See, all that paranoia for nothing!

No bombs exploding, no poisonous gas clouds.

From what I'm hearing those students made him look like an ass!!!

Best thing was to let him speak to several hundred of our brightest College students!!!

They destroyed him!!!!

He made the University look like an ass by showing his face there. He didn't have anything interesting to say so it was a waste of time.

Lots of people thing he should have been able to speak. When they give their opinion I understand their right to speak. Just because people have a right to say such things does not mean that people have to actually do them. Like riding a motorcycle across the country, or swimming the English Canal. Sometimes it is better to just talk about them a little and then forget about it. I think it is such with having Iran's leader for tea. Sounds nice and civil, but he remains a hateful man. Really I would not want him at my table.

Fanta, I'm sure you are just fine with your opinions. I just don't like them or agree with them or think they are well thought out. That's life. You actually did make the point that you thought it would be just fine if Iran were to have nukes in a previous thread. If you are retracting that now I'll pretend it never happened and let it go. I would hope that maybe it was a misunderstanding.

I do not think it is inevitable that Iran will have them. I am actually worried that is a new Carter-like president takes office then they might throw Musharaff (sp) to the wolves and let the Islamic extremists in Pakistan have the nukes he has
built. If that happens the Afghanistan war may extend to Pakistan and that might be nuclear. At this point a war with Iran might not be.

I am concerned that the arms war in the middle east is expanding. Iran is fomenting this unrest. I think the United States and several other countries would like to take Iran's military down a notch in order to stem the tide of extremist rhetoric in the region. That does not mean they want to kill all the women and children and burn the towns, it means they want to take down the military and the extremism. Fanta I don't think you are willing to see the difference between the two. But I could be wrong. How about it?

I think had Mr. Ahmadinejad not been giving the chance to speak he would have went home and proclaimed to the world that he was not permitted to speak because the devil Bush was afraid of us knowing the truth!

Since he was allowed, and couldn't stand up to College students question without coming across as the idiot that he is, is a lot better than had he not!

Now we can say look we let this man speak, we are a fair an open people. We are not afraid to let our citizens hear what rhetoric spews from this mans mouth for themselves.

I think his actions and words are seen more clearly now by everyone, and any action taken by our government will be easier to accept and understand!

Do I understand the difference between nuking Iran and attacking their military? Of course.

Do I think it is the thing to do or that it would do any good? NO! Iran produces its own weapons, tanks, planes, missiles, bullets, torpedoes, etc. They are not Iraq, and would recover quickly!

All it would do is ferment more fear, hatred, and propaganda for their government to use. If Iran were left alone and we pulled out of the region they would either quiet down or attack someone else.

I think it is more likely that they would quiet down, but if they did attack someone they would be gang raped by every country in the region. They could not win, and while exhausting their energy and rhetoric in this manner we would be safe from any attacks.

For 8 years they were at war with Iraq and fought to a stand-still by them with heavy losses on both sides. That was Muslim killing Muslim and no Americans died in the process.

Much better I feel, How about you?

I just think they will keep building until they have war, so probably sooner is better than later.

The Iranians I know really dislike their government anyway. They wish it was gone.

If Persia wants to be a world leader it should do so through academia, science and philosophy. People could respect them for that. That guy is no credit to Iran. He is a smear on any place he goes. Unfortunately he has painted Columbia University now in a very bad light. If you don't think that is true then admit at least that to he at least painted it controversial.

Many people will lose respect for the university as a result. Some may go the opposite way and love the school for it, but it will always have that stain when someone shows a degree from there. The university will lose students and support.

I sat ROFTLMAO watching him make a fool out of HIMSELF. I sure hope the gay students whooped him outside that building. Shame on HIM making those NASTY remarks about our gay americans.

If we weren't in the United Nations he would never have came here. Maybe we should just drop out of the UN. We're already in this mess so I'm going to keep rooting for our side. The other side doesn't like me. I will say this, in 1972 I was stationed at Lowry AFB, CO. I went to tech school there for the Air Farce. At that time we were selling F-4 fighters to Iran and some other foreign countries. Everyday I stood in line at the chow hall with Iranian, Iraqi, and I think the others were from Turkey, airmen. When we sell planes to other nations we also provide them with training for their troops that will be doing maintenance on the ground. We all sat at separate tables, but we got along quite nicely. In the evening they were at the club drinking our beer and admiring our "American blondes." I'm pretty sure that all of us common people from everywhere in the world could get along quite nicely if it weren't for the politicians both liberal and conservative. And oh yes, Iranians love our cheeseburgers too.

spasetrucker your comment on "admired American Blondes"...yeah! i do have MORE FUN!!!

