Ahmadinejad to leave for New York Sunday

**Kansas Bear** · 25 Sep 07,, 20:30

Originally Posted by Bluesman

So, let's find out how we all think it went by conducting a survey.

Let's go ahead and weigh in on this proposition (just a simple 'Agree' or 'disagree' post on whether you think this is true):

A-jad's speech will be broadcast un-cut and un-edited back home in Iran, and the Iranian people will see Bollinger's 'hardline' verbal attack, as well as Columbia students laughing at his assertion that there were no homosexuals in Iran, like there are in America. The Iranian people will get an unvarnished, true picture of what went on in New York.

Go ahead; tell me if you believe the state-controlled media in Iran will allow the Iranian people to see all of that, instead of the handshakes from Columbia administration, the students rising as A-Jad enters, the applause, the approval of his remark that Columbia's president was rude to him....

No commentary necessary; just 'agree' or 'disagree', and we'll tally up the results tomorrow. Won't that be fun?

And then we'll determine if we all think that this travesty will serve the purpose of overthrowing the regime in Tehran...or if it strengthened it.

Disagree. Iranian government will not air the entire speech.

**Tarek Morgen** · 25 Sep 07,, 21:15

In Iran it hgas become somekind of hobby to use illegal satelite-dishes to recieve foreign broadcast, even though they have been outlawed since 95. American (or western in general) shows are much more popular in Iran than on might think. Even basketball is liked by many over there (and they have their own league...strangly enough even with several U.S. players in it...). And further is this stuff also broadcasted via Internet (of which Iran has about 7 million users), and than mobile phones are used to share videos. So certainly not all will see this, but many more than you think.

**Parihaka** · 25 Sep 07,, 23:25

Originally Posted by Debbie

Pari - thanks for posting this. I was very interested to find out what he had to say. The realization after taking the time to read all of this is that I will never get these minutes back in my life and the fact I didn't have any respect for him to begin still continues.

**Skull6** · 26 Sep 07,, 00:19

An engineer can design a build a robot--a contruct who, after being programmed and powered, can go & act upon those commands its been given.

What's the difference between the clerics & the engineer? What's the difference between the robot & "He-who's-name-I-still-cannot-spell"?

Honestly, I see little difference. He's merely acting out the commands that he's been given.

My fear in all this is what else he could achieve while in the U.S. What if merely his presence was to signal a sleeper cell to take action? What if he were to be able to somehow pass vital information or funds to an "orchestrator" here in America, hiding behind his diplomatic credentials to do so?

An interesting conundrum...because someone who commits criminal acts against America & her people rises to the top position of his country, we must somehow deny the fact that he's still an untried alleged perpetrator, & allow him more than what is demanded by UN treaty in regards to his movement & access in our country?

In speaking to some of my friends who immigrated to America from Iran in the '80s concerning his visit, I saw hatred & disgust. My friends tell me of a time when they were growing up in Iran, when they were proud to be Iranians, as the country was making great strides towards technical modernization & acceptance within its population. They left (fled?) when their parents realized that the powers-that-be were starting to violently tun back the clock on such advances.

& they see this "figure-head-of-state" (to quote one of them) doing little more than assisting in that continuing downward spiral. Yes, I admit that I may be a bit biased, as most of what I've learned about "modern Iran" has been from my friends. Even so, common sense tells me that his rantings to international audiences aren't furthering his people much--my opinion, of course.

**smilingassassin** · 26 Sep 07,, 01:19

I doubt Iranians will see the whole clip on nation wide T.V. It'll take dark internet cafe sites to see small clips of the more negative bits.

Disagree.

**Shamus** · 26 Sep 07,, 01:49

Is there a choice labeled "No F***ing Way!!!"?
Strongly disagree

**Dwarven Pirate** · 27 Sep 07,, 10:48

I dont know if it was a good idea or a bad one. Really, I think its a storm in a teacup and it matters naught. I assume the Iranian sanctioned version of his speech will be edited to remove any booing and make it seem as tho the students rendered him only applause.

Really, I ask myself why we wouldn't arrest and try him (other than that we probably gave assurances that we wouldn't), and I come up with two thoughts. That we need to be seen to respect the law and international relations, and that him giving talks just makes him (and Iran) look bad, generally. Both of which I think are in American interests and would be reasons to allow his visit to New York City.

I stand by what I said, and that is, to reduce it into its most simplistic terms, that emotional outbursts need to give way to rational discourse. Happily, the students at Columbia seem to favor this ideal.

