I’m not sure, exactly, what the point was in inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia; it’s not like you’ll get a lot of productive “dialogue” or “debate” in such circumstances, although you will get a lot of sidestepping and talking past one another. And at the end of the day, Iran has plenty of propaganda organs of its own (as does the United States, of course) without a US university providing him with yet another.
But hey, that’s just me.
What I really don’t get, however, is that if you’re going to invite a guy to speak, you don’t introduce him by insulting him, which is exactly what Columbia University president Lee Bollinger did. Aside from being extremely tacky, it’s counterproductive, too. It actually generates sympathy for the victim, and makes Bollinger (and by extension, the United States) look ugly — real ugly — on the international stage. I’m not saying Ahmadinejad doesn’t deserve to be ridiculed, but if you’re going to invite a ridiculous individual to speak to your students, proper decorum dictates that you at least wait until he says something ridiculous before pouncing on him.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
The decision to invite him, and then proceed to insult him, had more to do with winning points with their undergraduate students ,and next years prospective applicants, than anything else, I would say.
It’s a definite booster for school publicity. How many universities can say “We had Ahmadinejad speak at our campus.”? … Well, I guess one, but the point is, huge portion of the reason behind inviting him would be that..
Plus, Columbia is a big journalism & political science school, right? So I’m sure that had a hand in it too.
^^; I think the university president was kinda pressured by the huge criticism of inviting someone like him to his campus.
It’s good old fashioned entertainment.
Lee Bollinger is a little different. He touts himself as a civil rights scholar, I believe.
He can do this and get away with it, because if anything he’ll claim that he is fundamentally against Mr. Ahmadinejad, but still believe in free speech and such to allow him to have a forum and discuss.
I’ll use this as an opportunity to fire off a grievance.
Bollinger is a die hard liberal to the core.
But, he’s not like Mr. Elgin.
If you’d appreciate the imaginary parallel that wjk = Ahmadinejad, Elgin = Bollinger, you’ll understand.
Have a good one.
Yes, Columbia hates Holocaust deniers, but will still give them a national platform in which to air their views by inviting them to speak at the university. Do they invite strong supporters of Israel to come and give speeches? I doubt it.
ahmedinejad was invited as a guest and that’s no way to treat a guest. bollinger should be ashamed.
anyway, president ahmed asked some interesting questions, though the kinds of questions he asked will never receive answers. here are some of them:
1. how can a nation with 20,000 nuclear warheads tell another country it can’t have nuclear weapons?
that’s a good question. the answer is, the us has this right because it has 20,000 nuclear warheads. see?
2. why did the west have the right to create israel?
a very good question. you ain’t never gonna get an answer to that one.
3. why don’t the palestinians have a right to fight back? their land is occupied. why don’t they have a right to fight back?
another very good question for which you’ll never receive an answer.
israel is where the phony tears of the western world flow freely. israel is their absolution from doing absolutely nothing while so many jews were absolutely dying.
Like how you made it a US issue there. As if the US is the only party uncomfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Well, it (the West) had about as much right as it did to create Korea. Oh, check that — the Jews in Palestine actually fought for their independence, and defended it without the help of 480,000 US troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
Of course they have the right to “fight back,” if that’s how we’re going to define suicide bombings against civilian targets. They also have the right to elect Hamas, a party that openly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state. But then again, I guess the Israelis have the right to recourse to similar tactics. Perhaps Israel should make its retaliatory strikes more “proportional” by only targeting civilians from now on?
OK, I’ll bite
1. how can a nation with 20,000 nuclear warheads tell another country it can’t have nuclear weapons?
Because the US is the enforcer of world order and Iran is a known supporter of terrorist regimes with a leadership that has expressed a desire to destroy an entire nation of people.
2. why did the west have the right to create israel?
The West did not create Israel, the Zionists did (and I don’t mean that as a negative word. The UN passed resolution 181 in 1947 but it was never implimented. In fact, the British had tried to limit Jewish immigration to the region. Israel was created as a result of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.
3. why don’t the palestinians have a right to fight back? their land is occupied. why don’t they have a right to fight back?
