Why accommodate this idiot???
Columbia, WTH over ???? [:(!]
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the American people are eager for different opinions about the world, and he is looking forward to providing them with "correct and clear information," state media reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
The hardline Iranian leader left Sunday for New York to address the U.N. General Assembly and speak to students and teachers during a forum at Columbia University.
Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops - claims Iran denies.
Ahmadinejad said his visit will give Americans a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions," Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying.
State-run television also quoted Ahmadinejad before boarding his presidential plane Sunday as saying that the General Assembly was an "important podium" to express Iran's views on regional and global issues.
He is scheduled to address the Assembly on Tuesday - his third time attending the New York meeting in three years. He is also set to speak at a Columbia University question-and-answer forum on Monday in New York.
His request to lay a wreath at ground zero, site of the World Trade Center 2001 terror attacks, was denied by city officials and condemned by politicians. After the Sept. 11 attacks, hundreds of young Iranians held a series of candlelight vigils in Tehran.
Police rejected Ahmadinejad's request, citing construction and security concerns. In an interview to air Sunday on "60 Minutes," Ahmadinejad indicated he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also appeared dismayed that the request was rejected.
"What kind of damage will the U.S. face" by Ahmadinejad visiting the site, Hosseini asked at his weekly press conference Sunday.
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has resisted requests to cancel the event but promised to introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government's alleged support of terrorism.
Columbia canceled a planned visit by the Iranian president last year, citing security and logistical reasons. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Hosseini said there "are efforts to cancel" the Columbia speech, but the Iranian government is continuing to pursue the program. He did not elaborate other than saying a lot of pressure was being placed on the program's sponsors.
Ahmadinejad's visit to New York is also being debated back home. Some in Iran think his trip is a publicity stint that hurts Iran's image in the world.
Political analyst Iraj Jamshidi said Ahmadinejad looks at the General Assembly as a publicity forum simply to surprise world leaders with his unpredictable rhetoric.
"The world has not welcomed Ahmadinejad's hardline approach. His previous address to the Assembly didn't resolve any of Iran's foreign policy issues. And no one expects anything better this time," he said.
Independent Iranian analysts also criticized Ahmadinejad for making the trip, saying his anti-Western rhetoric makes life for Iran more difficult.
"Many experts believe Ahmadinejad's previous two visits brought no achievement ... rather, it heightened tensions," the reformist daily Etemad-e-Melli, or National Confidence, said in an editorial Sunday.
But conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said it was a good chance for Iran to air its position.
"This trip gives the president a good chance to meet world leaders and inform them of Iran's rightful position," IRNA quoted Boroujerdi as saying.
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran were heightened in recent days after U.S. forces detained an Iranian official in northern Iraq.
Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open. The commander of the U.S. military forces in the Middle East said he does not believe tension will lead to war.
"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, told Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us;_ylt=Aq6hlkmNStpLlsqMfOpQmnGs0N
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the American people are eager for different opinions about the world, and he is looking forward to providing them with "correct and clear information," state media reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
The hardline Iranian leader left Sunday for New York to address the U.N. General Assembly and speak to students and teachers during a forum at Columbia University.
Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops - claims Iran denies.
Ahmadinejad said his visit will give Americans a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions," Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying.
State-run television also quoted Ahmadinejad before boarding his presidential plane Sunday as saying that the General Assembly was an "important podium" to express Iran's views on regional and global issues.
He is scheduled to address the Assembly on Tuesday - his third time attending the New York meeting in three years. He is also set to speak at a Columbia University question-and-answer forum on Monday in New York.
His request to lay a wreath at ground zero, site of the World Trade Center 2001 terror attacks, was denied by city officials and condemned by politicians. After the Sept. 11 attacks, hundreds of young Iranians held a series of candlelight vigils in Tehran.
Police rejected Ahmadinejad's request, citing construction and security concerns. In an interview to air Sunday on "60 Minutes," Ahmadinejad indicated he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also appeared dismayed that the request was rejected.
"What kind of damage will the U.S. face" by Ahmadinejad visiting the site, Hosseini asked at his weekly press conference Sunday.
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has resisted requests to cancel the event but promised to introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government's alleged support of terrorism.
Columbia canceled a planned visit by the Iranian president last year, citing security and logistical reasons. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Hosseini said there "are efforts to cancel" the Columbia speech, but the Iranian government is continuing to pursue the program. He did not elaborate other than saying a lot of pressure was being placed on the program's sponsors.
Ahmadinejad's visit to New York is also being debated back home. Some in Iran think his trip is a publicity stint that hurts Iran's image in the world.