To JAD, Columbia University is no part of the UN. And yes, dissent (protest) is a good thing. It does not, of course, make one a brute to hold or express a dissenting opinion, or to boo a speech or hold a placard. Were I to hold this I would have to characterize myself as a brutal man, which I do not. It's a matter of degree (of action). On the other hand, were I to, say, edit your opinions here on this forum or merely erase them all, similar to shouting you off of your podium, then I think I would be.

ADMIN/Bluesman: I had typed out some response to our earlier in this thread argument, but after reading on I'm not sure I should post it. I'll pm it to you if you like, or I guess I could make it an attachment but Im not sure if it will be viewable or a link. Anyhow, as you like. Also, I expect I should redact my own assault, but it would make the beginning of one of Blues' posts seem incoherent? I'll do as you wish.

**JAD_333** · 27 Sep 07,, 17:33

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Do you imagine that he doesn't know everything that you would have shown him? Do you imagine that this enmity that passes between his country and ours is some sort of misunderstanding, something to be cleared up with a 'get-to-know-ya' visit?

To WHOM? Who do you suppose does NOT know what you wanted to showcase? Who do you imagine will be allowed to ponder the nature of America and her People?

Guys, y'all seem to believe that a good ole DEBATE with him, us showing what WE are, him showing what THEY are, will serve to clarify the differences, and then everybody will see The Truth.

It's not ABOUT that. Us showing our better side? USELESS to our cause, except as a living example. Him speaking utter crap and foolishness from a stage provided by us to an absolutely evil man, engaged in a personal mission of world-ending religious zealotry? INVALUABLE to his cause.

BIG MISTAKE.

Blues:

Sorry, missed your post--wasn't ignoring it.

I think what we had here between us was a difference in style rather than objective. Now that he's given his speech, which I thought he should be allowed to do with us looking on in stoney silence rather than spitting and hissing, we can see why we should let people like him say their piece. We saw, for example, that he stretched himself to appear more reasonable on his signature issues, the holocaust, Israel and nuclear power...so on and so forth....

I think he was misunderstood on the gay thing...what he meant, I believe, is not that Iran did not have gays (homosexuals), but that they did not have openly gay communitities and gay rights.

His most baldface lie was denying Iran is after weapons grade nuclear material. Less than 5 net...ha!

Well, we got to see the bird fly--you have to concede that you can't learn about a bird unless you see it fly. Considering that he tailored his message to an American audience, I am sure the analysts in Washington are studying his speech carefully to see if anything is changing in his views. IMO, nothing much changed except tone. He's still trying to buy time for his nuke program.

**Dwarven Pirate** · 27 Sep 07,, 19:13

Wasn't he just featured on 60 Minutes recently as well? Is this better, worse, or the same as his speaking at Columbia?

**captain** · 28 Sep 07,, 04:42

It didn't take long for the haters to come out and it should be no surprise that it's another academic.

Every country seems to have these people and they distinguish themselves by their acerbic rants that offer only critisism but never any valid alternative.

I wonder how miserable it would be to live in their shoes and to hate their own so much.

This rant from Counterpunch

September 25, 2007

An Open Letter to Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University
A Barbarous and Ignorant Speech
By CLIFTON ROSS

To Mr. Lee Bollinger,

I'm writing you to express my outrage over your vulgar treatment of President Ahmadinejad yesterday when you invited him to speak at your university. Simple human etiquette of the most primitive and elemental sort, was required in the situation, but you failed to deliver even that. You were obnoxious, insulting and displayed an appalling ignorance of President Ahmadinejad, Iran and politics, not to mention the rules that govern "civilized" human conduct (arguably "primitive" conduct is even more governed by politeness and elevated rules of conduct).

Moreover, in a context that calls for objectivity, investigation, open mindedness and a willingness to learn and exchange ideas, you displayed a remarkable absence of any of those qualities. Instead, you showed yourself to be one with the bullying, abusive, ignorant and arrogant people who unfortunately govern our country at the moment and who are attempting to induce a phobic and neurotic xenophobia comparable only to what Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin inculcated in their countries during those moments of greatest darkness in human history. The irony of the situation is that you displayed all those qualities of which you accused President Ahmadinejad. Where was that display of that "great tradition of openness" in your callous, close minded speech? Your speech shows you to "exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" and worse: a bully, a man who invites a guest into his house, then abuses him before a cheering crowd.

