Columbia won't cancel Ahmadinejad speech

[spotbird]

Source: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was to appear Monday at a question-and-answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum.


Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Ahmadinejad_Columbia.html

[pampango]

1. Hopefully, they let him speak and handle it better than the did the

Minutemen last year.

[PittPoliSci]

4. i thought that went about how it should have...

[pampango]

6. I am sure that many would like to see this go the same way.

Why bother to invite them, if they are not going to get to speak? Selective freedom of speech is not such a wonderful thing.

My son is a freshman in college. I hope he takes advantage of opportunities to hear points of view from "wackos" of many perspectives, not just the left or the right, or foreigners or Americans, but a wide range of view points. I don't agree on much with Gilchrist or Ahmadinejad, but Columbia should either screen them out (and not pretend to invite a diversity of opinion) or invite them in and let them be heard.

[PittPoliSci]

8. i just like to see the unrest.

and that people are even still angry enough about anything to act like jerks. yes, it's probably not such a happy thing that we are stifling freedom of speech, but, the oncoming storm suggests that passion isn't dead among youth.

i'm still in college myself, and what i see every day are a bunch of dead eyed, selfish pricks who couldn't tell you where Iran is on a map, let alone be outraged that it's leader was coming to a university. the turbulence, in my opinion, is a sign that we aren't as doomed as I sometimes think we are.

[John Kerry VonErich]

69. What would happen if someone did the same thing to this one as others did to Minutemen?

nt

[PittPoliSci]

78. hilarity ensues?

[John Kerry VonErich]

81. gotta point.

:toast:

[ShortnFiery]

82. Yes, our Dear Leaders tell us that we've always been at war with Iran and Iran caused 9/11

:eyes:

[AlCzervik]

2. there is a thread here from yesterday that said "Columbia university cancels Ahmadinejad speech"

so did they change their minds or am i taking crazy pills?

[Purveyor]

3. This AP article is the latest off the newswires so it is most likely the current 'status'.. eom

[BonnieJW]

5. They would let bush/cheney speak

and they are the most hate mongering individuals in the world.

[shaniqua6392]

7. I thought we were "spreading Democracy" around the world???

What is the problem with leading by example and letting him speak? I, for one, would love to read a text of his speech.

[ProudDad]

9. Good for them (n/t)

[varun]

11. We should talk to our "adversaries"

Thats the only way to avoid a war.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Good for Columbia, but they seem to keep changing their minds.

[BushOut06]

12. Bravo to them for not caving in to the right-wing hate machine

If anyone's guilty of "hate-mongering vitriol", it's the rethugs and the conservative hate machine.

[liberalsoldier5]

17. This issue isn't left vs. right....everybody should hate this guy.

Perhaps liberals should hate him even more than conservatives- he's a thousand miles to the right of Bush.

[goodgd_yall]

58. Even so

Americans have a right to question him and hear his answers. I think it's a very good thing to be able to hear him without the editorializing that usually happens with the MSM.

[liberalsoldier5]

13. Unfortunately, I see little difference between him and Hitler.

Neither have any place in American universities. Like it or not, this guy is our nation's enemy (as well as an enemy to those people in his country that he hangs for being dissenters, gay, etc.) This issue is not left-and-right, but rather America-and-Iran. Liberals should not be operating on the 'enemy of my enemy...' nonsense with him. For as much as we all hate Bush, this guy is pure shit. It's just plain irrational to think otherwise.

I've been told that there will be large protests at Colombia when he speaks. I'm glad. (Yes, I opposed the silencing of the Minutemen. No, I'm not a hypocrite.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Iran is not our enemy.

Liberals don't operate under the "whoever Glenn Beck says is my enemy is my enemy" nonsense.

"Yes, I opposed the silencing of the Minutemen. No, I'm not a hypocrite."

Why not?

[liberalsoldier5]

18. No, but Ahmadinejad certainly is.

And don't think for a second that you speak for all "liberals". The left should hate this guy just as much, if not more, than the right. Does this mean Bush and I share a common enemy? Yes, and I could care less. Unfortunately, many here on DU can never let that be (hence the kookish support for Chavez that you see from time to time). I'm with the countless Iranians who depise Ahmadinejad more than Michael Moore despises Bush, and all Americans should stand with them as well.

And why am I not a hypocrite? Because I consistently oppose hate speech. That's why. (And I mean real, serious, "death to Israel and the Holocaust was fake" hate speech).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. I don't claim to speak for liberals.

But I'm not going to lie and say that liberals fall for this hatemongering and warmonger bullshit.

"No, but Ahmadinejad certainly is."

