Legislatures May Act on Columbia University

decides2dream · September 2007

sigh eternally wrote:

he also said homosexuality does not exist in Iran.

so, can we have all the gay bashing creeps in this country follow Ahmadinejad back to his country? sounds like paradise to me... if i were a hate monger.

i'm kinda bummed out that he didn't wear his tan Member's Only jacket like he usually does. I like his style. wears the same shit day in and day out no matter how hot it gets in Persia.
smooth.

i didn't get to catch the whole thing at all.... at work......but i got highlights on CNN at lunch. and, i think this is exactly why it was a GOOD idea that columbia let him speak...so people can see/hear firsthand what a bonehead he is. i also like how direct/upfront the president of columbia was with his introduction.....well done.

polaris · September 2007

decides2dream wrote:

i didn't get to catch the whole thing at all.... at work......but i got highlights on CNN at lunch. and, i think this is exactly why it was a GOOD idea that columbia let him speak...so people can see/hear firsthand what a bonehead he is. i also like how direct/upfront the president of columbia was with his introduction.....well done.

i didn't see any of this but from what i read here and on news reports - i thought the president of columbia succumbed to public pressures and did an awful job ...

if you are going to give someone an opportunity to speak openly and honestly - starting off with opening remarks that contained mistruths and words taken out of context shows that ultimately he was set up ...

i'm no fan of this guy but if you are going to preach an open dialogue - you can't have the guy being interviewed like he is on the bill o'reilly show ... with all the guest speakers being from jewish groups ...

soulsinging · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

seems hypocritical of him to criticize the US for backing Israel when Iran is solely responsible for funding and operated hezbolla no?

seems kind of hypocritical of us to criticize iran for backing hezbollah when we are almost solely responsible for funding and arming the israeli military.

that goes both ways, and pointing fingers and saying "they started it" gets us nowhere.

now i'd just like to find out how we get fred phelps sent over there where homosexuality does not exist. i'd like to tack a few posters here onto that flight too.

jlew24asu · September 2007

soulsinging wrote:

seems kind of hypocritical of us to criticize iran for backing hezbollah when we are almost solely responsible for funding and arming the israeli military.

that goes both ways, and pointing fingers and saying "they started it" gets us nowhere.

I kind of agree. then we get into the whole who is worse Israel or Hezbollah. and that will get us nowhere

soulsinging wrote:

now i'd just like to find out how we get fred phelps sent over there where homosexuality does not exist. i'd like to tack a few posters here onto that flight too.

I wonder what gay people do over in Iran. of course there has to be gays in Iran but how do they meet? interact? is it punishable by death?

gue_barium · September 2007

meme wrote:

Sorry, there was an hour overlap with the Charlie Rose/Vedder, so I missed the first hour

I caught his responses to the questions about the Holocaust and about the destruction of the state of Israel.

On the Holocaust: he called for further research to establish the facts. At the end of his reply he said that in any case it was unfair that the Palestinian people had to be the ones to bear the brunt of the establishment of a safe haven for Jews worldwide: "the Holocaust happened in Europe, why was it 5 million palestinians who had to be displaced?".

On the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state: he said Iran loves all nations, and Jews are represented in the Iranian parliament beyond what numbers would warrant. He said they do not recognize "that regime" because it is discriminatory and is in a state of constant hostility towards other nations in the area. And that it is unfair for other nations in the world to interfere in the area by arming one faction against the others. There should be self-determination. He was then pressed by the official questioner on giving a yes/no answer to the question: "does Iran favor the destruction of Israel as a state" and he turned back to the questioner and asked for a yes/no answer to the question whether the palestinian plea had to be an international issue (questioner replied yes).

Honestly... and I guess that's where my own unwillingness to listening to opinions I disagree with lies... I walked away when he was asked about women's rights and the putting to death of homosexuals in Iran. He said something about Iran being a participatory democracy, about other nations having no right to dictate domestic policy, and blabbered something about "the United States also have the death penalty. If someone intrudes in a home and kills, do you reward them? We have a responsibility to fight the spread of microbes to the rest of society". That's when I turned it off.

But the thing is, now.

Why is this coming to us now?

meme · September 2007

polaris wrote:

i didn't see any of this but from what i read here and on news reports - i thought the president of columbia succumbed to public pressures and did an awful job ...

if you are going to give someone an opportunity to speak openly and honestly - starting off with opening remarks that contained mistruths and words taken out of context shows that ultimately he was set up ...

i'm no fan of this guy but if you are going to preach an open dialogue - you can't have the guy being interviewed like he is on the bill o'reilly show ... with all the guest speakers being from jewish groups ...

I have to say... from what I caught of him, I agree with you.

beachdweller · September 2007

I hope everyone that is flipping out about Columbia allow him to speak pays attention to the rest of the forums on Iran the rest of the year. I'm curious to see how the overall program will end up? I think he made a couple points that make you think, but for the most part it was what I expected, evasive answers, not owning up to anything, and a lot of rhetoric.

the worse part of this was the attach on the Iranian president at the start, it was pandering to those that provide money to the college that have threatened to pull their support, and I think it backfired. Should have kept the attacks on the policies of IRan, and not attack the man, which he did some of.

One interesting question he posed was why the Palistenian people have to suffer for what the nazis did to Jews in the 30's & 40's? Of course if you have a better understanding of the history of the area that is Israel, it's not as powerful a question, but even with that, why not giving Jew's part of Germany?

anyway, I honestly don't think there will be peace in the holy land any time soon, though one can hope. To bad a place is far more important that a person's life.

decides2dream · September 2007

polaris wrote:

i didn't see any of this but from what i read here and on news reports - i thought the president of columbia succumbed to public pressures and did an awful job ...

if you are going to give someone an opportunity to speak openly and honestly - starting off with opening remarks that contained mistruths and words taken out of context shows that ultimately he was set up ...

i'm no fan of this guy but if you are going to preach an open dialogue - you can't have the guy being interviewed like he is on the bill o'reilly show ... with all the guest speakers being from jewish groups ...

as i said, i didn't get to see/hear it....just paraphrasing/highlights on CNN. so, i didn't know it was like that...it simply was presented as if he was posing serious Qs to the president of iran....and asking him to clarify some of these hot issues.

either way....it's STILL an open dialogue.

polaris · September 2007

yesterday was a sad day for global ignorance and tolerance

Legislatures May Act on Columbia University

Comments

Categories