Spec: Iran Prez Ahmadinejad to Speak at Columbia

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
121

<p>"I ask, what was there to be gained from that invitation? "</p>

<p>I still believe that the event was for the columbia students, and the world leader's forum, it was for this that columbia upheld tolerance of views and opinions. to this end looking neither at how the media portrayed us, and how we affected international politics, we succeeded. Students were out in the thousands, protesting, listening to the protesters, counter protesting, learing about world issues, debating politics, debating freedom of speech and tolerance, and people got to hear about A.'s policies and beliefs first hand. One thing people might not have realized is that at least as far as his official stance goes, he's anti-zionist only, not anti-semitic. He talked about palestinian jews (there are a few) deserving rights, he met with Hasidic Jews in new york, and at no point said anything against the Judasim as a religion. He also did not outrightly deny that the holocaust happened, but rather said it's good to question 'historical fact'. Now i don't condone any of these, nor am i trying to justify that being anti-zionist is acceptable, but it's these subtlities that the media ignores and that people miss. think about it, the media has incentive to make stroies sentationalist. And there is no way to discern what is appropriately reported and what is exaggerated. Again i'm not saying A. was accurate or clear or an authority on anything, but there is value to hearing his views unfiltered. </p>

<p>"resonated well only with the american media and with those that had criticized him for inviting the President"</p>

<p>as for the media, i agree we might have screwed up at many media outlets, but within America, we helped to change columbia's image of being extreme left. "provincial" our approach may seem, but there was a greater good. Had Bollinger been slightly too bland instead of slightly too harsh, we would have strengthened critics, and not been able to show that tolerance does not equal endorsement. This was a greater battle that needed to be fought, so that in future columbia (or other large organizations) could invite speakers and not have to justify as much that we don't support views because we listen to them. This gives greater scope to invite controversial speakers in the future and confront them and learn from debate that surrounds them. So it was smart for Bollinger to be a little extra-harsh (perhaps the insults were too much). </p>

<p>as for our effect on international politics, i think we didn't change much, we don't really have an influence on much. In terms of A's perception, he spoke of academics and called himself one, but he hardly came off as an academic because he skirted issues and was pretty vague. he touts being an academic in Iran all the time, we had no affect on that perception of him. if people did sympathize with him, perhaps they'd also consider negotiating with him at some point, because we clearly don't want to 'iraq' Iran. however, Bollingers speech was educational to most of the listeners that didn't know what A. was about or the details of his policies and the details of the crimes he has committed.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
I still believe that the event was for the columbia students, and the world leader's forum

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is what i was referring to as "provincial". At what cost? Could n't Columbia put their "own interests" behind and think twice about the implications of the event in the world arena? What "unfiltered" views did you get that you did not get before? You seem to say that the prize to pay for these "unfiltered" views was worth it and of value. Even your comments seem to "demonize him" less and you repeatedly need to stress the fact that you "are not saying he was accurate...." </p>

<p>There is no greater good. That's my point. The greater good whould have been not to give him a forum. In fact, we have strengthened critics all over the world and also at home. Free speech is free speech. If President A can be heard at Columbia, then so should Gilchrist's from the Minuteman Project. Shame on Columbia for that. America will continue to think that Columbian students are liberal hypocrites. And who cares about that anyway?</p>

<p>Bollinger did not need to invite the President to a forum to make a speech about what the guy stands for. He could have written an editorial in the New York Times or given a talk at anytime. I think that assertion is ridiculous. </p>

<p>You should know that the Headlines all over the world were not "The President of Iran is a tyrant and a nut". The headlines were "President of Iran attacked verbally and treated disrepectfully by the United States after being invited to speak" or "United States, as prepotent and bullish as ever".
And that was the BBC! Columbia graduates overseas calling the treatment as shameful!</p>

<p>We need to start thinking "out of the box" (got i hate that phrase by the way)</p>

123

<p>"Could n't Columbia put their "own interests" behind and think twice about the implications of the event in the world arena?"</p>

<p>what were the implications of the event in the world arena? - i don't see any significant affects in the 'world arena'; internationally ahmadinejad's perception has not changed, neither have the views of people and the media here. They still think of Ahmadinejad what they thought over the weekend. The only exception is that 'there are no gays in Iran' making him seem a little more ridiculous. I hear from an Iranian friend that that was traslated badly and acutally implied - there it no culture of flamboyant or 'out of the closet' gays in Iran which makes it not an issue to worry about - this is definitely different from they don't exist. I can't know if this is what actually meant.</p>