You accuse President Ahmadinejad of "a brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates" but you fail to mention the scores of scholars, journalists and human rights advocates, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by U.S. forces in Iraq. Is that cowardice or a double standard or merely "oversight" on your part? And when you accuse President Ahmadinejad of denying the Holocaust and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, that is, when you pander to your Zionist supporters, you merely display an ignorance of the actual words of Ahmadinejad (words that were twisted in the translation to English, predictably; see this piece by Virginia Tilley,), which he corrected yesterday in his comments and clarifications.

However, when you say "your [Iran's] government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces" you show yourself to be as biased, and blinded by nationalism and an imperial arrogance as the architects of the genocide we're currently seeing in Iraq. You don't ask what "American troops in Iraq" are doing there as invaders, occupiers, who are, de facto, now made war criminals by being the willing instruments of the "war of aggression," considered the supreme international crime, one committed by Mr. George Bush through fabrications of evidence, lies, and manipulation; you don't ask what role those resistance fighters like Muqtada Al Sadr are playing, but those less blinded by nationalism than you would compare him to our own patriotic forefathers who fought the British for our own nationhood; and now you don't bother to ask what your ignorant, uninformed criticisms of President Ahmadinejad will do to help the same war criminals who destroyed Iraq to now go on and destroy Iran.

If you knew anything of history, the history of your own lifetime, you might understand the situation that currently confronts Iran. You probably know that the U.S. overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953 and set up a brutal, decadent Shah who was our man in the Middle East for the following two and a half decades. You may even know that the CIA helped organize the imprisonment, torture and killings of dissidents under that Shah, which is why the students took over the U.S. embassy when they finally got rid of the filth the U.S. had imposed upon them for all those dark years.

We don't need to agree with the elected President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, to show him the simple respect due an elected head of state. But you seem incapable of that simple act required of someone in your position. To call an elected president a "dictator," however, is not only insulting but inaccurate. Such epithets are reserved for those who impose themselves by force and by fraud, such as Mr. Bush, who has stolen two elections. But I'm sure you wouldn't use terms to describe your own head of state so, now would you?

The Chinese have a saying, roughly translated, that goes, "the one pointing his finger at another, has three fingers pointing at himself." But you are so blind to who you are, up there in your position of power as President of the prestigious Columbia University of New York in the great empire of the United States of America, that you don't see the man being accused by his three fingers. So, to close, I invite you to take a look at yourself, and our people, as another sees us. Her name is Layla Anwar and she writes a blog called Arab Woman Blues which you can find here.

I warn you. A man of your highly sensitive sensibilities may find some of her language harsh, painful, distasteful. But I assure you, she has far more justification for saying what she does than you did in your pronouncements against the President of Iran yesterday. And it is long, but I plead for you to have patience because you are a man in need of an education, and sometimes education is a very painful process.

She writes:

Is there anything in Iraq that the Americans have not destroyed?

Anything at all? ... The past - you have looted and destroyed. Trying to erase our collective historical memory ... Our roots, where we came from, what our ancestors did, their achievements, their trials, their statues, their writings ...

You do not know history, you are rejects of history. You have no history. You have no past, you have nothing ... you are nothing.

You are nothing but ogres of consumerism. Not just material stuff, but anything you can swallow whole you will. You even swallow other people's history whole.

You are a greedy, covetous, gluttonous, voracious, jealous, envious people ...

Since you are nothing, your nihilism contaminates everything else ...

You destroy and self destruct ...

No Future - You have no future, because inside of yourselves, your future is limited to your own little egos. Little egos have no future. Little egos are amoebas, parasites, feeding off others ... You think you have a vision but your vision is only about your stomach, your pockets and what you have in between your legs ... That is it.

This is where it stops. Surely this does not make you seers ...

What have you contributed to the world ? Anything of real substance? Nothing. Apart from brutal might and power ... and your sickening culture that is as hollow and as empty as you are.

And just as you have no real future, you robbed us of our own. You are collectively a bunch of criminals, thieves, thugs and perverts of the worst kind.

Since your ****ing 9/11, you have totally destroyed two countries. Afghanistan and Iraq. And you have not stopped. Not one day, not one hour ...

You wanted regime change in Iraq - you got it. You also changed us, me, beyond anything I can recognize ... I never hated you before. Today I do. I really hate you.

You collectively disgust me. Even our ancient Mesopotamian deities and spirits are disgusted with you. Every single letter of the Alphabet is disgusted with you.