They did fight. They lost. They are still fighting (unless those rockets hitting Israel are full of flowers or something).
If Ahmadinejad really said such things then homeboy needs to learn how to read.
Here is the Wiki for the day.
Zionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
UNGAR 181: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
1948 Arab-Israeli war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
Bonus: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
OK, I was beaten to the punch.
It serves me right for going for low-hanging fruit.
President Ahmadinejad did ask some interesting questions, but based on this transcript those weren’t the questions he asked.
I would guess that those are pawikirogi’s questions, much less important than the questions of President Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad asked two major questions:
and the second one:
See, Ahmadinejad is still saying that Iran is developing peaceful nuclear power for civilian purposes. Pawikirogi forgot that part.
Pawi, do you also question the holocaust like Ahmad does?
“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?”
Yeah, that was one of the questions that Ahmadinejad asked. And sure, he is entitled to ask such a question, but doing so only exposes his ignorance of the extensive research in the US, Germany etc. which does, indeed, approach the topic from different perspectives. From every possible perspective I dare to say.
The causes for the Holocaust are complex and cannot be tracked back to one single reason – they reach from age-old antisemitism to the economic slump in Germany in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash…
“Well, it (the West) had about as much right as it did to create Korea. Oh, check that — the Jews in Palestine actually fought for their independence, and defended it without the help of 480,000 US troops.”
Game, Set & Match.
Not only did this cretin come off as a complete idiot – for those who didn’t already realize it – but he demonstrated that the United States is, for whatever imperfections it may have, a place where you are generally allowed to express your moronic opinions without being thrown in jail, tortured, or executed. He gets to shoot himself in the nuts by merely opening his mouth (at least in the eyes of anybody with an IQ of 80 or above) while the Columbia – and by extension, the United States – can come off as having taken the high ground. (Next to Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez comes off as measured, brilliant, and worldly. No small feat.)
“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?”
Are you sure he didn’t mean spare parts for Iran’s F-14s?
And Pawi: All of your questions have not only been well responded to by those posting here, but they are also many of the same questions that are discussed in most Western countries – from newspapers to high school and university classrooms – on a daily basis.
“the Columbia” – Shit, you know you’ve been in Korea for a long time when you question whether or not your typos may at some level be an attempt at overcompensation in response to the omission of articles one frequently hears from many speakers of English in Korea!
Well, nearly a hundred billion US dollars flowed into Israel over the course of a decade, along with the very best of American tech and a couple of nuke warheads (!!!) during that time, so I’d say what they got was at least on par with the Koreans. I mean, even McArthur wasn’t allowed any nukes in the Korean War.
However, I still don’t see why people are bagging on Mahmoud…he doesn’t flat out deny/ignore the Holocaust, he sets up discourse to review it. It could even prove fruitful if in the course other hidden casualties are found.
Also, why shouldn’t the man help supply terrorist activities in Iraq? When you have a imposing nation invade your backyard, you’d want to make sure they don’t get any further just “in case”. Look, I hope this doesn’t it seem I hate the US or anything, just from a tactical point of view, it’s the right thing to do. If Russia or China decided to invade Canada/Mexico under false pretenses, don’t think the US wouldn’t do anything.
Finally, to be honest, even though he is a douchebag for his holocaust questioning ways and giving the proverbial finger to certain nations, he’s actually one of the lesser evils down there; he even pushes for less restrictions on women and religious attire (which has all the clerics preparing their daggers), which is nearly unheard of. The guy’s probably the closest thing to a democratic leader Iran has seen in a long time so I hope, at least for the gals, he stays in power.
This event actually happened during my lunch break, but I was only able to see the forum without sound at a local restaurant. I read the whole piece, it’s definitely a good read. I definitely have to agree with Robert here, as Lee Bollinger definitely created an unfriendly environment for his guest. From the interactions of the moderator and from the president of Iran, as well as the audience’s reactions, it seemed that there are still lots of misunderstandings between the US and Iran that are yet to be clarified.
My first reaction: Wow, the president of Iran really made the president of Columbia look dumb. Secondly, the president of Iran is an excellent speaker.
