BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM

The genocide of the Armenians preceded the Treaty of Lausanne by some years, with 1915 being the most significant date.

That's a bit like blaming the Yalta Conference for the Jewish Holocaust.

It's good to try to get back to the history behind current events, but important to get it right when we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:51 PM

In case anyone cares...

Treaty of Lausanne

(This was what allowed the genocide of Armenians...)

(1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.

The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized British possession of Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey's finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM

San Remo Conference

(April 19–26, 1920), international meeting convened at San Remo, on the Italian Riviera, to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, one of the defeated Central Powers in World War I; it was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.

The conference approved the final framework of a peace treaty with Turkey which was later signed at Sèvres, on Aug. 10, 1920. The Treaty of Sèvres abolished the Ottoman Empire, obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa, and provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles. Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, which voided previous Allied demands for Kurdish autonomy and Armenian independence but did otherwise recognize Turkey's current boundaries.

During the Conference of San Remo, two "A" mandates were created out of the old Ottoman province of Syria: the northern half (Syria and Lebanon) was mandated to France, the southern half (Palestine) to Great Britain. The province of Mesopotamia (Iraq) was also mandated to Great Britain. Under the terms of an "A" mandate the individual countries were deemed independent but subject to a mandatory power until they reached political maturity. When King Faysal of Damascus opposed the French mandate over Syria, he was expelled by the French Army.

An Anglo-French oil agreement was also concluded at the San Remo conference (April 24–25), providing France with a 25 percent share of Iraqi oil and favourable oil transport terms and stipulating in return the inclusion of Mosul in the British mandate of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:27 PM

Look at the San Remo Conference before you start making claims about the Mideast.

It is NOT the fault of the Jews that the Ottoman Empire lost the First World War, no matter how much you want to blame them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:23 PM

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp


The problem is, it was the Allies ( of WW I ) that set up the JEWISH HOMELAND of Palestine. The Arabs of that region were given THEIR homeland (Transjordan), and, incidently, the borders of Turkey, the states of Iraq, Syria, and Lebenon were all defined by the same treaty. So, if we want to get rid of Israel, we can also, with the same justification, remove those states as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM

It was cowardly to insult Mock mood Ahm mad at dad at Columbia U.

It would have been better to simply introduce the front man for Iran as the man who was selected by Imans and simply say that in the spirit of free speech we hope that we can give you sufficient rope...

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 02:07 PM

Facts trump opinions every time.

That should be true. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out like that - for example those Iraqi WMDs were opinion, not fact, but... And there is good reason to believe that the same may well be true of that Iranian nuclear weapon programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 01:50 PM

depends on whether the Rook is high or low.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: pdq
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 01:49 PM

Facts trump opinions every time. Always have and always will.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 01:45 PM

It's an opinion. What's to counter.

BTW, the Israeli monetary unit--their currency--is the sheqel, not the US dollar.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Alba
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 01:38 PM

Some one can only dream to post remarks here that come close to being as interesting as SRS's views on certain topics.
Then again to some, perhaps, it seems easier to quite nastily belittle someone else's post when one cannot find a way to counter their opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 12:42 PM

SRS, without any shadow of a doubt the dumbest, most ill-informed load of twaddle I have ever read in my life. It damn near beggars description.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:38 AM

The best way to get Iran to follow the example of its next door neighbour Pakistan, and its slightly more distant neighbour Israel, and seek to develop nuclear weapons is to threaten it with attack.

And the best way to discourage that would be for the USA (preferably jointly with the EU, and Russia ) to guarantee that there will be no attack on Iran, and that any such attack would be treated as a hostile act by the guarantors. And make that guarantee conditional on Iran not developing nuclear weapons.

And if it really was just a matter of preventing nuclear proliferation that would happen. But its not.
...........................