Hindsight being 20 X 20 this guy was invited to talk,just so The Zionest Jews could yell at him, of which they did...


The real reason that everyone is so ticked off at this guy, is that he knows exactly what The Zionest Illuminatti PLAN IS, and he keeps on mouthing off about it...

America will most likely NOT nuke Iran,
because Iran,Iraq,Syria,Jordan and Saudi Arriba will form a coalition and destroy Israel...

There is a New guy that most of you know nothing about,his name is Mytraya and he will be the New Mohamad & The incarnated Budda, NOT!!!

You see, our fearing leaders have blinded is with Bull Dung and Lies,
untill the time was late...

Very Soon you will all be seeing lots of UFO's and lots of small Grey Beings and you will be told a whole lot of lies and you will swallow them hook line and sinker, because you don't know any better...


But I and a few others do, this is why we will be killed first and then all of you people will do anything they say, and you will...

'philosopher',

Of course you can ask any question you wish, given our sacro-saint free speech values. So the point I'd like to bring to our attention, isn't about one's right to say or raise a particular exchange or discussion.

It is rather about all the missed opportunities we are all guitly of, in our abuse of this fragile free speech privilege.

Here's the abuse: we use speech almost exclusively in a CONTEXT of exclusivity and exclusion. As sort of obsessive passtime for gossip, which consists essentially in checking out people's opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes, to gather like-minded clubs.
In the process, we do violence free speech. This concept and fundamental value which we claim we are ready to kill and die for.
We irreponsibly and inadvertantly become the engineers of a gross perversion of Freedom, Free speech, and the fundamental pillars of democracy they represent.

Freedom of speech is only a right to someone whom is ready to take full responsibilty for it. Fight for it right here in these forums. No need for 'nukes' or 'wars', or xenophobic mindset. Just fight for the right of speech for the one whom disagrees with you. That simple.

Instinctively we treat freedom of speech as 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ME'!!! Which, in this perversion of the concept, becomes freedom of speech (and freedom period) just for those whom think alike.
That's not freedom of speech, that is nothing other than barbaric imposition of one's (one group) beliefs, opinions, preferences, down the throats of an inevitable other one (group).

If I have the privileges of freedom, freedom of speech provided by democratic intitutions and nations, I must reponsibly defend its fundamental principles and impersonal outcome: it's freedom, and freedom of speech for 'ALL' !!! Period!!!
Our laws take care of limiting the privileges to outright abuses based on heinous or racist motives. And I guess if we give ourselvs the freedom to declare Iran part of a presumed 'axis of evil', it would be reponsible on our part to afford them equal 'free speech' privilege.

If we, Western nations, and the US as the self proclaimed defendor of the free world liberties, can not bring ourselves to honour our own fundamental principles of freedom, who are we to go to the ridiculous extent of killing in its name.

Freedom of speech is not about 'out-of-context' personal opinions, preferences, and likes or dislikes. It is about the defense of free speech for all.

I'm am far from implying that I agree with some positions promoted by the Iranian government and Ahmadinejad. But I strongly defend their right, and anyone else's right to the equal privilege of free speech, and due process of democratic values that we benefit from and are equally responsible to defend for all.

That IMO, is the perspective through which Columbia University can be proud and stand tall, as a true defendor of our Western freedoms and values.

Anyone avoiding Columbia University, or giving it a bad name on the basis that it 'went to the front' to defend our values, would be equivalent IMO, to giving our soldiers a bad name, for 'going to the front'. In both cases: unthinkable period.

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never falls. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; wherethere is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Quoted from the NIV study bible, new international version.


You all can tell me it belongs to religion chats, it's fine.
I think it belongs anywhere people talk.

If the guy was not given the venue for his speech it wouldn't matter. We hear his stuff all the time. It is all over the media every day. He doesn't say anything new when he gives speeches.

If he doesn't get an invitation to speak here, what is he going to do, go home and whine to the people he will not speak in his own country? He has nobody to complain to. Pots calling kettles black are absurd anyway.

Voil I don't mind him speaking, I just don't like the guy and I am certain he has nothing new to say. Columbia is a pack of fools for not already knowing his stance well enough to not need to hear from him.

philosopher,

The 'venue' is a fundamental and inseperable acpect of freedom of speech.

As you indicated it yourself, there is much talk about him, thanks to international freedom of speech. The talk IS about HIM and his country. Shutting out the principal 'speaker' in the Iran/Ahmadinejad current embroglio while visiting our neck of the woods is nothing short of flagrant 'censorship of speech'!