A quote from Iran’s president that should put all Americans in a state of fear:
“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.”
Let us all hope this will never happen.
“However, I still don’t see why people are bagging on Mahmoud…he doesn’t flat out deny/ignore the Holocaust, he sets up discourse to review it.”
He has denied it, in particular at home. Where, of course, there is little if no “discourse” allowed on the issue, or many other issues. (As is the case with much of the Muslim world.) Unless you want to call inviting former KKK leaders and other noted Holocaust “revisionists” – with nobody on the other side of the debate (if we are prepared to even recognize the Holocaust as event that perhaps didn’t occur) – to Tehran to rant and rave as “discourse”. (I’m actually quite critical of a lot of what Israel does and has done, but this guy is a hater, through and through.)
And, to be honest, he isn’t exactly a champion of women’s rights, unless a relaxation of dress codes here and there is what passes for progressive action. He may have to go up against the clerics from time to time, but I don’t think women’s rights is really at the top of his agenda.
“Also, why shouldn’t the man help supply terrorist activities in Iraq?”
A good point, but it is a kind of proxy action – one that, of course, is denied – that might invite a more direct response at some point. Is it defensive? Antagonistic? Somewhere in the middle? As much as I don’t like a lot of them, I can better appreciate, at least in theory, Iraqi nationals – as opposed to foreign elements – deciding to resist a foreign occupation.
I’ve written about this too, Robert, and I agree–no matter how bad the guest, one can’t just launch into a verbal broadside without provocation like that. That being said, what ensued was entertaining.
why did Bollinger attack Ahmadinejad first, and then let him speak?
Well, it’s obvious to me.
Bollinger wanted Columbia to have this attention of hosting him.
But, Bollinger also wanted to wash himself clean of any criticism for doing it.
Thus, he pulled a Pontius Pilate.
I think Bollinger’s an amazingly bright and cunning liberal.
I would have made the same move.
Do you realize what crap he would have had to put up with, from faculty and students, and mostly from students if he didn’t do his washing-himself-clean act?
Columbia is an Ivy, where they have produced not one single US President in its entire history, is the top school in the world’s most important city, and is a breeding ground for future liberals.
#15 arthjourneyman (with a French tricolor):
“…nearly a hundred billion US dollars flowed into Israel over the course of a decade, along with the very best of American tech and a couple of nuke warheads (!!!) during that time…”
A couple of nuke warheads? That definitely calls for a lot more exclamation points that just a mere “trois”.
Along with an explanation; maybe even a link?
As an example, here’s the type of link I would expect. (Of course if you just want to conjure up assertions out of thin air, I’m forced to agree there are plenty of precedents for that in the comments section of this blog):
“….The Jericho I short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) was developed in the 1960s, reportedly with French assistance. Such aid was concurrent with French nuclear aid, in the form of the Dimona nuclear reactor. This reactor produced the plutonium that was used in Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
The Jericho I was based on the French Dassault MD-600 design, and has the Israeli name of “Luz.” The missile is reported as having a 500 kilogram high-explosive warhead, but could be fitted with nuclear warheads as well. It is unknown whether they are allocated to this role…”
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/isnukes.html
No kidding. Bush can’t even speak his own language properly to a group of students: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/9/28/a-lapse-in-keeping-bushs-words.html
The man has made enough verbal gaffes to fill paperback books. I’d LOVE to see if he could pass one of the state English proficiency tests mandated by the federal government.
that’s petty, Sonagi. Real petty. It can be explained by the fact that Bush is bilingual.
And gets nervous during public speaking.
So what?
He’s a Yale graduate.
How many of us can say we have a BS and a MBA from an Ivy League school?
And is a world leader?
BA
“It can be explained by the fact that Bush is bilingual.” – wjk
So you really believe these verbal gaffes and grammar mistakes stem from the fact that he is supposedly bilingual? Most of the hundreds of bilingual speakers I know – myself included – don’t seem to have this problem. Especially the ones with higher education. Unless they are extremely fluent or learned both languages simultaneously in childhood, grammar mistakes or other imperfections might be expected. In their second language! (First language transfer to the second language, not the opposite.) Were the President a newly arrived immigrant and second language speaker of English – or a young child recently entered into an immersion program – there might be something to your theory; however, these scenarios don’t apply to George Bush.
