Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1 - Page 2

Those are both pretty good questions though.

If we can get over sniping at one another, this represents a chance for strengthening contact between the academic communities in the U.S. and Iran. I think he should go.

Then again, I also think that he shouldn't have been a dick before Ahmadinejad even opened his mouth. It shows a real lack of tact and a lack of faith in his students' ability to argue with this guy during the Q&A period. It's Columbia, for God's sake - I'm sure the faculty and students could have handeled it.

It looks to me like this all began when one religious fundamentalist started calling another religious fundamentalist names. I just wish to fuck the world was built on a more rational basis than this bullshit.

Oh, they're great questions. Ones that should be directed toward a head of state, rather than a head of a university, though. It's just stupid to compare asking the President of Iran questions about things he has said and done to asking the President of Columbia University about things other people did while he was living in the US.

Columbia is the place where they have banned the ROTC and physically attacked the leaders of the Minuteman Project during a speech at the University last year. I'm not sure what we could trust them to do.

I think that Ed Koch had a good take on the situation: Bollinger forgot to stand up for the US.

Those chancellors are simply making a point. One point may be that holding one man responsible to answer for the actions of entire country is foolish.

And if invitation to speak stated the Universities views on him and he still took the oppertunity then he would have gotten what he deserved. I doubt that was the case.

Oh, and Duncan Hunter is a retard.

Holding one man responsible for his own statements and actions isn't foolish.

You're right, but that's not what Bollinger did. The point being made was towards Bollinger and his behavior.

yt, I respect you, but this guy does not deserve any of your sympathy. And since when is the president of Columbia a dignitary? Yeah, like he's going to be able to answer those questions with any sort of authority. I wasn't aware that Bollinger was a diplomat.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

France, Britain and the U.S. want to move ahead swiftly on a third, much-tougher resolution that would impose an embargo on arms sales to Iran and a travel ban on key officials, and directly target the finances of a wider array of Iranian companies.

The impasse has led the U.S. and France to push for increased actions outside of the U.N. In a speech before the U.N. General Assembly yesterday, French President Nicholas Sarkozy challenged other countries to face up to the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power.
===

Way to go, France! When I order my lunch today, I'm going to ask for American fromage.

Without derailing this thread:

What, what, whaaat? Where they under the impression that the Sam - Frodo relationship is too gay? Because that would be reasoning that would Ahmadinejad make feeling just cozy enough to welcome the ivitation.

Nevermind. I should work on my reading-skills.
(Grabs a book)

This is ridiculous. The points that Bollinger raised are mostly based on fact and alot of them are about statements that Ahmadinejad himself said. Since when can someone not be challenged in a debate? This wasn't meant to be a state dinner. He has the right to express his views. Also...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20960818...wsweek/page/3/

It's not like it came out of nowhere.

Think what you like of Peggy Noonan (former speech writer for Reagan), but she wrote a great editorial on this subject in today's WSJ:

We Shouldn't Be Afraid of those We Loathe.

More at the link.

That is such a great line.

Ah, there's nothing like "fake but accurate" history.

Yeah, I didn't get why she chose to write it that way.

After having read through the interviews, the transcripts and seen the video coverage, I am honestly amazed at the reactions, the utterly predictable pavolvian reactions of a lot of people to Ahmadinejads visit of the USA, and also the interview by Pelley.

Here we have 2 nations with heads of state who are pretty obviously not giving a shit about democracy in its original, its normal sense, fudge elections, basically neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad are democractic leaders in the sense of my admittedly european understanding.
Its pretty clear what is happening on both sides of the fence here, but its unfortunately not clear to me why so many people fail to realize that.
Speaking to the islamist/terrorists over the heads of the people? Oh please, conspiracy theory anyone?
This trip was made and allowed with agendas on both sides, I am sure.

And you bet it worked. The mainstream media is, at large, happily trying to demonize the PERSON Ahmadinejad, its the most simple, and unfortunately effective building of the big bad evil guy I have seen in a long while.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is pretty adept at presenting a picture of his nation, sugar-coated and all, that will make any action and especially aggression towards it look like pure selfish malevolence.

But, unfortunately, that would never figure into it anyway.
The USA go to war for money. If there is a lot of money to be made by going to war with Iran, I am nowadays not sure whether I should bet on conscience and commonsense anymore.

But the way some people are downright HAPPILY emrbacing this picture of Ahmadinejad as the next Saddam is sad.
How much does the average american citizen know about the area, that is not from corporate media, filtered and selected? How much were you taught at school, how much exchange have you had with people from that area? How many muslims do you know?
The press and the government are building on this lack of information, of ability to gather the information, and on the laziness to gather it of the masses, in order to shove their image of the next terrorist threat down our throats. At the same time, Ahmadinejad is able to both fan the flames and inure himself and his nation to the western touch by presenting a very agreeable, very forthcoming if a bit quirky image on the worlds stage.

That Pelley guy must have led the most jaded, agenda-driven interview I have read in a long, long time here in europe about american and middle-eastern affairs. I could practically see an official breathing down his neck to tickle an inacceptable answer out of Ahmadinejad, who pretty much owned him anyway.