So is Bush. So are the Minutemen. That doesn't mean I want to keep them away from paying respects at the WTC.

"The left should hate this guy just as much, if not more, than the right."

There a difference between hating the guy and this "America vs. Iran" bullshit.

"Unfortunately, many here on DU can never let that be"

I've never seen anybody on DU actually support Ahmadinejad. I've seen plenty of freepers say we do, but that's something else entirely.

"I'm with the countless Iranians who depise Ahmadinejad more than Michael Moore despises Bush"

:rofl:

"all Americans should stand with them as well."

But you just said "America vs. Iran." Jesus, at least try to be consistent.

"And why am I not a hypocrite? Because I consistently oppose hate speech. That's why. (And I mean real, serious, "death to Israel and the Holocaust was fake" hate speech)."

You oppose it when it's a muslim guy saying it, but apparently not when it's white guys talking about shooting Mexicans. So I find it hard to believe it's really about "hate speech."

[liberalsoldier5]

28. You got half your shit wrong.

I purposely NEVER wrote "America vs. Iran" for good reason. You made that up to help your argument. And standing with the Iranians who hate this madman more than any us hate Bush is laughable...how again? And no, Ahmadinejad is not the same kind of "enemy" to all of us Americans as Bush and the Minute Men are. THAT is laughable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. You wrote it in post #13.

Jeeeeesus!

[liberalsoldier5]

34. Check the post and check your eyes.

Jeeeesus! :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I did.

Technically, you say "and" but you're juxtaposing it with "left vs. right" so in this context you're saying America vs. Iran.

You agree down thread when you agree with G. Gordon Liddy as to why Iran is our enemy.

Oh, what a tangled web you weave.

[BushOut06]

22. Please explain why Iran is OUR enemy

Name one thing that Iran or Ahmadinejad has done against the US. Name one action that he has taken to hurt us. Iran has never directly attacked the US. Iran's beef is with the current regime in Israel. Just because he has questioned the Holocaust doesn't merit him becoming our sworn enemy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Iran caused 9-11.

And their fighting our troops in Iraqan.

:rofl:

[liberalsoldier5]

24. Yeah, supporting insurgents killing our soldiers is a real laugh.

N/T.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. You're certainly a laugh.

Not that I think you've got anything to do with killing or soldiering.

[BushOut06]

33. The United States is the only one allowed to supply arms

It's okay if we do it, because as Ah-nuld said in "True Lies", we're the good guys. It's okay for us to provide arms to various factions all around the world. The minute that Iran or anyone else starts providing arms to anyone that we're engaged with, suddenly they become our hated enemy.

[liberalsoldier5]

38. Yeah. pretty much.

Supplying weapons to people trying to kill our soldiers definitely makes that somebody a bad guy. A second grader could put that one together. You don't have to believe in "my country, right or wrong" (which you clearly don't) in order to understand that Ahmadinejad's actions definitely make him an enemy to our country. I understand that you're (clearly) pissed off at America right now, but try to keep your head on straight. Arming insurgents in Iraq is wrong, and makes one our enemy. Duh.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Why do you think Ahmadinejad's supplying insurgents?

Did you believe in Saddam's WMDs too?

[Ignis]

61. If weapons suppliers are evil, put the US at the top of the list!

All across the ME, Africa, and Latin America, the US has an awful history of supplying weapons to insurg--er, freedom fighters, only to have these same terror--er, patriots turn around and use those weapons AGAINST American soldiers.

Who supplied the arms to the muhajideen in Afghanistan to fight Soviet Russia? Who supplied arms to Saddam to fight Iran?

Supplying weapons to people trying to kill our soldiers definitely makes that somebody a bad guy. A second grader could put that one together.

So, how's first grade going? Any end in sight? :shrug:

[Psephos]

72. Put down the ad hominem crack pipe and give us some arguments

You'll have a better chance of persuading those who don't hold views identical to yours.

[IsItJustMe]

40. Guess you get your information from the same news sources that said Iraq had WMD. I don't know what

to believe about him, but I am not buying 'whatever' our media says.

[SOS]

65. Supporting insurgents who kill US soldiers....

You must be talking about Saudi Arabia.
The Sunni insurgency is supported by Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

[ovidsen]

75. Who's worse?

The Saudis are giving weapons to Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

Iran is giving weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

Two pigs in a poke as far as I'm concerned. Just the same, let the guy speak. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to show what idiots they are.