<p>"What "unfiltered" views did you get that you did not get before?"</p>

<p>i explained that the unfiltered views helped to educate columbia's students about the man, many simply didn't know what he stood for, others thought he stood for more than he actually did. At any rate the end doesn't justify the means. Even if you get a speaker and find that his/her views are what you thought they would be, that does not mean columbia shouldn't have called the speaker. beforehand you don't know that someone's views are going to be what you thought them to be or what the media showed them to be. a filter of someone's views always takes you further from what the views are. think about it, had we known farsi, we could have eliminated the translation filter (which is supposed to be as unbiased of a filter as there is) we might have further learnt the connotations of A's language use and speech.</p>

<p>i am not here to pass moral judgement on A, that's why i need to stress that i am neither demonizing nor glorifying nor condoning the man in anyway by saying he should be allowed to speak. Some people here have a very hard time understanding this. In order to win an arguement on whether he can speak, i am called a supporter of his and chastized for supporting his 'satanic views'. Bollinger too felt the need to nullify this association - that by allowing to speak we are endorsing.</p>

<p>coming to news agencies, they all said A. was treated unfriendly, and scolded or blasted or attacked etc but how many of them see this as a bad thing (in the US)? before he spoke they criticized columbia for being soft or too accepting or condoning him, and this was bad because by many he's seen as an unacceptable political figure, so to attack a 'demon' can only be good. In this respect columbia reshaped it's image as not being extreme left.</p>

<p>and for heaven's sake! columbia did not try to silence the minutemen, Bollinger sent a mail to the whole student body harshly criticizing those who rushed the stage, and those people faced disciplinary action. The email contained one sided criticism against those who rushed and not anything against those who invited Gilchrist, because students are allowed to invite whom they choose. Most of the student body, though against the minutemen did not support their being prevented from speaking.</p>

<p>and who care's that columbia is thought of as liberal hypocrites? - well i do, students at the university do, and certainly the columbia administration cares, the statement isn't true. Columbia is liberal - true, but it also is tolerant of different views, and the whole spectrum of views exists on campus, the varied protests and debate on campus exemplified this plurality for me.</p>

124

<p>The implications in the world arena were... that the guy achieved his goal. He was gentle, appeared harmless and people's perception's were influenced by that. This was his only contribution. Nothing new about him was learned. A lot of people felt "bad" the way he was treated by the "bullish imperialist american super power". This is not good. Bollinger put his own interests ahead.</p>

<p>Everyone knew the President's views before hand. He did not add anything to it. As a matter of fact, he refused to answer with a simple YES or NO. He is not an idiot. I can not believe that you would think that "he was invited for Columbia students to learn about him". Come on. Columbia got a couple of days of free world news coverage. Not a bad stunt at all.</p>

<p>I was vey clear stating that the liberal hypocrites are the students of Columbia that did not ALLOW Gilchrist to speak. Chairs were thrown and the man had to be rushed out through a back door. This is what happens when rabid intolerant liberals get out of hand. Perhaps what Bollinger should have done is give a lecture about FREE SPEECH to the students of Columbia. I believe that they could benefit a lot more from learning about that than learning about "the way the iranian president thinks". </p>

<p>If anyone is paying attention to world news and to critical commentaries by exiled iranians they will see that what I am saying is correct. </p>

<p>By the way, you keep failing to address the following point- What is the world to do if this guy now says that "he does not have weapons of mass destruction or a nuclear bomb" and refuses to comply with international sanctions. Will he be disregarded as a lunatic (no gays, no weapons, no violations of human rights)? We are screwed either way. If you don't believe him, (thanks to Columbia in part helping him portray himself as a fool) he will be in a position to do whatever he wants. If you do not believe him, then we can have a repeat of Iraq and may not have the weapons....Do you see what I mean? </p>

<p>There is no need to give a forum to the number one enemy of our country, just because we want to show the world how great our democracy is. That's absurd and irresponsible. People need to think about the consequences long term.</p>

<p>Do you know where the iranian president is heading now? To visit Hugo Chavez in oil rich Venezuela and Bolivian President Evo Morales: two of the most anti american leaders that are stirring plenty of trouble for the US in Latin America.</p>