It's worth pointing out that the Scottish Nationalists hope to bring about a situation in which there will no longer be any United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:31 AM

I'm going out on a liberal limb here to make this statement. I'm not going to argue about it and I don't care what CarolC wants to clobber on a regular basis. It's just an opinion:

It is the habit and the business of leaders of smaller states at odds with big nations like the U.S. to say things that piss off the leaders of those big nations.

I happen to agree with A. about the Palestinians--they are a colonized people, their land taken by a spontaneous influx of Jews from around the world, and the "nation" of Israel happened with little reference to their preferences. (Whose bright idea was this to begin with, anyway?) The Jewish "natives" had been away for over 2000 years and the current occupants got kind of used to living an autonomous life there. Then the new western-leaning U.N. lets a nation form on top of them. Guess what? It pisses off the Palestinians and their neighbors. Duh. They're still angry.

I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist, it's there now, but it's too big and too pushy. They are bad neighbors to everyone around the area and remind me of the saying one sees on booklets for new parents in the U.S.--"Children learn what they live." Israel's Jews were mistreated in Europe, so they have turned around and mistreated the Palestinians they encountered in the new land they chose to occupy, creating lots of prisons and ghettos. There is a simple reason why Israel is as solid and prosperous and inflexible as it is --it is the U.S.'s defacto 51st state. They are propped up by the U.S., defended by the U.S., and their currency is the U.S. dollar. What do you think the neighbors are going to see when they look at the relationship, except that this is a huge American colonizing imposition on the Middle East?

It seems that what Israeli Jews learned in Europe is what they're doing now to Palestinians, minus the concentration camps. Their leaders don't seem to see this. Every time things start to calm down, some wag in Israel thinks of some new law or wall or resource restriction or settlement policy to set it all off again. It's like they must continually inspire violence in order to portray themselves as "victims" in the world, to justify their existence (and current behavior of the last 60 years). This isn't anti-Semitic, by the way, this is anti colonization in this context. As a resident of a nation that sits uncomfortably on top of land taken from colonized Indians, I am well aware of the ironic parallels.

Translations are very important, and if carefully nuanced versions of Ahmadinejad's words had been available, perhaps it would be harder for people to uniformly dismiss him as a Persian zealot. I don't agree with a lot of what is going on in Iran, or the Middle East, and there are Arab/Moslem/Persian cultural blinders in place that appear ridiculous to U.S. residents. But hey, look at Bush. His blinders are so huge, this fool would continue to blow Iraq to wee bits, pumping in billions to do it, to support oil and Israel, but he won't pay for health care for American children. He simply doesn't have a grasp on reality, he's totally into this stupid war of his. I wonder if editorials appear in the foreign press that look at this strange habit of expenditure? War first, poor citizens' needs a distant second. I'll probably have to keep wondering, because the American media isn't doing anything to help us understand the viewpoints of the rest of the world. They hardly matter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: pdq
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM

Nah. A little nukie never hurt anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM

And that worries you?

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: pdq
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:25 AM

"The Iranian-American expert predicted that Mr A is not likely at all to win re-election--in, I believe 2009. Made a lot of sense."

Problem is, by the time he leaves the office, Iran will have nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:20 AM

JOhn:

As a regular contributor to the store of defamations of Mister Bush here, I am moved to respond to your post.

At least for my own part. I have no sympathy for Ahmadinejad. But I believe in civility to any visitor.

Columbia lowered the bar on that standard.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM

Mike, IMO, Ron Davies is on the side of the angels.

Shalom

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Mike Miller
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:13 AM

As Col. Potter used to say, "Horse hockey". The Arab world has been trying to eradicate the Jewish state since 1948, long before any Israeli government "agression", in fact, long before there was an Israeli government. Their opposition to the state of Israel is based on religious and cultural claims, not moral indignation. (Don't be hoodwinked by talk of "Palestinian rights". The Palestinians have been the cheap labor of the Arab world for centuries. They never owned their land. They worked it for absentee Egyptian and Syrian landlords. The first opportunity the Palestinians had to have their own country was in 1948 and it wasn't provided by their Arab brethren, but by the UN.) I, usually, ignore the convenient amnesia that affects the left where Jews are concerned. I am a lifelong liberal but, sometimes, I feel like my gang has deserted me.
I understand that Jews feel more threatened than most of you guys. It is, after all, our tuchises on the line. But, then again, since the attacks on the Twin Towers, maybe a few more folks have gotten on board the reality train.
You may not equate Ahmadinejad with Hitler, but I do. Well, you know how touchy those Jews are.

                Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 08:39 AM

The measure of how widespread Holocaust denial is in Iran--i.e. not at all--can be seen in the fact that Iranian TV recently had a multi-part docudrama--loosely based on fact, I understand--as to how an Iranian diplomat managed to save quite a few Jews in World War II. The series was a huge hit.

There is a sizable number of Jews in Iran today.

What the regime is trying to do is to draw a contrast between the plight of the Jews in WW II with the behavior of the Israeli government now--which they believe is aggressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:34 AM

The United Nations Secretary General has a world class team of interpreters at his disposal.
He was sure of what Ahmadinejad said about wiping Israel away.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384024.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 03:33 AM

The "wiped off the map" quote has been disputed, but it occurs in the official Iranian translation, and when he has been asked about it he has refused to withdraw it as translated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 12:15 AM

Lehrer Report had quite a bit on Ahmadinejad tonight. I imagine I'm not the only one who heard it. Lehrer had 2 experts on Iran--including one who had dual US-Iranian citizenship.

What I thought was most interesting is how the West has played along with what Mr. A wanted--a very high profile. But in fact he's not the most powerful person in Iran--the top religious leader is. And not only that, he's not popular with much of the intelligentsia--who are embarrassed by his "loose-cannon" statements, such as denial of the Holocaust. And he's not even very popular with "the man in the street" who sees that he has in fact not carried out his election pledge to see that ordinary people reap the benefits of Iran's oil.

The Iranian-American expert predicted that Mr A is not likely at all to win re-election--in, I believe 2009. Made a lot of sense.

So it seems if we can keep Mr Bush and the loose cannons surrounding him from the incredibly stupid move of a strike on Iran--to allegedly "take out" nuclear facilities--and if nobody else does it---the Iranians themselves will remove him---by election-- and primarily for economic reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Mike Miller
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 12:13 AM

I would have thought that my friend, Mr. Greenhaus, would have been more aware of the realities of protest. In today's atmosphere of antipathy, even the most apathetic will react to personal threat. (That is the real reason The US got into this war and the reason why so many approved. For the first time, we were threatened by acts of terror. We were mad, scared and determined to fight. Say what you will, it was that very real threat that got GWB reelected)
But some of us feel more threatened than others. Jews have recent memories of massacres and freindly indifference. To a Jew, a national leader who rails against Jews, denies or discounts the Nazi Holocost, and openly supports Hammas, is a very real threat. I, personally, don't want anyone silenced but I can, well, understand why many would. It is like Lester Maddox being invited to speak at Grambling. I imagine the students might make their displeasure known to one and all. So, although I agree that everyone has, or shoud have the right to free speech, I find the scolding of those who protested out of realistic fear, have been given a bad rap by this forum.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: heric
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 08:41 PM

That's an interesting article from Steele. But he starts out saying that his chosen translation is "vanish," but concludes with a stronger argument in favor of "eliminate." Eliminate is a particularly nasty word, especialy, as Steele says, one is looking for the speaker's intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: pdq
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:56 PM

THIS POST DEALS WITH WHY AHMADINEJAD IS THE IRANIAN LEADER

"...businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract, previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their
management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was "trying to be helpful". They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him."


             you may not like it but you should read it

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

The mistranslations that matter are the ones carried by the media. Th corrections never manage to catch up with these.

Here is a piece about the most famous mistranslation in this context, in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as having called for Israel "to be wiped off the map", where a more accurate translation was "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - ie "regime change".