[dipsydoodle]

63. And

they made my cat ill, and they made the heat in the living room split the calf head on a uke............:rofl:

[G Gordon Libby]

25. Their human rights record, for one.

They execute Gays, women for violating the dress code, they torture on the flimsiest of pretexts(if any), free speech doesn't exist, the internet is heavily censored, etc. etc. If he was a caucasian Christian you'd be calling for his head-let's be honest.(If Persians are technically caucasian I stand corrected, but you know what I mean).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Oh this is rich.

G. Gordon Liddy?

:rofl:

[BushOut06]

30. You just described a whole bunch of countries

There are plenty of countries around the world with human rights records much worse than Iran.

When do you propose that we start bombing Zimbabwe?

[liberalsoldier5]

31. EXACTLY!

Liberals should hate the shit out of this guy and his regime. But who am I kidding, it's impossible to oppose Bush and hate Iran's Hitler, isn't it? Oh that's right, it's not. It's just that DU has its Democrats, and then it has its kooks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. So now you're saying Iran IS our enemy?

:rofl:

[liberalsoldier5]

44. NO!

For the record: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime are our enemy. The people they hang for dissent, being gay, etc. are NOT our enemy. (Duh.) It's those Iranians that all Americans, especially liberals, should stand with. This is easy shit to understand and has been made very clear to you. It's obvious that you're focusing on the symantic small stuff. I wonder why...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Uh huh.

Oh, what a knee-slapper.

[BushOut06]

37. So that makes him our ENEMY?

Sure, he may be a bad person, and bad things may happen in Iran. But as I've already stated, I could easily locate a dozen countries that have human rights records far worse than Iran's. Does that mean that each and one of those countries is our enemy?

So, which one should we start a war with next?

[spotbird]

43. The guy is despicable,

but he has every right to speak.

And we just can't attack another nation.

[mallard]

83. Re: "Liberals should hate the shit out of this guy ..."

With as many fake, supposedly educated liberals as we have among us promoting hate and useless in forestalling still more war, it amazes me that this man who's been so atrociously misrepresented as our dedicated enemy {esp by the ardent Israel-firster set) would put himself through the humiliation he is about to face in the form of Americans rallying to use tneir expressions of hatred like a credit card, and who don't seem to care if we're all really 'maxed out' in the process, with so much real and fresh blood and destruction resulting from this hate-based foreign/Mideast policy machine and its many, many branches of shared intent.

We have our own domestic-sourced problems to deal with first. What happened to the valor in humility?

Let the man speak unhindered for Christ's sake!


We are not subject to some centric, anti-whatever 'consensus' agenda!

[Thothmes]

84. Beef

IMO that the Government in Iran will all so count as enemies anyone that openly supports the state of Isreal. I think that we can assume that the Iranian government sees us as just as much of an enemy as Isreal.

[Malikshah]

70. Do the world a favor

(And I mean real, serious, "death to Israel and the Holocaust was fake" hate speech).

Please provide evidence for this. Not the MSM folderol, but real evidence.

Give folks some quotes.

Or you're not better than he whom you condemn.

[Peace Patriot]

42. Ah, Hitler! H-m-m. And WHO has slaughtered half a million people in Iran's

neighboring country?

I'd be careful about slinging the Hitler word around. At worst, Ahmadinejad is no better than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Anthrax, Diebold I and Betrayus Congresses. But where is the evidence that he is worse? What country has he invaded? How many hundreds of thousands of people has he killed?

It's interesting, too, who our political establishment handed our election system over to. I'm referring to one of the three major election theft industry players, ES&S, which manufactures defective U.S. voting machines in sweatshops in the Philippines ($2.50/hr or less)*, and which was initially funded by rightwing billionaire nutball Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things).

These are the people who, together with their brethren corporation, Diebold, 'counted' 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy--voting machines with "trade secret" programming and virtually no audit/recount controls, fast-tracked across the country, during the 2002 to 2004 period, with a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle provided by the Anthrax Congress.

Nice folks they've given direct control of our elections to. Bush/Cheney campaign chairs and 'christian' Hitlers.

Regarding Iran hanging people for being gay, tell me, what do they do to people who are gay, or who break any sex laws, in Saudi Arabia, Cheney's favorite country ? And what is being done to the child sex slaves in the UAE, to whom the Bushites wanted to sell our port facilities, and where Halliburton is now headquartered ? And what happens to dissenters in Kuwait, a major U.S. military base?

To echo you, like it or not, Saudi Arabia is our enemy, in far more material and provable ways than Iran is. So, too, are the fatcat sultans of the U.A.E. and Kuwait. Talk about vile people! At least, in Iran, there is relative economic equity--the majority is benefiting from the oil--and some components of democracy.

