.
Taking the embassy hostages captive was a breach of international law, but not nearly so great a breach as the overthrow of the elected Mossadeigh by the CIA.
Ahmedinejahd's government did not sign any nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has as much right to nukes as Israel at the very least.
This guy is very far from being crazy, despite his ridiculous statement about how there are no homosexuals in Iran, especially in light of some of these nonexistent persons being executed for this ostensibly non existent behavior.
His speech went over quite well back in Teheran.
His interview on Charlie Rose was better than his UN presentation.
It was rather pathetic for Juniorbush to try to upstage him. Everything Juniorbush does these days is pathetic.
Never has a lame duck been more lame.
-
>>Total bullcrap.<<
How do you figure?
Muhammad did tell belivers to tell the truth. That is, to each other. Muhammad espoused the principle: "War is deceit." He taught that lying was permissible in battle. From that came two Islamic principles: political assasination for the honor of the prophet and his religion and the practice of deception in wartime.Taqiyya and Kitman are most often identified with Shi'ite Islam and rejected by Sunnis. Relilgious deception is however, taught by the Qur'an.
I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?
-
>>She's right, Rich<<
Okay. Show me.
-
>>She's right, Rich<<
Okay. Show me.
Been there, done that already. You can find passages all over our Holy Bible that if taken to their extremes, could be considered advocating the killing of non-believers, carnal sinners, etc. Passages taken out of context can be used to justify a whole host of barbaric activities. Passages taken verbatim minus the overall context and theme of the scriptures can also be used to justify the killing of innocent people. Radicals in both christianity and islam, the ones using and skewing these selected passages, are the areas of danger, NOT the religion itself, unless of course you want to go on record as proclaiming how evil Christianity is. The other pertinent point being there's an exponentially greater # of radicals mutating the religion of Islam than there are in twisting Christianity.
-
Okay, you can't.
All you seem to be able to do is parrot the enablers.
-
No, all I'm able to do is demonstrate how it's not the religion at issue, but the radicals within that mutate their religion. If your wish is to continue to validate what was supposed to be an unsubstantiated commentary Miss Henny posted about how many Muslims fear a 21st century Crusades, led by Bush and conservatives, then by all means, continue. I'll need to take further commentaries by yourself with a hefty grain of salt
-
I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?
I have heard of it in both the form of Islamic study... and through anti-Islamic rhetoric and the like, in the United States.
You have only heard of it through anti-Islamic rhetoric.
So here's what the translation of those words REALLY mean, from a person who is totally fluent in Arabic (that's me).
Taqiyya literally means that a person can hide his or her religious beliefs in the face of persecution. Thinking back to the age of Islam, it meant that if you are being persecuted by a non-Muslim who might kill you for your beliefs, you can deny those beliefs to save your life and God won't punish you for it.
Kitman literally means "not revealing." It is used with taqiyya in the same context.
Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.
-
>>She's right, Rich<<
Okay. Show me.
You've been shown.
-
I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?
I have heard of it in both the form of Islamic study... and through anti-Islamic rhetoric and the like, in the United States.
You have only heard of it through anti-Islamic rhetoric.
So here's what the translation of those words REALLY mean, from a person who is totally fluent in Arabic (that's me).
Taqiyya literally means that a person can hide his or her religious beliefs in the face of persecution. Thinking back to the age of Islam, it meant that if you are being persecuted by a non-Muslim who might kill you for your beliefs, you can deny those beliefs to save your life and God won't punish you for it.
Kitman literally means "not revealing." It is used with taqiyya in the same context.
Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.
Christianity is the reverse. Matthew 10:33, I believe: "But whoever denies me before people, I will deny him also before my Father in heaven."
-
Christianity is the reverse. Matthew 10:33, I believe: "But whoever denies me before people, I will deny him also before my Father in heaven."
Yet, Peter denied Christ three times. Christianity is not a comparable religion to Islam or Judaism because it is not a religion of law, no matter how much some (and I'm not accusing you here) try to make it so.
There are, of course, very important tenets of Christianity and beliefs, but for people who require a religion for day-to-day living, I tend to think they'll be sorely disappointed.
-
Hmmm, good points, but I DO find Christianity an excellent theology for day to day living.
And, as you note, GRACE is an integral part of the theology.
-
>>Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.<<
Henny, did I say it applys to ALL Muslims?
We're talking about a specific person in this thread, not ALL Muslims. Am I wrong to claim that these doctrines are used as I claimed by the Muslims we are discussing?
-
>>Rich, I'm not saying that Osama bin Laden and other extremists haven't twisted this doctrine to mean something else. But whatever meaning an extremist uses for the phrase shouldn't be automatically applied to all Muslims.<<
Henny, did I say it applys to ALL Muslims?
We're talking about a specific person in this thread, not ALL Muslims. Am I wrong to claim that these doctrines are used as I claimed by the Muslims we are discussing?
I think you said something along the lines that "they all do it," but perhaps I read that wrong assuming you meant all Muslims instead of all extremists.
OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.
-
Here was the quote from the transcript:
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
So here are two questions that popped into my head - -
1. Did he say, we don't have homosexuals but you do? Or did he say, we don't have homosexuals the way you do in your country? (i.e., that in the U.S. the homosexuals are open, flaming, in your face, etc.?)
2. What was the exact Farsi word that Ahmadinejad used that the translator translated into English as "homosexuals?" And what are its connotations?