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:47 PM

Sorry if this thought has been posted already; I didn't read through the whole thread. But has anyone else noticed that Bush and Ahmedinajad are the same cocky, arrogant smirking smartasses with different religions, and that they need each other as counterpoints to keep the fear levels up among their own citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM

The university made if very clear that there were a number of Farsi speaking students and faculty on hand to check up on the interperter.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Alba
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM

Here's a link regarding the subject of Persian or Farsi Language McGrath. The debate
Best of Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM

Mind, I wouldn't be roo inclined to trust the translations into English, going by the cod's arse they've made of this kind of thing on previous occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:32 PM

Anyone on here understand Arabic or whatever language is used in Iran?

We can't really know what he said as the translation may've been edited.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:51 PM

"God forbid that the American public should be exposed to something the "bad guy" said, right?"

This was a 90 minute speech at a PRIVATE university. There are excerpts all over if you wish to read them. Do your own search. The press was allowed coverage.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: heric
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:50 PM

(That's from Google News - It takes a while for things to show up on the Google Home Page search)

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: pdq
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:39 PM

In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful...

The president recites verses from the holy Koran in Arabic.

"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 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:38 PM

Got it, heric. Thanks! I bet I will be among a very, very tiny minority of North Americans who read it, but that's okay. Should be an interesting glimpse into another mindset.

I often wonder what the people here would be saying if they'd been born Muslims in some Middle Eastern nation and grown up with a whole different set of assumptions all around them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM

Aww fer Chrissake! The link is the text of Bollinger's speech which I have ALREADY listened to on YouTube.

Hooray.

God forbid that the American public should be exposed to something the "bad guy" said, right?

I bet the Nazis did not expose the German public to the stuff the defendants said at the trial of the would-be assassins of Hitler either. Something embarrassing might have come forth, after all.

A bad guy, to remain a bad guy, must never be heard to say anything that makes any sense or sounds reasonable. He must remain vicious, insane, and incomprehensible. Better, in fact, that he never be heard at all...unless he happens to slip and say something quite, quite damaging.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: heric
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:29 PM

Dude, you just plug in Ahmadinejad and transcript:

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0709251843020214.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Yes, Ron, I have listened to Bollinger's entire intro on YouTube.

Now I'd like to hear what Ahmadinejad had to say. I think Peace just posted a link, so I'll take a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:24 PM

I understand that, LH. My first comment--'exquisite sense'--was tongue in cheek. I can only hope that had Bush been asked to speak at Columbia the address from Bollinger would have contained like phrases. In fact, when I saw the words "petty dictator", I actually thought the article would BE about George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:21 PM

I may get around to that presently, Teribus, if I find the time to today. Be patient. But remember, I am not engaging in a competition here to "win" any arguments with you or anyone else...that's not my objective, and it wouldn't even matter if I did or didn't. It's of no importance who "wins" these arguments. None whatsoever. It's about as important as whether the sparrow in my yard decides to fly east or west 5 minutes from now.

Now, is there any way I can find out what Ahmadinejad said in his entire speech at Columbia? Anyone know how I can do that? I want to find out not so I can win any arguments here on this forum...but just because I'm curious. Got it? I'm curious about what's going on. I would like to know what he said.

*****

Keep in mind, Peace, that if Ahmadinejad were lynched at Columbia or met some other sudden violent end, that in a very short time our national media would give us some other evil foreign bad guy to get upset about...probably whoever ended up replacing Mr Ahmadinejad. That's how it works. There must always be a new and terribly awful bad guy out there to obsess about. It's what keeps the wheels of the New World Order turning.

in no particular order...

Castro - Noriega - Allende - Osama - Saddam - Khomeini - Gaddafi - Mullah Omar - Mao - that fellow in Venezuela (you know) - whoever it is, he will be foreign, he will probably be swarthy, he will most likely have facial hair, and he won't be cooperating with the US corporate agenda.