But I do not advocate nuking Saudi Arabia, much as I despise their rulers, or denying anyone the right to speak. If Ahmadinejad is raving lunatic, let him rave. What's the harm? His true character--if that is what it is--will be obvious to all.

I fear, though, that what you really want to accomplish--by calling Ahmadinejad "Hitler" (whose alleged atrocities pale besides those of Bush), and saying that Iran "is our enemy" (but giving no reason why that is so)--is to PREVENT us from judging the matter for ourselves, by letting him speak freely. You seem to fear that the American people won't agree with you that Iran "is our enemy" and that one of its leaders is "Hitler." We might discover that Ahmadinejad--who has been so demonized by our fascist government and its lapdog press--actually has some reasonable things to say, and is not a devil--just a man, steeped in his own culture and political situation, and perhaps willing to help negotiate peace in the Middle East, to spare everyone, including Israel, from nuclear armageddon. With the stakes so high--the potential destruction of all life on earth--should we risk silencing ANYONE who wants to speak to these matters--lest we miss the one idea, the one initiative, the one leader, who may be the key to peace.

You are correct that this is not a political matter--or a right vs. left issue. We are talking about WW III and the fate of EVERYONE. So why are YOU treating this as a political matter, and demonizing someone who merely wants to SPEAK, and is courageous enough to enter very hostile territory to do so. Why are you trying to persuade us to not even LISTEN to him? Is this not like the Betrayus Congress' recent resolution against MoveOn.org's free speech? How dare Moveon.org criticize and mock a military general who is shilling for Bush/Cheney! Don't listen to them, folks! They said some nasty things about our latest war profiteer promoter! They should shut up. They should not speak their minds. Tune them out. Kiss the military's butt like we do.

Are you not saying the exact same thing about Ahmadinejad--that the American people have no right to hear him, and judge what he has to say for themselves?

This kind of demonization is undemocratic. Let everyone speak, I say--the best and the worst. And from that truly open dialogue, wisdom will come and the best policy will be devised. Wisdom and the best policy have little or no chance in any other system, save the one in which free speech is cherished as an absolute, inviolable right. Countless horrible wars have been started, and horrible policies implemented, due to the suppression of free speech, alternative views and dissent, and the demonization and silencing of perceived "enemies." Haven't we learned this lesson yet?

[liberalsoldier5]

49. So Bush = Mahmoud, and America = Nazi Germany?

I would have fun debating such delusional junk, but it would violate my "I don't debate kooks" rule. Your logic, your judgements, and your arguments- a complete waste of time. I've got better shit to do.

(But before I go, seriously- America more like Nazi Germany than Ahmadinejad? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: )

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Bush is considerably worse than Ahmadinejad.

Don't you agree?

[liberalsoldier5]

52. Congratulations!

You've just ascended to official kook status.

But seriously, for as much we can't stand Bush, where would you rather live: America under Bush or Iran under Ahmadinejad? Please make me laugh again...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Bush has killed 1.2 million people.

That makes him worse than Ahmadinejad.

[liberalsoldier5]

59. And by that logic, FDR & Truman were much worse than Hirohito & Mussolini.

...Exactly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. No, more of a comparison between Bush and Hirohito, Mussolini.

FDR & Truman were forced to fight a war.

Bush wanted to. Like when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait.

Remember that?

[Peace Patriot]

79. You are accusing Ahmadinejad of SAYING things; Bush has slaughtered hundreds

of thousands of people, and has crippled for life and tortured many more. He INVADED a country and destroyed it, for no good reason, with no provocation--and with unending lies on his lips. What has Ahmadinejad done that is anywhere comparable to this?

This is not a laughing matter. I don't understand how you cannot see the difference between someone SAYING THINGS you don't like, or even saying things you hate, and that alarm you and make you very angry, and someone KILLING hundreds of thousands of people.

Who has Ahmadinejad invaded? How many people has he killed? Has even one person died at his order? Yes, there is injustice in Iran, and human rights violations. That does not make Iran our "enemy" nor does it make Ahmadinejad a maniac and a Hitler. You are the one who brought up that analogy--Hitler. And an objection comparison of Bush and Ahmadinejad definitely puts Bush in the Hitler column, and there is NO evidence at all that puts Ahmadinejad in that column, other than some things he has SAID, that may well have been Rovized (cherry-picked for "hatred" content, mistranslated, and trumpeted by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, with the news "gang' piling on). But even if this is not the case--even it is true that Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel and doesn't believe in the Holocaust-- these are still only WORDS.