Political analyst Iraj Jamshidi said Ahmadinejad looks at the General Assembly as a publicity forum simply to surprise world leaders with his unpredictable rhetoric.
"The world has not welcomed Ahmadinejad's hardline approach. His previous address to the Assembly didn't resolve any of Iran's foreign policy issues. And no one expects anything better this time," he said.
Independent Iranian analysts also criticized Ahmadinejad for making the trip, saying his anti-Western rhetoric makes life for Iran more difficult.
"Many experts believe Ahmadinejad's previous two visits brought no achievement ... rather, it heightened tensions," the reformist daily Etemad-e-Melli, or National Confidence, said in an editorial Sunday.
But conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said it was a good chance for Iran to air its position.
"This trip gives the president a good chance to meet world leaders and inform them of Iran's rightful position," IRNA quoted Boroujerdi as saying.
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran were heightened in recent days after U.S. forces detained an Iranian official in northern Iraq.
Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open. The commander of the U.S. military forces in the Middle East said he does not believe tension will lead to war.
"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, told Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us;_ylt=Aq6hlkmNStpLlsqMfOpQmnGs0N
0
-
Because any sane person will avoid friction and war if possible. Just like a harmonious family, countries sometimes have harsh words for each other. Working out differences is preferable to throwing plates and kicking holes in the wall.
Sometimes war is unavoidable and should be fought so as to be won. Something our country has forgotten how to do it seems. I would rather waste as few American lives as possible, especially since I won't be on the firing line.
It would be bad manners also.0 -
E-mail sent to this bozo at Columbia. Everyone else should do the same (IMHO). No negotiations with mulim terrorists like the president of Iran will, or can, be productive. 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Because any sane person will avoid friction and war if possible. Just like a harmonious family, countries sometimes have harsh words for each other. Working out differences is preferable to throwing plates and kicking holes in the wall.
Sometimes war is unavoidable and should be fought so as to be won. Something our country has forgotten how to do it seems. I would rather waste as few American lives as possible, especially since I won't be on the firing line.
It would be bad manners also.
Understand, however, the US and the UN have tried without any resolve, what is Columbia hope to gain? Freedom of speech? Media fame? Etc ...
This guy has nothing to lose but everything to gain [:(!][V].0 -
SP,
Thanks for the PC [:p].0 -
Universities are supposed to be places where all points of view are freely exchanged and discussed. Controversial and unpopular speakers are a part of this process. However, many universities have become so Liberal (many are now run by the Flower Children of the 1960s) that they are not places of frre exchange but rather are simply bastions of radical Liberalism.
At Columbia the ROTC was kicked off campus. The military is not welcome there. PLO terrorists are welcome, and a lecturer from that organization was warmly greeted and allowed to speak. But not a representative from the Minutemen group who was booed off the stage when he tried to explain his group's position.
If Columbia welcomed all points of view and accommodated Conservatives and the military with the same zeal that they welcome the enemies of this nation then allowing the Iranian president to speak would be defensible. As is, it is not because of the radical bias of the institution.
The only thing that will affect the university is if donations dry up in protest. Most donations come from alumni. If the former students are screwed-up Leftists like the current president and many of the current students then that won't happen.0 -
Avoiding derogatory, insulting verbiage has nothing to do with being PC, it has everything to do with common courtesy. A visitor to the forum who has nothing to do with the man you are discussing but happened to be of Middle Eastern descent would likely be offended by that term you used.
Keep it civil.0 -
Well put, Saxon Pig: "If Columbia welcomed all points of view and accommodated Conservatives and the military with the same zeal that they welcome the enemies of this nation then allowing the Iranian president to speak would be defensible."
I agree. The university is, ideally, a place where all viewpoints are heard, and in this spirit, the Iranian president should be allowed to speak. I would like to hear what he has to say. I am mature enough not to take my marching orders from Hannity and Limbaugh as to what my viewpoint on world leaders should be.
Sadly this once-great university has been taken over by leftist radicals who only will allow leftists, or enemies of the U.S., to speak. Very sad situation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Avoiding derogatory, insulting verbiage has nothing to do with being PC, it has everything to do with common courtesy. A visitor to the forum who has nothing to do with the man you are discussing but happened to be of Middle Eastern descent would likely be offended by that term you used.
Keep it civil.
Point well taken. Thanks.0 -
By all means, we MUST remain civil when dealing with blood-thirsty, boy-buggering, muslims who seek nothing less than the absolute annihilation of every NON-muslim on the planet. We'd not want them to think us discourteous while they slit our throats and sodomize our women and farm animals.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com0 -
Couldn't have said it better, myself.