My personal opinion and preference, or your personal opinion and preference, or moreover, imposing our preferences on Columbia University, is precisely what the subject of free speech ISN'T ABOUT!

It's not free speech for your friends, and only when they agree with you!!! It's the complete opposite. Free speech only starts when faced with those you FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with.

I wrote a post just before you wrote this one, which dealt with that very distinction. You might have missed it.

Freedom of speech for you and me 'philosopher', comes with the duty to afford the same privilege to those we DISAGREE WITH FUNDAMENTALLY!!!

The extent of the venue is our living room. The more they disagree with us, and the closer they are to our living rooms, the more we are contributing to forward our cherished values of freedom, and 'free speech' for all.

Remember now:
CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH is based on personal opinions (EGO CENTRIC), preferences, and exclusive and segratioanal perspectives.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS BASED ON IMPERSONAL AND UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM AN JUSTICE FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND BACKGROUND.

It doesn't matter what you think or don't think of the man. This is about the universal and impersonal principle of freedom of speech.

Sorry,

First sentence should have read 'aspect':

"... The 'venue' is a fundamental and inseperable (acpect) aspect of freedom of speech..."

Excellent! and dont forget, the printed word can be changed and edited. Verbal words can not and now everyone and esp Columbia University has heard, straight from the horses mouth, what he said and what he stands for! Now there are no doubts, and when his opinions and views are rebuffed, his country and the world will know that we let him speak in good faith and freely!

I admire Columbia's president, he stood up to the nay-sayers critizism, and gave the Iranian President a forum to speak while never fearing to tell him what he and the rest of us thought of him! Its a shame Bush cant do that!!

spasetrucker, The UN was the brain-child of an American President, Woodrow Wilson. Dont you think it deserves our respect and backing?

Philospher writes:

"Many people will lose respect for the university as a result. Some may go the opposite way and love the school for it, but it will always have that stain when someone shows a degree from there. The university will lose students and support."

I sort of doubt it. They in no way coddled the guy, and like with Nikita Krushchev at the U.N. in the 60's, gave him the opportunity to come off badly in front of the international community. History buffs will remember Krushchev losing it in public with that wild "We will bury you!"rhetoric, and how afterwoards,his own party apparatchiks 'retired' him. He spent his last days under surveillance from his own KGB. Turns out the Russians were nowhere near as crazy as Krushchev's actions might have led the casual observer to believe, yes?

You say it's a stain-- I think it will come off as a masterstroke that will backfire on Ahmandinejad. I see the Kruschev scenario playing itself out again.

In addition, I think it will show the U.S. is not just a paper tiger when it comes to free speech, nor one of the See No, Hear No, Speak No Evil trio. It will serve as yet another example of our being as adept with Word and Thought as with the Spear.

As quote goes from that old Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror": "It was easier for you as civilized people to behave as barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave as civilized people."

Sometimes, all you need do is give them a stage and they will trip over their own Deus ex Machina. What's not to like about that?


-Kerry O.

'spasetrucker',

You wrote:
"... I'm pretty sure that all of us common people from everywhere in the world could get along quite nicely if it weren't for the politicians both liberal and conservative."

You bet we're sure we could get along. Love what you wrote about your experience. Real people just like us. Yours a much better representation of reaity, than the cooked B.S. our politicians and media feed us on a minute by minute basis.

'We', the people keep giving them way too much rope. Republicans or Democrats, we keep on giving them more rope every 4 years.

The division they create (Republicans, Democrats), only serves politicians and those small pocket groups whom benefit from paying their electoral ticket. You, me and the reat of the common people are just sucked into their political divisive scam. We get nothing in return for this undying loyalty, but they keep getting our vote.

We the common folks, come on these sites already divided. Regardless of the side we're on or not on, we know it's going to be a wash for all of us in the long run. The only constant associated to it all, is the division of the common man.

As you have experienced it for yourself 'spasetrucker', the day the common human figures a way to unite (drop the divisive labels, and find common ground), stop giving out the rope to politcians, and forces a true return (if it ever was) of 'WE THE PEOPLE',
... all that will remain is the 1972 Lowry, CO Tech School REALITY you shared with us.

It's hard to suscribe to such possibility, but the alternative of the existing political abuses are making a 'believer' out of me!

Thanks for that great bit of reality 'spasetrucker'.

On that line 'kerryO',

''... I think it will come off as a masterstroke that will backfire on Ahmandinejad...''