As for supplying arms to Iraqis, 1) it has NOT been proved, and 2) we can hardly blame Iran for getting involved in this disaster on its own border--the Bush hell of Iraq. If China somehow invaded Mexico, and smashed it to pieces, and occupied it, would we not be supplying arms and all the support we could give to the Mexican resistance? Would we not have a rightful interest in doing so? But what Bush has done is even worse than invasion, slaughter and occupation. He is supplying arms to all sides, in a civil war that has broken out in the wake of his destruction of Iraq. Iran is supposed to sit back and do nothing? There are millions of refugees! The region is in chaos, that deeply threatens Iran!

And if U.S. soldiers end up dying, because of some weapons that came from Iran, who's fault is that? WE HAVE NO BUSINESS OCCUPYING IRAQ. WE HAD NO BUSINESS INVADING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is BUSH's fault, and the U.S. Congress'. THEY have put these soldiers in harm's way. THEY are responsible for every U.S. death and injury. Not the Iraqis. They are fighting for their lives. Not the Iranians. They have a LEGITIMATE interest in what is happening next door to their country--and it is unreasonable to presume that they want more chaos there. It is in NO ONE's interest in the Middle East--not even Israel's--to have chaos in Iraq. It means millions of refugees. It means cholera outbreaks and worse. It is a tremendous hardship on the region. And the Sunni-Shia civil war threatens to spill over into every nation there. The only people who benefit are U.S. and other war and oil profiteers.

Bush and Cheney WANT war with Iran. Iran has been their chief target all along. That is WHY they have created this slaughter and chaos in Iraq. It is their steppingstone to Iran. And, frankly, Iran has shown amazing restraint, in view of this threat. And that their leaders are not crazier than they are is something of a miracle. They DON'T WANT war with us. They could have it at any time. They DON'T WANT IT.

I have no love at all for sharia law, or for the injustice in Middle Eastern countries, nor for the injustice in Israel, nor for the injustice here. But you don't solve injustice by SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. The only conceivable excuse for that is invasion and defense. But I do believe that we would all be infinitely better off if all the weapons of war were banned from the face of the earth. We once had the goal of at least nuclear disarmament. Now we have a fascist junta reigning here that is doing everything in its power to spread nukes and every kind of weapon everywhere. I've been keeping up with South American events, and there, too, the Bush Junta is pouring billions of dollars in military aid into the worst governments on the continent--countries like Colombia, where the rightwing paramilitaries with close ties to the Uribe government (Bush's pals) are torturing killing union organizers, peasant farmers and political leftists, and are slaughtering whole villages. WE are the weapons pushers. WE are the sowers of violence and repression. What has IRAN done that is worse than this, or in any way comparable to this? NOTHING! And even if they ARE in the weapons trade, so is every government on earth--IN LARGE PART because they are colluding with, or afraid of, the lawless United States.

Don't tell me about Iran! We have no business attacking it, invading it, or even criticizing it. We have no legitimacy even in criticizing them--none! WE are the torturers. WE are the mass killers. We are the invaders and the destroyers of order in the Middle East. We are the purveyors of nuclear weapons. We are the country with utter contempt for international law. And we--or rather our Bushite overlords--are the worst hatemongers in the world, and also the biggest threat to Israel, which is one day going to regret its rightwing leaders' alliance with the most despised government in our history.

[ksilvas]

77. I see alot of difference

This guy hasn't invaded anybody,
unlike, ummmmmmm, us.
Are we going to judge a leader by asinine statements,
cause if we do, we have to judge,
ummmmmm, us.

[Joanne98]

14. YAY!

[Peace Patriot]

16. Don't ya know, the Betrayus Congress opposes free speech, and anybody who is

disobedient's gonna get tazered, caged, strip-searched, waterboarded, "piled," shackled, isolated, tried by 'military commissions' or simply forgotten, and (we are not far from) zipped up in a body bag and dumped into landfill.

This is the hysterical stage of fascism, where the thieves and ghouls start panicking, and their yippy little partydogs (whether D or R, it doesn't matter) start foaming at the mouth and biting the honest, truthful and loyal folks among the citizenry who see through the imperial delusions, and will not be silenced.

A moment of truth for Colombia U. Do we engage in dialogue with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who have done us no harm, other than calling us asshats, and whom WE have harmed, immeasurably, by destroying their neighbor state, and forcing them to live under the constant threat of nuclear attack, and by destroying their democracy, in the first place--in 1954--and inflicting them with 25 years of torture and brutal oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran? Do we try to heal these wounds by at least listening? Do we seek peace with those whom we have made afraid? Who are we, as a people, anyway? What do we stand for? It's time we face this question like adults, and make up our minds: are we going to permit these fascist gangs and global corporate predator mafias to continue terrorizing us, or are we going to fulfill our potential as the greatest experiment in democracy in the history of the human race?