125

<p>
[quote]
If President A can be heard at Columbia, then so should Gilchrist's from the Minuteman Project. Shame on Columbia for that. America will continue to think that Columbian students are liberal hypocrites. And who cares about that anyway?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was vey clear stating that the liberal hypocrites are the students of Columbia that did not ALLOW Gilchrist to speak. Chairs were thrown and the man had to be rushed out through a back door. This is what happens when rabid intolerant liberals get out of hand. Perhaps what Bollinger should have done is give a lecture about FREE SPEECH to the students of Columbia.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you are either daft or didn't bother to read the rest of this thread....this issue has already been addressed several times and we already mentioned that they were punished.... to generalize about columbia students like that is beyond absurd....the handful of students who stupidly thought that rushing the stage was a good idea were the exception and they were punished accordingly....stop reciting what you hear on Bill O'reily.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What is the world to do if this guy now says that "he does not have weapons of mass destruction or a nuclear bomb" and refuses to comply with international sanctions. Will he be disregarded as a lunatic (no gays, no weapons, no violations of human rights)? We are screwed either way. If you don't believe him, (thanks to Columbia in part helping him portray himself as a fool) he will be in a position to do whatever he wants. If you do not believe him, then we can have a repeat of Iraq and may not have the weapons....Do you see what I mean?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this is probably the most juvenile approach to foreign policy ever! Not to mention of course the silly hypotheticals you just throw out there. Oh and lets not forget that you have thoroughly been scared to death by the media which has undoubtedly contributed to your pessimistic view. Despite all that though i will answer this as if it were serious and intelligent. First of all you can't "disregard" a leader of a nation.....that's just silly....i don't think at any point will the president (this one or the next one)....get a briefing about what iran's president said and throw it away citing that the man is a lunatic because of the speech he gave at columbia. Complex situations can't be boiled down in the way you are describing. There are many diplomatic channels to go through to find out the truth...the same diplomatic channels we sortof went through with iraq and then ignored when they reported something contrary to what bush believed (that saddam in fact didn't have any WMDs or nuclear capabilities). Oh and i have no idea what you mean by "refuses to comply with international sanctions"....noone agrees to comply with sanctions against their own country.....other countries agree to comply with sanctions against a specific country.....you understand? </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is no need to give a forum to the number one enemy of our country

[/quote]
</p>

<h1>1 enemy? REALLY? thats news to me.....has bin laden been captured? al-qaeda wiped out? how long have i been asleep!!?!?!?! <em>rolls eyes</em> ....you seriously believe this guy is the #1 enemy?</h1>

<p>anyway overall i think you need to go out and do some more research and dig a little deeper and maybe try reasoning things out for yourself</p>

126

<p>Ahmadinejad knew he would be challenged and a list of topics was given to him as far as where the criticism would be directed. Columbia inviting him did not lend him more legitimacy as a leader...that happened when he was elected by a landslide in Iran. </p>

<p>I asked one of the organizers of the event what he wanted to achieve by inviting him...</p>

<p>He answered that he hoped he would slow the onset of war, which was told to both sides and they both agreed with that purpose. He also hoped to demystify Ahmadinejad (saying that he was, for the most part, a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy) and to provide students with an unmatched educational and intellectual opportunity.</p>

127

<p>ok here we gooo again:</p>

<p>no one feels 'bad' for this guy, he's a politician not a 5th grader, to many justice was served (hence the standing ovation after Bollinger's speech). if someone was ignorant before and so felt 'bad' for him, they'd probably bother to read up about him, or check whether Bollinger's speech was unfair slander, and then they'd probably stop feeling bad for him. </p>

<p>though you try to be an authority on this, you seem to have a murky view of what actually happened, and seem to read up on a few media sources to make arguements here.</p>

<p>" Everyone knew the President's views before hand. He did not add anything to it."</p>

<p>do you have even the slightest idea of out of touch with international politics most americans are, even college students? - many people i spoke to didn't even know the man's name before he got here, most read up about him, once they heard he was coming, and heard it was a going to be a big controversy. his coming here and the forum and the protests were remarkably educational, i doubt anyone on campus thought they were more ignorant or just as ignorant after the event as before.</p>

<p>"I can not believe that you would think that "he was invited for Columbia students to learn about him". Come on. Columbia got a couple of days of free world news coverage. Not a bad stunt at all."</p>

<p>-It's a world leader's forum! it's their job to invite world leaders, the more controversial the better, because that encourages debate more. sure they got media coverage, but just because there is one positive to an event, does not mean that is the only reason, or even the main reason for having something. why must you be so narrowly cynical?</p>

<p>" I was vey clear stating that the liberal hypocrites are the students of Columbia that did not ALLOW Gilchrist to speak"</p>

<p>you said shame on Columbia for that. if you meant the above you should have said shame on the group of students. this isn't even an ambiguity, you criticized columbia and were wrong.</p>