"By all means, we MUST remain civil when dealing with blood-thirsty, boy-buggering, muslims who seek nothing less than the absolute annihilation of every NON-muslim on the planet. We'd not want them to think us discourteous while they slit our throats and sodomize our women and farm animals."
-Ram
Doug0 -
some "viewpoints" just arent acceptable. for instance, a person who is directing his troops to kill american soldiers EVERYDAY is not a "viewpoint", its an ENEMY who should be KILLED.
what the hell has happened to america when we view KILLERS as "viewpoints" ??
if i was at columbia i would kill the iranian president myself and DARE the american government to do anything about it. they just might find a revolt on their hands.0 -
Religious conversion at the point of a blade gets you exactly what? No single religion will ever convert everyone to it's views. The Soviets and Chinese thought they had done away with religion only to find that as soon as the door was opened a crack a flood of the faithful came out of hiding. The Chinese just let the Pope name a Chinese Cardinal for crying out loud. This in a country that has banned all religion for 50 years by pain of death. And what is Iran? The Rhode Island National Guard could kick their ass in a war and be home for Thanksgiving. We have nothing to fear from any of those countries as long as they don't cut off the oil supply and they rely on the income too much to do that. The whole thing is a political scam to divert attention away from $3/lb hamburger and $3/gal gas, 20 million illegal immigrants and rising taxes, a collapse in the housing market and bank failures worldwide etc etc... 0 -
mmmmmmm, a hamburger sounds good right now..... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by BarkingDog
mmmmmmm, a hamburger sounds good right now.....
Yep, I went and made myself hungry too.0 -
Where's a stinger when you meed one! 0 -
Maybe most of you are too young to remember one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century. He was part of the hostile Soviet backed Arab cartel that vowed distruction of Israel, send his armies on a jihad and suffered the wrath of the world and the defeat of his armies.
Then he changed his mind.
The leader was Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. He went to Israel and met with Begin and made peace that continues to this day. A faction of his own people killed him for his troubles.
Even Libyan President Kaddafi (sp?) changed his tune and stopped sponsoring terrorism and is now accepted back into the first world arena.
Some leaders, like Stalin or Hitler, never will change and the jury is still out on Kim Jong and Putin.
There is still time to convert this Iranian president before we have to consign him to the hopeless file.
I was once the biggest warmonger you ever saw while in uniform. Now that I'm out to pasture, I no longer want to see our young men and women die in combat if it can be avoided. Let them live their lives in peace. I'm sure many ex-military would agree.0 -
"Why accommodate this idiot???"
To perhaps avoid a war with Iran. Unless you would rather call them the "axis of evil" and try to instigate war.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horney toad
"Why accommodate this idiot???"
To perhaps avoid a war with Iran. Unless you would rather call them the "axis of evil" and try to instigate war.
of course, its americas fault. get your head out of your ass. iran was evil long before we called them evil.0 -
We should always be willing to talk with our enemies.
War is not always the answer, as George Bush has so well demonstrated.0 -
Barking Dog (and others):
Pointing out real or perceived faults with our own government is not "blaming America". The ability to consider disagreement or even the asking of questions to be treason, or disloyalty, is one of the qualities that has marked the tyrants and dictators of both recent and ancient history.
I'm unhappy, to say the least, with the performance of President Bush. I believe (you may disagree -- that's fine) that he played on the nation's justified rage and suspicion, following 9-11, to get us into Iraq. I believe I was lied to, that Americans in general were lied to -- and the fact that large portions of the rationale for our being there have changed, several times, doesn't inspire confidence in the idea that maybe I just don't understand what was said and what's going on.
But I'm not a traitor. I have the right to disagree with my government, to mistrust my government if it merits my distrust, and to be outspokenly critical of my government. No less an ultra-liberal assortment of traitors known as the founding fathers insisted that this was not only my right, but my duty, as an American.
And, before you go jumping to the wrong conclusion -- I'm not interested in much of anything the president of Iran has to say. I don't contribute money to Columbia University or have kids going to school there, so it's not my right to tell them they can't let the man speak there, but they damn sure shouldn't. In my opinion. And as a citizen of this country, I was happy to hear he was denied access to the World Trade Center site. "A poor diplomatic move" an acquaintance of mine calls it. "About time someone put the feelings of citizens of this country over diplomacy," was my reply.
More than anything, I agree with p3skyking -- I'm too old to be in any danger if we go to war, and I modify my feelings toward the likes of Iran, Iraq, etc with the realization that what I might like to do in regard to countries like that, will cause men and women I respect highly to be killed -- for what I believe. Yes, they took an oath to serve, to fight and die if called upon to do so, but we whom they serve owe them our very careful consideration as to whether what we want is worth their lives.