It does not look good for us, at the moment--although I would never underestimate the American people and their devotion to fairness, the rule of law, peacefulness and democracy. It is a very strong people, indeed, who have resisted the relentless, 24/7 warmongering and fascist propaganda they have been subjected to, over the last seven years, and have ended up with a whopping, epochal SEVENTY PERCENT opposition to unjust war.

Do we talk? Do we listen? Do we seek reasonable agreements and a peaceful world? Or do we let our fascist overlords and their lapdogs nuke 'em back to the stone age?

That is the issue before Colombia, one of our better universities. And if not even they can answer in the positive, on the most fundamental condition of democracy--free speech--it may too late for us to grow up.

[liberalsoldier5]

19. So in the Iran-America situation, we (the ones who aren't denying the Holocaust) are the bad guys?

Very nice. You represent liberals and Democrats quite well.

But seriously, you must honestly have some objections to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I hope so anyway. If not, I've got the families of troops who've been killed by Iranian funded insurgents that you can talk to. Or the families of gay people who've been hung by the Iranian government for being gay that you can talk to. (And before you try to somehow bring in gay marriage or some other nonsense to make us "just as bad", just remember that a website like this is in Iran could never be possible.)

There ARE people who ARE worse than George Bush, and like it or not, this asshole is one of them. (And if he were an American he'd probably be a conservative Republican.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. No you don't.

"If not, I've got the families of troops who've been killed by Iranian funded insurgents that you can talk to."

Please don't make shit up about the troops. It's disrespectful.

[liberalsoldier5]

46. And I'm making what up.....?

Soldiers HAVE been killed by Iranian armed insugents. Check the web, check anywhere.

(And for the future, I served in Gulf War I. I love our troops. Never question that again.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Yeah, I don't believe you.

About any of it.

Why should I, you can't even keep your own opinions straight?

[liberalsoldier5]

51. It's okay...

you're pure scum. That's all.

And I believe I've debunked your little "he can't keep his opinions straight" game. Read my posts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Hey, you're the one who's a war-monger.

And is hypocritical when it comes to hate speech.

And spreads lies about other countries.

And pretends to care about foriegn people you really don't give a shit about.

And lie about the troops.

And you think I'm scum? Please. You're not fooling nobody.

[liberalsoldier5]

56. Hahahaha....

Go out in public and say the things you think. I'm sure the American people would react wonderfully.

("war-monger"?! hahahahaha...)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. I do.

If you think Iran's our enemy, go enlist.

I mean for real. Not just make believe.

[ret5hd]

71. Can you translate it into Sanscrit?

[0007]

32. Let's hear from Ahmadinejad and begin a discourse of civility

instead of going off the deep end of what Iran is all about. I certainly don't believe we are lilly white with junior and his dick and the Abu Ghraib thingie.

Peace Pat sez it best;

"Do we try to heal these wounds by at least listening? Do we seek peace with those whom we have made afraid? Who are we, as a people, anyway? What do we stand for? It's time we face this question like adults, and make up our minds: are we going to permit these fascist gangs and global corporate predator mafias to continue terrorizing us, or are we going to fulfill our potential as the greatest experiment in democracy in the history of the human race?"

[Lance_Boyle]

41. Please show some proof of the existence of these "Iranian funded insurgents."

I see lots of insurgents blowing shit up with materials acquired from the stockpiles America's military refused to guard after it conquered the nation of Iraq (while it was busy guarding the Oil Ministry). I have yet to see any verified "made in Iran" labels on any of this shit.

I think you're another deluded foot, er, no... keyboardsoldier buying into what 'Murkan pravda tells you without much in the way of critical thinking. I can pick you guys out of a crowd like the black guy at a Prussian Blue concert. Why keep trying when everyone's onto you and knows you're full of shit?

You are correct in one thing - there's plenty to dislike about Iran's titular leader. And there's plenty to dislike about Ehud Olmert. Neither should be silenced.

[Peace Patriot]

62. Look, we've had Prince Bandar lallygagging on White House sofas, and peering

over Bush's shoulders at U.S./Bushite war plans. We've had Defense Department employees passing secrets to Israel. We've had oil corporations meeting secretly with Cheney and carving up Iraq's oil fields among them, a full two years before the invasion of Iraq. We've had every manner of skulduggery and treason in this country. And Ahmadinejad approaches us on honest ground--in a public forum--and we won't even listen?