Because it's starting to dawn on me, the guy might not be dumb enough to deny the existence of homosexuals entirely, but the translator might not have been good enough to distinguish between various shades of meanings for various Farsi words used to describe male homosexuals. What if Ahmadinejad was denying the existence of real in-your-face flamers and used a word for them that was mistranslated as, simply, "homosexuals?" That would certainly add some sense to the final phrase, "like in your country," which otherwise it's hard to see the necessity of.
-
Here was the quote from the transcript:
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
So here are two questions that popped into my head - -
1. Did he say, we don't have homosexuals but you do? Or did he say, we don't have homosexuals the way you do in your country? (i.e., that in the U.S. the homosexuals are open, flaming, in your face, etc.?)
2. What was the exact Farsi word that Ahmadinejad used that the translator translated into English as "homosexuals?" And what are its connotations?
Because it's starting to dawn on me, the guy might not be dumb enough to deny the existence of homosexuals entirely, but the translator might not have been good enough to distinguish between various shades of meanings for various Farsi words used to describe male homosexuals. What if Ahmadinejad was denying the existence of real in-your-face flamers and used a word for them that was mistranslated as, simply, "homosexuals?" That would certainly add some sense to the final phrase, "like in your country," which otherwise it's hard to see the necessity of.
MT, that's an excellent point. I've seen a lot of problems in Farsi translations before, and they're forever adjusting them to get the correct meanings across. He might have meant that homosexuals don't have the freedoms to live as they wish, etc. The fact that their laws acknowledge homosexuality - albeit as a form of mental illness - would make your interpretation of this even more likely.
-
The mainstreammedia jumped on this 'homosexual' issue with energy simply because they were al ready pumped to demonize--it really was all they had left. They would have had a lot of things to jump on, but for the Columbia's president belly-flopping. After this ridiculous episode, Ahmadinejad was given free reign to control the dialogue, which he took advantage of. He was made a victim too fast, too glibly--all he had to do was then respond by pointing out that fact and then standing up to them, which he did with class and aplomb. The whole world, minus propagandized America, will not hold him to account.
What also becomes clear is that Israel, despite its imperial calibre bragging, screwed up by pressuring Columbia so intently--it led to a harmful (for them) and unexpected plus for Iran. "Check out the big brain on Brad!"
For all the questions left unanswered, I am perplexed at the spin both by the media and in here; everybody had the questions, where were they? Where was the meaningful journalistic follow-through? Was Ahmadinejad supposed to first ask and then answer, in order to present himself the clown America had already been mind-renditioned to think he was?
They are all going to fold and refold and refold the carton in order to keep intact that Ahmadinejab is a dicator, a maniac, a fool, etc.
It is episodes like this that make me realize just how tightly held by the balls American intellectual thought has become.
-
For all the questions left unanswered, I am perplexed at the spin both by the media and in here; everybody had the questions, where were they? Where was the meaningful journalistic follow-through? Was Ahmadinejad supposed to first ask and then answer, in order to present himself the clown America had already been mind-renditioned to think he was?
Crane makes an excellent point.
Columbia's President invites a foreign leader to his campus, then insults him right from the start. The media (MSM, liberal biased, blah, blah) had headlines already run about how "evil had landed." The guy was painted as a nutjob, ready to go off the deep end with the slightest provocation (obviously what the Columbia President intended).
It never happened. Say what you will about him, but he's not an idiot. Actually, I think he's rather clever and by making that speech and his subsequent UN speech, he's made that rather clear. He's also taken full advantage of President Bush's and Prime Minister Olmert's amazing ability to turn the United States and Israel into two of the most loathed nations in the entire world.
-
<<The mainstreammedia jumped on this 'homosexual' issue with energy simply because they were al ready pumped to demonize--it really was all they had left. >>
It's pathetic, but it could have been due to the format. The guy is naturally evasive, and it's absurd to think that one question alone could ever have pinned him down on anything he didn't wish to answer honestly. If the questions about treatment of homosexuals - - to take only the most obvious example - - were followed up with facts, names and dates, as was entirely possible, he'd have to account for why two adolescent boys were executed, hung from a crane for loving each other. He could have been pinned down similarly on the torture/murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi in Ervin Prison. Same with the Ba'hai women.
I was kind of disappointed in the quality of the questioning. Coulda done a much better job myself. Columbia looked bad in every way - - a bunch of inhospitable, boorish, blowhards, unprepared and/or simply ignorant. Bad day for the Ivy League.
-
>>OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.<<
He's not?
What's the difference?
-
>>OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.<<
He's not?
What's the difference?
For one thing, he is Shi'a and al-Qaeda are Sunni.
-
>>OK - back to the point - I am unsure that Ahmadinejad (or however you spell his name) is using Taqiyya and Kitman in the way you described; ass though he is, he isn't on the extremist level of Al-Qaeda.<<
He's not?
What's the difference?
Ahmadinejad is extremist in some of his views (end of world scenarios), however, he is not a religious leader nor a Imam making fatwas.
-
Ahmadinejad is extremist in some of his views (end of world scenarios),
==============================================
End of the world rubbish is quite common among Christians and Jews alike. Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, claimed that conservation of the forests was an act of stupid futility, because the End of the World would arrive soon and all would be destroyed.
Ol' Ronnie himself said he believed that perhaps some space aliens with bigger guns than us would swoop down on us Earthlings and teach us to make nice with one another.
Turns out, this was basically the plot of a film called The Forbin Project, in which the US doomsday machine and its Soviet equivalent join forces to make war impossible, because they see it as a threat to their existence.
Ahmedinejad is a typical Shiite with a typical Iranian sense of humor and irony. He is not crazy, he is typical of his country and this period and is much admired at home.
If you check out Iranian websites, you will see that his visit and speeches are seen as major triumphs for Iranian dignity.