<p>"Perhaps what Bollinger should have done is give a lecture about FREE SPEECH to the students of Columbia"</p>

<p>-he sent a scathing email to the student body about exactly this and tolerance. he made it clear that students and teachers are allowed to invite whom they wish and that no-one has the right to prevent such events.</p>

<p>"What is the world to do if this guy now says that "he does not have weapons of mass destruction or a nuclear bomb" and refuses to comply with international sanctions."</p>

<p>shraf addressed this sufficiently, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he has a nuclear bomb or WMDs. I think you would have benefitted considerably from being here, or listening to his speech and discussing things to people. He is trying to enrich uranium, supposedly for nuclear energy, but the international community thinks it's for a bomb. and sanctions are imposed not contently complied with.</p>

<p>"If you don't believe him, (thanks to Columbia in part helping him portray himself as a fool) he will be in a position to do whatever he wants. If you do not believe him, then we can have a repeat of Iraq and may not have the weapons....Do you see what I mean?"</p>

<p>what better route is there to reaching an agreement, than negotiation and compromise. is shutting ears better? is listening to someone's interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's views and policies a better source of information? that's what you get on the news.</p>

<p>"There is no need to give a forum to the number one enemy of our country, just because we want to show the world how great our democracy is. That's absurd and irresponsible. People need to think about the consequences long term."</p>

<p>ow yes disregard him, he's an elected president of a country of freakin 60 million. shutting ears to more direct sources propells ignorance.</p>

<p>"Do you know where the iranian president is heading now? To visit Hugo Chavez in oil rich Venezuela and Bolivian President Evo Morales: two of the most anti american leaders that are stirring plenty of trouble for the US in Latin America."</p>

<p>notice how perhaps there is momentum building up against the US? bush is already dispised in europe. most want to get the hell out of Iraq, and think the war was an error of judgement of ridiculous proportions. so maybe politicians talking to this crazy man might mend ties with Iran, might get him to compromise on his extreme views, might reduce how polarized the issue already is. </p>

<p>and really the columbia forum, was to show that tolerance and debate should never not be considered a possible means forward. it was a huge learning opportunity for the students, many of whom would otherwise have gone about influencing the world, slightly more ignorantly.</p>

128

<p>Shraf: You have called me deaf, juvenile, silly and accuse me of "reciting Bill O' Reilly". If you are a Columbia student, it appears that what you have learned best from your President is to.... insult people.</p>

<p>It is clear that a meaningful discussion can not take place with some one like you. I will acknowledge you when you grow up.</p>

<p>confidential,

[quote]
I think you would have benefitted considerably from being here, or listening to his speech and discussing things to people. He is trying to enrich uranium, supposedly for nuclear energy, but the international community thinks it's for a bomb. and sanctions are imposed not contently complied with.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your reaction illustrates EXACTLY the problem with his visit. Obviously YOU BELIEVE HIM!!</p>

<p>As far as following my point with the visit to Chavez and Morales, you also got derailed. I believe your analysis of the whole event is a bit superficial. It is because of the momentum building against the US and the anti americanism all over the world why giving a forum to this individual is a mistake. We already have the United Nations for that. The big news in Chavez Venezuela was how bad his iranian friend got treated by the "empire". It validates my argument.</p>

<p>I am glad that Bollinger did send a message to the students that behave so poorly and showed their lack of tolerance to Gilchrist. I did not know that. I guess we can expect that incidents like that do not occur again. It would reflect poorly on the institution and its students.</p>

<p>You said,
[quote]
though you try to be an authority on this, you seem to have a murky view of what actually happened, and seem to read up on a few media sources to make arguements here

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No need to be patronizing. We do not know each other and I certainly do not know your background. I do not try to be an authority, but at the risk of coming across as arrogant, I will tell you that from my adolescence I have had the privilege and the access to "plenty" as far as international relations and diplomacy are concerned. I have "grown up" in the field. Eventhough I have chosen not to pursue that field as a career, I really find it fascinating. That's the reason why I got involved in the discussion.</p>

<p>One more thing, I am sure that there are some really stupid people out there. Comedians, news anchors, politicians, foreign presidents and late show hosts have all talked, laughed or ridiculed at some time or another President's Bush comments about the AXIS OF EVIL. Your argument that people do not know about what Iran's president represents is rather weak. That has been in the news much longer than what his visit to Columbia will be. Based on that fact, I doubt that the Columbia event will even come to the attention of those "stupid" people who haven't heard about the AXIS.</p>

<p>I bet they are probably thinking that the President of Iran created a raucous when he went to visit COLOMBIA.</p>