I might hate the guy. I really don't have enough information, due to war profiteering corporate monopoly of the news, to properly judge his words, behavior or policies, or those of his countrymen. There are many things that I HEAR ABOUT the Iranian politicians and mullahs, in the "news," that I don't like at all. Hell, if I were in New York, I might even picket his speech, on the matter of women's rights in Iran. But protesting, picketing, countering, arguing--these are not the same thing as SUPPRESSING. Trying to influence Iran to change a bad policy is not the same as refusing them a public forum, in a potential war situation, caused entirely by our own illegitimate, despicable, fascist government. Of all the Islamic countries in the Middle East, Iran seems to be to have the MOST potential for change, and for progress in human rights. It is probably the Islamic country most WORTH listening to, and trying to understand. And if it is truly our "enemy"--which Dick Cheney would have us believe--that is all the more reason to hear what they have to say BEFORE we come to blows, and hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dead.

And we must never forget that you cannot end a war, or prevent one, by talking to your friends. You MUST talk to your "enemies," real or perceived. You must LISTEN to your "enemies," real or perceived--and listen well. How else is there to prevent unnecessary harm and death? By turning your country into an armed, medieval fortress, like Israel has? Is that tolerable? Is that even affordable? Or by stuffing your fingers in your ears, like Bush and Cheney--and the Betrayus Congress?

In this country, theoretically, and Constitutionally, WE are the deciders. As much as the White House and Congress have damaged our rightful power, it is still our right, and always will be, to decide who is a threat to us, who our "enemies" are, who we should be allied with, and for what purpose, and what OUR YOUNG PEOPLES' LIVES should be put at risk for, and what our OUR TAX DOLLARS should spent upon. And to make those decisions, we need free and open information, and discussion and dialogue, both internally, and with every country in the world, every leader, and every people. We need to hear all of their ideas, as well as we can. And if a leader like Ahmadinejad--with whom we don't agree on many things, but who has been demonized by the warmongers--has the courage to come speak to us, what fools are we to deny him a forum? Should we foreclose a possible avenue toward peace in this way?

I'm old enough to remember Nikita Krushchev's visit to the U.S. in 1959, in an era when mutual annihilation was never closer, and I will never forget how revealing it was, in so many ways. It was brilliant of our government not to forbid Krushchev free travel here and an open news media mike to the American people. The thing that most impressed me about Krushchev, at that time (I was 14), was his childlike temper tantrum at being denied a visit to Disneyland (because of security concerns, so the story went), and his odd reaction to the "Can Can" dancers on a Hollywood movie set. He was this little bear of a man, who thought the can-can dancers were "disgraceful," but was likely just still pissed off that this had been substituted for Sleeping Beauty's Castle and the Pirates of the Caribbean.

What I learned was that, a) the people of the Soviet Union were deprived--starved of entertainment and fun, symptom of their economic hardship--they had no Disneyland, or anything comparable; b) they possess childlike wonder, like anyone else, even their leaders; c) Soviet communism had puritanical and repressive tendencies. (I realize now, but didn't then, that Krushchev's reaction to the "can-can" dancers was probably hypocritical, something he felt obliged to say for the folks back home, and to emphasize American "decadence"--as well as being an expression of his irritation at being denied Disneyland.) These, my youthful perceptions of Krushchev, HUMANIZED my understanding of the Soviet Union, and helped form my opinion that the Soviet Union was not a place I would want to live, but also it kindled compassion for the vast poor population of that country and its satellites. I could better understand their revolution. I did not want them to be nuked. I wanted them to become more democratic and more prosperous.

And I was proud of our democracy, that we could let an "enemy" leader speak freely, and travel fairly freely (except for Disneyland) inside our own country, with no fear of what he had to say.

I also remember when Krushchev banged his shoe on the table at the UN and said, "We will bury you!" It did not make me fearful--I just thought he was kind of silly--a peasant, an uneducated man--and I felt sorry for the Russians having to put up with such a leader.

Wikipedia has an interesting post on that incident:

"Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as 'We will bury you!' ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow in November, 1956.<1> The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: 'Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you'—a meaning more akin to 'we will attend your funeral' than 'we shall cause your funeral'.

"Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. <2> (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)

"Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, 'I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you', <3> a nod to the popular Marxist saying, 'The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism.' Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would replace capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

---------------------------

It seems as if our war profiteering corporate news monopolies have done something similar to Ahmadinejad, regarding his remark about destroying Israel. I've read reports that he DIDN'T say that, but rather that Israel will be destroyed by its own alliance with western powers. And IF that is what he really said, I would tend to agree. Israel is not forging its own path in the Middle East. It is relying on Bush Junta aggression, and massive U.S. military aid. It seems to be controlled by war profiteers, just as we are. Thus diplomacy and positive action, and Israel finding its own way, are stunted--and the armaments and the tensions escalate, making Israel--a tiny country surrounded by unfriendly or hostile neighbors--all the more vulnerable, for its association with a very hostile, aggressive and ill-intentioned U.S. In this circumstance, it is a fair prediction that Israel will not survive. If the U.S. attacks Iran, Israel could be the first casualty (after many Iranian victims). But even short of that catastrophe, Israel's militarism and isolation, and its oppression of the Palestinians, do not bode well for improving relations with neighbor countries, and undertaking the kinds of diplomatic initiatives that a tiny country like Israel MUST undertake, in its own neighborhood, to create optimum conditions for its survival.

Is Ahmadinejad's bluster REAL, or is it part mistranslation, or political pandering? We need to know, and the best way to find out is to let him speak freely on our own soil. Is Iran a threat, or is it just scared? Listening to its fieriest leader may clue us in. What are Iran's internal problems? How better to understand them, than having their leader come here, and speak? Why NOT humanize the situation, the way Krushchev's visit did? What have we to lose? Absolutely nothing!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. free speech means sometimes having to hear things you dont want to

[John Kerry VonErich]

68. There's no such thing as a right to be heard.

I do say let him speak. No one is forcing anyone to show up.

[Psephos]

73. Yes, I wish they felt that way at University of California

The only speech that actually needs protecting is the speech we don't want to hear.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-bernstein19sep19,1,4526982.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[pampango]

80. Best post on the thread. Short and to the point.

"The only speech that actually needs protecting is the speech we don't want to hear." (Whether it is Ahmadinejad or Gilchrist.) :)

[Robson]

87. Agree.......Well said

:toast:

Free speech is open speech.....not filtered, homogenized and necessarily friendly to one's ears. The defense of our freedom of speech is supposedly why we have a military and why members of our military give their lives in theater...according to Bush and others. Only hypocrites to this principle believe we can pick and chose.

[goodgd_yall]

55. Good

People have the right to hear a world leader speak, whether he's considered a despicable person or not. This is a unique opportunity to hear Ahmadinejad speak beyond sound bytes.

[ozone_man]

64. Good for them. n/t

[Vidar]

66. Bravo Columbia!

[cal04]

67. Columbia U to let Iran president speak

Columbia University planned Friday to go forward with a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while the city mobilized security to protect him from protests during his New York visit.
Ahmadinejad, who is to arrive in New York on Sunday to address the United Nations General Assembly, is scheduled to speak at a Columbia question-and-answer forum on Monday. His request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site was denied and condemned by Sept. 11 family members and politicians.

Several Columbia students — even some who planned to rally against him — said they supported his appearance.

"He's a leader of a large nation and what he says is important, even if it's wrong," said Dmitry Zakharov, 25, a Columbia University graduate student.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/ahmadinejad_columbia_8

[Timex]

74. Why stop the students from learning?

By denying the president's appearance, the students will also be denied an opportunity to have their questions to the president be answered. Let the forum go on, and allow the students to learn something.

[ksilvas]

76. Freedom of Speech, is American not Agreeing with Speech. n/t

[Thothmes]

85. Freedom of Speech

[LeftHander]

86. Student tasered at Ahmadinejad speech

Young republican activist was tasered by campus police after he continued questioning Ahmadinejad after his alloted time.

Ahmadinejad said "No it is ok I will answer that..." when Briton Young was tasered and fell to the floor.

[Pesky_Hound]

89. Ha ha good parody

Funny, I was just thinking. What if Amaddernutjob doesn't like a question posed. What will he have his goons do? I know probably nothing cause he will be in the US and presumably have US security.

[Nutmegger]

88. Good, let him speak.

As a "democracy", we should embrace all forms of free speech whether we agree with it or not. If you don't like what he has to say, turn your head the other way.

For those that do want to hear what he has to say, they have that right as well without being called a "terra-ist" sympathizer or a "Jew hater". Some folks just want to hear "the other side".

[Jed Dilligan]

91. His speech will also give his opponents an unprecedented opportunity

to be heard, in the form of protests that will probably be telecast worldwide.

[Jed Dilligan]

90. Good for them

Their students deserve this opportunity to hear and perhaps interact with one of the most important public figures of our time. Let him dig his own grave--otherwise, I'll start disbelieving that he's the monster our media make of him.