The earth, the rivers, the sky, the mountains, the trees, the birds of Iraq are disgusted with you ... The cosmos is disgusted with you ...

Everytime I spot one of you anywhere in close proximity and hear that ugly accent of yours I run away ... I avoid you like the plague. I can't bear to hear you or see you.

You represent nothing but Death and Destruction to me. Your ugliness is all pervading ...

Everytime I switch on the TV or the Radio and see or hear one of you, I zap. I wish I can zap you out of my life once and for all ...

I know, I keep repeating myself, but then you keep repeating the same acts.

Iraq is going down, with its past and its future ...

I can only promise you one thing, however long it may take, we are going to take you down with us."

As a North American I can add nothing more except to apologize to Iraq for what my government has done and continues to do to them and to Iran for what you, and your government have done, and are preparing to do, to them. And to President Ahmadinejad, I apologize for Mr. Bollinger's barbarous and inexcusable words. Not all U.S. citizens are as ignorant and lacking in basic manners as the presidents of our universities.

Clifton Ross

Clifton Ross is the co-editor of Voice of Fire: Communiques and Interviews of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (1994, New Earth Publications). His book, Fables for an Open Field (1994, Trombone Press, New Earth Publications), has just been released in Spanish by La Casa Tomada of Venezuela. His forthcoming book of poems in translation, Traducir el Silencio, will be published later this year by Venezuela´s Ministry of Culture editorial, Perro y Rana. Ross teaches English at Berkeley City College, Berkeley, California. He can be reached at: clifross@gmail.com

And what is the point of the inclusion of Anwar's rant?

Perhaps some of the more erudite amoungst the WABers should send him a short note

Cheers.

**Dwarven Pirate** · 28 Sep 07,, 06:14

Every single letter of the Alphabet is disgusted with you.

I'm going to have to remember that one!

**Stan187** · 28 Sep 07,, 07:13

Not only the single ones, even the married letters are disgusted.

**astralis** · 28 Sep 07,, 15:06

stan,

i see that poor pun and raise you "i'm-a-dinner-jacket."

**entropy** · 28 Sep 07,, 20:19

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Here's what I imagine we'll be getting from the hippie-dippie far-left spoiled-rotten students of Columbia today:

Brilliant sir. Removed the stress of one week of maths drill of the faculty in one read.

**Kansas Bear** · 09 Oct 07,, 05:26

Iranian students clash with police during protest against Ahmadinejad

About 100 students staged a rare protest yesterday against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling him a "dictator" as he gave a speech marking the beginning of the academic year at Tehran University.

The protest prompted scuffles between the demonstrators and hardline university students loyal to Ahmadinejad, who ignored chants of "Death to dictator" and continued his speech on the merits of science and pitfalls of Western-style democracy, witnesses said.

The hardline students chanted back "Thank you president" as police looked on from the outside the university's gates. No physical altercations took place, and the protesters dispersed after the car carrying Ahmadinejad left the campus.

Students were once the main power base of Iran's reform movement but have faced intense pressure in recent years from Ahmadinejad's hard-line government, making anti-government protests rare.

The president faced a similar outburst during a speech in December when students at Amir Kabir Technical University called him a dictator and set fire to his picture.

Hoping to avoid a similar disturbance Monday, organizers imposed tight security measures, checking the identity papers of all students entering the university and allowing only selected students into the hall. But the protesters were somehow able to gain entrance.

Iran's reform movement peaked in the late 1990s after former reformist President Mohammad Khatami was elected and his supporters swept parliament. But during that time, hard-liners who control the judiciary, security forces and powerful unelected bodies in the government, stymied attempts to ease social and political restrictions.

Reformists — who want to loosen Iran's social and political restrictions and favor better relations with the US — were further demoralized and divided after the 2005 election that brought Ahmadinejad to power.

In recent months, dissenters have witnessed an increasing crackdown in Iran, and hundreds have been rounded up on accusations of threatening the Iranian system. Numerous pro-reform newspapers have been shut down and those that remain have been muted in their criticism fearing closure.

At universities, pro-reform students have been marginalized and now only hold low-level meetings and occasional demonstrations, usually to demand better school facilities or the release of detained colleagues. At the same time, pro-government student groups have grown more powerful.

Some dissenters blame the crackdown on the regime's fear of a U.S. effort to undermine it as tensions over Iran's nuclear program intensify. Others say the intent is simply to contain discontent fueled by a faltering economy.

Iranian students clash with police during protest against Ahmadinejad - Independent Online Edition > Middle East