<p>We are going in circles. We disagree.</p>

129

<p>thanks for adding that tidbid viva_love, that's a good alternative perspective.</p>

<p>edit: I love when 'raucous' is used as a noun.</p>

130

<p>"HL--rather than vague pronouncements, what part of Denzera's post did not make sense to you (or do you just like throwing around "idiot" insults heedlessly?)."</p>

<p>garland what makes you Denzera was the idiot I had in mind?</p>

<p>I do have to say that if Denzera thinks the advocates of greater border security in the face of a massive illegal migration across our sothern border are as distant from the center of American political thought as a holocaust denying, terrorist supporting, Islamofacist like Ahmadinijad then there really isn't much point in continuing a discussion with him. He obviously lives in an alternate universe. I would do as well soliciting the opinion of the homeless guy I observed last weekend carryng on an animated conversation with a statue of George Washington. Not sure what they were discussing but it went on for a good 15 minutes.</p>

131

<p>No problem...I was actually pretty surprised by that perspective myself.</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
Shraf: You have called me deaf, juvenile, silly and accuse me of "reciting Bill O' Reilly". If you are a Columbia student, it appears that what you have learned best from your President is to.... insult people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i called you daft not deaf.....definition: 1 a : SILLY, FOOLISH b : MAD, INSANE
and yes, such black and white characterizations of complex situations are quite juvenile. I also know right wing talking points when i see them and on occasion like to tune into fox news to listen to them and you sir are reciting alot of them</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am glad that Bollinger did send a message to the students that behave so poorly and showed their lack of tolerance to Gilchrist. I did not know that. I guess we can expect that incidents like that do not occur again. It would reflect poorly on the institution and its students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>that just proves my point that you want to just jump into this discussion without reading what was said previously and to me that is extremely insulting.....also you know why you didn't hear about the punishments...because they weren't mentioned on Fox News or any of the mainstream media...yet you freely site incidences you know little about and don't bother to at the very least read what has been said about it in this thread or look it up online. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I will tell you that from my adolescence I have had the privilege and the access to "plenty" as far as international relations and diplomacy are concerned. I have "grown up" in the field. Eventhough I have chosen not to pursue that field as a career, I really find it fascinating. That's the reason why I got involved in the discussion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>no offense, though i'm sure u'll take some ...but it seems from your posts that your knowledge of middle east politics, culture and society run no deeper than what is readily available from the mainstream media and show little understanding of the region, its people, or its conventional wisdom on certain issues. </p>

<p>Oh and finally, MovieBuff, thats a great way to dodge my points and questions....all of which are very valid....and I am both a columbia alum and a columbia student and i think i have grown up quite enough, know a good deal about the topic at hand, and have more than challenged your points and its clear that this is simply a way to sidestep my previous post.</p>

133

<p>Just for Denzera, for the love of it:</p>

<p>I bet they are probably thinking that the President of Iran created a "raucousness" when he went to visit COLOMBIA :)</p>

<p>Shraf, some of us are really laughing hard overhere reading your post. We needed a good chuckle. Thanks</p>

134

<p>^Yay trolls!!!</p>

<p>Shraf, time to stop. No use in arguing with a "movie buff" who, i think, goes/went to brown. I mean, not only has his infatuation with movies given him all the information about the middle east he will ever need, but brown gets influential speakers on the subject all the time, moreso than columbia!<br>
/end sarcasm</p>

<p>
[quote]
Shraf, some of us are really laughing hard overhere reading your post. We needed a good chuckle. Thanks

[/quote]

i love posts like this if only because they show that you have nothing more to say and are simply trying to get the last word in. please know when you are beat and just go away with your tail between your legs.</p>

<p>otherwise,</p>

<p>DON'T FEED THE TROLLS</p>

135

<p>In order to have any chance of winning a debate or accomplishing anything productive, you need to be arguing with someone who is basically reasonable. Otherwise, it is not worth the trouble.</p>

<p>It is just too bad that what started as a very reasonable exchange, degenerates into something like the comment from above.</p>

<p>Skraylor, when the discussion goes in circles, there is no need to continue it. That has nothing to do with "going away with your tail between your legs". Debating through the internet is a complete different experience. It is difficult when people fail to resolve a point before moving to the next issue. When the unresolved points continue to come up over and over again, ultimately this leads to a situation where there is no choice but to "agree to disagree".</p>

<p>No one has logically argued my points here and I amused by the constant accusations of "dodging" questions. It has actually been the opposite. </p>

<p>Please, show good sportsmanship.</p>