When consumed by our likes and dislikes and preferences, we rarely put oursleves in the other guys shoes. Free speech helps that process.

In following the free world tension mounting around Iran, and some of Ahmandinejad fancy footwork, multiplying international media interviews and appearances, I suspect as highly likely that his 'club' is putting pressure on him to put the 'genie back in the bottle', ...or else!!!

Much like Krushchev then, Ahmandinejad he is posturing for his future. He may fare better, he may not. Should he fare well in putting the Genie back (calm the game all around), we all win. If he doesn't fare so well, his club removes and handles getting the 'genie back in the bottle' with someone else.

But blocking him out would simply have raised the sympathy factor in his favor, and the hatred factor in our disfavor.

Geetting the 'genie back in there' is the shared goal for all interested parties. Let's keep the talking channels and boxes open.

Voil,

Brinksmanship has, for an eternity been a dangerous game, now moreso than ever. Couple it with people in power trying to save face, and you have a hair trigger set to go off with the least pressure. And that's why I think his being allowed to speak was a Good Thing (TM)-- it gives the cooler heads on both sides a chance to point out the danger and rein in the people who yell "Wipe xxxx off the map" or "Nuke 'em". As with Krushchv, the masks slip and if we're all lucky, it starts the wheels turning towards diplomacy rather than escalating jingoism.

I didn't read his remarks, but I don't gather he said anything about our past involvement with SAVAK. That surprises me, as I don't think that was one of the U.S.A's shining achievements in that region of the world. I think U.S. policy is too often steeped in an expediency that comes back around to haunt us later.

And we never seem to learn. Probably, I suspect, because people don't know about or deny things like Operation AJAX, where the UK and the USA replaced a democracy with a dictator in Iran who was more pliable to its economic interests. We come off looking pretty hypocritical to the people in that region who can't forget because it happened to their country.


-Kerry O.

I haven't had a chance to read all your responses, sort of busy, but I thank you for responding. I'll look it over tomorrow afternoon.

Kerry, this country has a long tradition of free speech. Columbia University stands on that foundation. It is really hard to criticize that sort of thing. It is important to let people speak. However I think there has to be a line. Is there no behavior that is so bad you wouldn't simply cordon off the individual and not hand him the microphone. I think everyone has a tolerance level, and that level varies from person to person. In the interest of satisfying all the people sometimes it seems better to go a little farther than you might ordinarily go if it were just you, yourself. In that line I think Columbia will not suffer so much ignominy. However the fact remains that so many people feel so strongly, that they will take hard lines against Columbia U. declaring it to be every kind of anti-american radical.

Voil I don't agree that in the name of free speech you have to hand someone the microphone. Free speech is about the government restricting individuals from making political comments in a public venue. When a university decides not to invite someone to speak, that individual is still able to exercise free speech, he is simply not invited to share it at a particular location by a particular group. Your comment begs the question whether every university that did not invite him to speak denied him the right to free speech. I would hardly say Harvard, for example, denied him the right to speak, they simply weren't interested enough in his words to invite him.

Now I'll mention something about his appearance at the University. The appearance there was tough. Highly critical remarks were made. Some of these were personal attacks against his character. Some might say that is not how you treat a guest. That also is a slight against the university. An Iranian I know said he was amazed at how badly he was treated. He points out that the university president could suffer serious consequences, being fired, or even murdered. He points out how many people have been murdered already when the cross the man. I don't think we have an accurate count on that score.

For my guess, I think the university president will be just fine, but he has to live with his own words. Some of those words were that he would invite Hitler to speak (before the holocaust of course). I don't think even he would invite Hitler after the holocaust. So it is a rich tradition of tolerance. Long line tolerance. But to play a part in popularizing a hateful message is wrong. To play a part in covering hateful actions by letting someone stand and tell bald faced lies and platitudes is also wrong. In any case it does not help. I just think he is over the line.

Everybody likes to point out that the CIA had something to do with the shah being in power so they should expect it when the ayatollah and his group took power. Nobody seems to mention any possible connection with the Russian KGB when the ayatollah took over, except for my Iranian friends, who mostly feel strongly about the matter. So once again, it is bad for the US to create activities, but never noticed for Russia or other countries. One country gets the criticism for decades and the other gets a free pass. Why.

One more thing, the people I know from Iran consider Carter to be the stupidest president the United States ever had. Personally I don't think he was stupid. I think he was a polyanna in rose-colored glasses. Except for his unbending faith in the good nature of everyone everywhere, he was a pretty smart fellow. Its a shame people couldn't measure up to his faith in them. If they had Iran would be living in peace with its neighbors.