Mind you, I dont think that guy should lead Iran. And I dont think Bush should lead the USA. But in this case, I think the two sides are exactly the same in terms of how utterly biased, agenda-driven and dishonest they are.

So, to recap, you're saying that (a) there's no difference between the US and Iran, and (b) Americans are unsophisticated bumpkins who are unqualified to form an opinion on Iran.

Ok. Got it.

If you guys don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and storm this guy's IP address.

I keep reading comparisons made between Ahmadinejad and Hitler which I just don't get. The guy is not the most powerful leader in his country, for one. And while I don't agree with much of the country's policies, I don't see them becoming a threat to the States - unless they keep being provoked.

No, I said explicitly I think that ahmadinejad and his buddies are pretty much the same as the bush clique in terms of propaganda use, of dishonesty, of lying in public to further their goals. Even the techniques are, as this visit showed, not particularly different.

I also do think that the american people, same as many european and asian nations, have very little education about the middle east, and I know for a fact (since my spouse is a specialist for arabian countries and culture) that even in countries where there IS education and proper information available, 98% of the people dont care about it enough to check it. Which is why the word "terrorist" is such a great term to use in order to conjure up certain images, and why those entire stupid concept of a "war on terror" and the Iraq war, even the Afghanistan war of which I was part of unfortunately, is a tool used by warmongers on both sides to cover their personal interests, or those of their buddies.

And just so not another rabid so-called patriot wants to know my IP, I think pretty much the same about my home country on different matters. The amount of press manipulation in my own country to divert attention away from massive failures is saddening.

Haha, seriously? With a name like Ali Mohamed, you know I'm a crazy rabid patriot. First, get a sense of humor. Second, stop basing your arguments on vague stereotypes because you're too lazy to actually educate yourself about the outside world.

Actually, I dont usually consider a forum name much, since people tend to keep these throughout years and years on various message boards, throughout different parts of their lives, and I wont just assume that you still hold to the exact same views as you did when you created your forum account. Call it humourless, but I much prefer that over accidentially flaming someone for their username, when it turns out its their favorite 10-years-ago arcade hall highscore list name when they were 18.

On the other hand, I did think my use of the word "rabid" was enough indication that I was using a certain hyperbole, but as it seems to have failed (just as I didnt recognize your humoristic attempt) I suggest we agree to have misunderstood each others rhethorics and get to the point: Knowledge of the outside world.

I am german, you are american. That inevitably means none of us really know Iran (unless we, which we dont, happen to have lived there or have close contacts to that country) from the inside, right? Ok, so obviously I am not proof against falling for stereotypes in some areas, but regardless, I think the whole matter of Iran vs. US vs. the world vs. aliens is suffering from one problem: People think of countries, of nations, as united entities of interest. Thats why I try to differ between the guys here (for who, different opinion and all, I hold respect for discussing matters like these in a mature manner mostly), the american people I have come to see during my visits to your country (southerners, real hicks, new yorkers and so on, tons of different stereotypes for sure, some more appropriate than others) and the government, or rather, the president and his bunch.
I am pretty sure none here, FrankCobretti and yourself included, isnt somewhat dismayed at the events. Not every Republican is a supporter of the Iraq war, or war in general for that matter.
But the very same, we must assume, goes for the Iranian people too. Thats where I say the lack of information and education strikes hardest.
A visit by Ahmadinejad says exactly as much about the people there as a political blunder of Pres. Bush says about your personal stance.... nothing.

Neither of these leaders have been elected in spotless democractic elections. Iranian elections are none better, probably worse in many parts, than the presidential elections of the Bush administration. Support for terrorism is most likely very much the same over there as in the USA, or germany, or whereever else outside a small hidden training camp in the desert.
But when you ask Mary Jane Doe outside the McDonalds downtown Manhattan about what she thinks of Iran, you bet the answer will be a broad stroke of the brush over the entire nation and people.

Its the same here, its the same there, its the damn same all over, but that doesnt make it less problematic.
And while it usually doesnt hurt anyone much, now there is the matter of war, of money, of power involved, and suddenly it becomes a very potent tool to be able to play on those stereotypes to create a situation where a small group of immoral people are able to get enough screaming power of uneducated masses behind their plans to get them into motion, just to fill their own coffers.
War is a matter far more serious than people like to think, when they have never seen it. I have unfortunately seen parts of it, and its not as its in the news. Terrorism is not a bunch of planes crashing into buildings, bombs going off in the berlin subway, or anthrax being mailed. These are just the visible traces that are chosen to be shown by the media, or happen to be public enough to not be possible to hide.
Terrorism is a guy in Teheran walking down the street, being beheaded by masked attackers for having let his daughter go unveiled 3 weeks earlier when she carried out the trash.

The iranian people have no more reason to like terrorists than the inhabitants of New York, of London, of Berlin, of Stockholm, or whatever other target of terrorist attacks. But somehow, the propaganda especially, but not only, in America is extremely focused on the nationalities of these suicide bombers.

Because she's a pompous dimwit, regardless of how much you guys like this particular editorial?