As for the Crusades, folks, they didn't work the first (or second through seventh) time, and the first and third in particular were carried out by men who, in terms of barbarism, were beyond any sane comprehension. The only force that might accomplish what they didn't would involve a degree of savagery greater than theirs. I for one am not eager to see what sort of people and nation that would turn us into.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
We should always be willing to talk with our enemies.
War is not always the answer, as George Bush has so well demonstrated.
Makes sense to me. Unless you trust the "decider" to start another quagmire.0 -
Mongrel1776 - yes you are too old to go to war. however, you arent too old to be killed here in america or while visiting another country by a terrorist attack.
you might not like war but you are forgetting the war wasnt delcared by america, it was declared by islamic radicals and whether you choose to fight it or not THEY will continue trying to kill you.
the people who are trying to kill you (whether you understand it or not) are being aided and sometimes directed by foreign governments, one of them being Iran.
i will not sit by and let people try to kill me and my family. you might be too old to do anything about it and you might be too old to even care. apparently you are too old to comprhend the meaning and consequences of terrorism so i suggest you step aside and let the logical and courageous deal with the problem.
and yes, dealing with the problems sometimes means going to war. going to war in this case merely means fighting back against those who have already started killing us.0 -
quote:Originally posted by BarkingDog
Mongrel1776 - yes you are too old to go to war. however, you arent too old to be killed here in america or while visiting another country by a terrorist attack.
you might not like war but you are forgetting the war wasnt delcared by america, it was declared by islamic radicals and whether you choose to fight it or not THEY will continue trying to kill you.
the people who are trying to kill you (whether you understand it or not) are being aided and sometimes directed by foreign governments, one of them being Iran.
i will not sit by and let people try to kill me and my family. you might be too old to do anything about it and you might be too old to even care. apparently you are too old to comprhend the meaning and consequences of terrorism so i suggest you step aside and let the logical and courageous deal with the problem.
and yes, dealing with the problems sometimes means going to war. going to war in this case merely means fighting back against those who have already started killing us.
Logical and courageous? More like gullible and hormonal. This here post is up there in the top five of the funniest things I have ever read on GB. Only scary thing is that I think he actually believes what he said. Ok Einstien, how do you propose to eventually have this war of yours to come to an end?0 -
war of mine ? i think you missed the point. i didnt delcare war, al-qaeda declared war on me. i think you should be asking THEM how they see this war ending. 0 -
BarkingDog, I started off being angry that you take what I said as an unwillingness to fight terrorism, and an inability to even understand what it is and the danger it poses to me. Now -- it's funny. And sort of sad.
Having the intelligence to consider the consequences of our actions, as individuals and as a nation, doesn't mean being unwilling to fight, it just means being willing to give it some thought before doing so. Self-defense sometimes -- usually -- involves not having time to think. In that case I'll just act and worry about whether it was the best thing to do, later, if I'm still alive and able to care. But I prefer thinking, first, not because I sympathize with my enemy or am worried that it might not be fair to kill him, but because thinking about it first might mean I won't be killed in the process of trying to put his head on a stake.
Caring whether the men and women in our armed forces live or die, and basing what I ask of them on the fact that I do care, is so far from being afraid to fight, or too stupid to know when we have to, that I'm really wondering how much of my post you actually read. Enough to realize I disagreed with something you said, and to decide you needed to basically call me an idiot and a coward. That about cover it?
In case you can't quite grasp what I just said, let me simplify.
I will try to settle any differences, or agree to disagree, with anyone who's NOT trying to kill me, or who's already tried to kill me.
If they try to kill me, try to kill my loved ones and neighbors, or give me reason to believe they intend to try, I will make it my business to obliterate those persons, anyone who supports them, or anyone who for any reason is stupid enough to try and stop me. Then I will remind everyone left, who might still have a problem with me, that I'm willing to talk.
You have every right to be as dead-wrong about me as you are, but you're still wrong.0 -
okay, thanks 0 -
"i will not sit by and let people try to kill me and my family. you might be too old to do anything about it and you might be too old to even care. apparently you are too old to comprhend the meaning and consequences of terrorism so i suggest you step aside and let the logical and courageous deal with the problem."
OK, hero, why don't you join the army and handle thing yourself.
You sound like a complete young fool.0 -
War with Iran is inevitable unless there is a coup in Iran. Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the destruction of Isreal and domination of the middle east.
He will eventually attack Isreal overtly, probably as soon as he gets nukes, we will defend Isreal, and Iran will lose.
I have no problem with the above scenario as it is obvious that there is no way we will ever be at piece with Ahmadinejad. The only thing that I hope is after Iran is pounded a little further back into the stone-age, that we just leave and let them rebuild themselves.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
28 comments