There will always be another official bad guy who is regarded as a dire threat to the world as we know it. Ahmadinejad is just temporary. Very temporary. This season's "heavy". He will soon be replaced by another such character. I guarantee it.

The TV shows we have watched all our lives are based on this entertainment principle. There MUST always be an official bad guy or the drama just doesn't draw the viewers' attention. Snidely Whiplash must be there to tie Sweet Nell on the tracks, and cackle in an evil fashion, and preen his pencil-thin mustache. That's marketing, baby.

You simply cannot prepare a public for war without first focusing their attention on such a figure. Hatred is only completely effective when it is personalized.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:14 PM

From the NY Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:08 PM

Little Hawk - you are asking for a full account of Ahmadinejad's speech. Could we assume from your remarks that you heard Bollinger's comments in total?

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

Sorry LH. I don't at all feel sorry for the sonuvabitch. He denies the Holocaust, kills homosexuals because they are homosexuals, keeps women subservient, has espoused that Israel be wiped from the map. He's a bastard trying to develop nuclear weapons and he's crazy enough to use them. In a word, "Fuck 'im."

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:57 PM

Nothing at all wrong in the way the President of Columbia University introduced the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nor was there anything wrong in the manner in which certain contentious issues were introduced in that introduction, particularly as the University's guest speaker was responsible for arresting and holding without charge former alumni of the self same University, an Iranian-American who is still currently under house arrest in Tehran. It's odd that that hasn't been mentioned on this thread so far, or have the chattering left, as usual, relied on other peoples reports of what was said and by who to form the basis of their second hand opinions.

Now Little Hawk what did the USA get Iraq to do to Iran for 8 years in the 80's? And please enlighten us as to what channel of communication was used by the USA to get the Iraqi's to do it?

Similarly, if the USA gave birth to what is now Al-Queda and gave birth to what is now the Taliban. Little Hawk should have very little trouble in turning up who were the organisations and contacts who supposedly sought them out, supplied them and trained them. That must have taken quite a mass of organisation and a great number of people Little Hawk. Now with the freedom of information Act I can turn up the top secret conversation notes of Rumsfelds meeting with Saddam Hussein, yet I cannot find any reference to the US supply and training efforts that must have been required to give birth to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, how come Little Hawk?

Please note Little Hawk these questions are being asked not because I favour this or that political, or nationalistic, viewpoint, they are being asked because you have stated something as being fact that just does not add up. I am not attacking you personally, I am challenging you to come up with some evidence to support your statements. If you cannot then retract them, or clearly state that they represent only your own opinion and are based upon no concrete fact or form of evidence.

The US did filter cash through to those fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. They did it through Pakistan's ISI and those funds went to the Mujahideen, not to the Taliban, not to Al-Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:55 PM

For once you make exquisite sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

What exactly did Ahmadinejad say in his speech at Columbia? Is there a full account of that anywhere? If not, why? And if not, what use is there in us even talking about it, since we don't really know what we're talking about if we don't know what he said (and I mean ALL of it, not just a sound bite or two).

Bollinger's introduction sounds a lot like the kind of introduction that Nazi prosecuters gave at the trials of the Germans accused of plotting to kill Hitler (when his bunker was bombed in 1944). Bollinger's speech was intended to arouse similar emotions in his audience, and I'm sure it succeeded admirably. Too bad we couldn't have just had a nice lynching of the foreign devil right after, and not have had to listen to him talk at all, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

Bollinger's opening remarks (introduction) were spot on! Where he fell down was in not getting Ahmadinejad to answer the questions that were asked. Just goes to show that an academic shouldn't joust with a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Ahmadinejad at Columbia
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

Free speech does not mean we bend over and grab our ankles while the other person talks. There is a huge difference between allowing someone to talk and supporting it. Bollinger had his opportunity to speak and used it. Ahmadinejad had his. Each of us chooses who we agree with.