“And gets nervous during public speaking.” – wjk
I don’t think he gets that nervous at public speaking. (Lost sometimes, maybe, but nervous?) From a script, he isn’t too bad. Press conferences are a weaker point. He may be better at working a room than being at the podium, and he may not sound as academic as some politicians (which many people, as Bush is well aware, appreciate), but the act of actually getting up in front of an audience can’t be much of a struggle for him. I don’t happen to care for the guy, but you can’t grow up in that family, be in the oil business, run a baseball team, be governor of Texas, and serve two terms as President of the United States without having mastered public speaking anxiety.
“He’s a Yale graduate.” – wjk
This is true, but it doesn’t mean that he can speak with as much grammatical accuracy or eloquence (subjective, I know) as many others who did not go to Yale.
sonagi, I still think that in a hypothetical debate with Bush, Ahmadinejad would manage to screw himself by expressing his own moronic theories before the President would even have to respond. Should the stuff coming out of Ahmadinejad’s mouth even merit a response.
No, because Ahmadinejad and Bush appeal to very different audiences. Ahmadinejad’s remarks about the Holocaust and homosexuals may not play well in the US, but they boost his standing amongst Iranians and Muslims elsewhere in the region. Non-Muslims in developing countries would likely give Ahmadinejad a more favorable hearing than Bush. Holocaust deniers are evil in the eyes of many Westerners but do not garner much condemnation amongst a number of leftist Westerners and non-Westerners in general.
Indeed, last summer I received a chain letter from an Israeli friend regarding the abolition of the Holocaust from the British national curriculum (turned out to be a hoax). One of her “friends,” a barrister no less, sent a Pawi-like reply to everyone rambling on about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and accusing Jews of milking the Holocaust for political gain.
If we’re gonna start talking about Bush’s speaking habits, let me just say that I am from Texas, and some of the university professors that I respect the most and learned the most from speak just like Bush. I’ve also heard community leaders, doctors, lawyers, and pastors speak just like that too. Its a form of self-abasement, and a touch of humor. Even though they’re rich, or well-respected, or even masters in their field, they want to show that they’re just a cowboy ranch-hand at heart.
Personally I don’t understand why people can’t get it, when President Bush says nucular with a twinkle in his eye it seems to be obvious to me. All of his political rivals outside of Texas seem to want to play dumb and choose not to see the affectation though.
Bush is just making sure they undermisestimate him.
“Non-Muslims in developing countries would likely give Ahmadinejad a more favorable hearing than Bush.”
If you look at a hypothetical debate (popularity contest?)in those terms, of course you are correct. Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and a few others win by default in much (probably most) of the Islamic or developing world, regardless of how well-organized, well-spoken, or charismatic Bush might be – unlikely as it may be – even were he to have to debate performance of his life. Which, as you pointed out, tells us a lot about what we’re up against in much of the world.
“Which, as you pointed out, tells us a lot about what we’re up against in much of the world.”
Spot on.
@Pawikirogi:
“1. how can a nation with 20,000 nuclear warheads tell another country it can’t have nuclear weapons?”
Iran says it can’t have nuclear weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#Parties_to_the_treaty
@Richardson:
“Bush is just making sure they undermisestimate him.”
undermisestimate –> misunderestimate
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/01/15/offbeat.bushisms.reut/
Re: Bush
Using folksy language : understandable and smart in many situations and can be done quite easily without grammatical errors
Blatant grammatical errors : completely unacceptable for a president of the most powerful nation on earth.
Harvard and Yale graduate : Considering that it’s almost impossible to actually fail out of an Ivy League school (getting in is the hard part), finishing with C’s is the Ivy League equivalent of failing out.
^^;
Occasional misses in grammar and pronunciation – Understandable
Continual mistakes displayed in national/international coverages – Embarrassing.
Repeated mistakes that are so numerous, some people actually made books and calendars out of it – Priceless
There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s… all right, I’m done.
You must log in to post a comment.