Iran's own High Priest of Lunacy, Mahmoud Ahmadgenocide is going to be appearing at Columbia University today.

There has been much discussion on the question of whether Columbia should or should not offer this forum to I'msomadinside or whether they should have told I'mamadjihad to f@*& off. I'm sure that most of you can figure out my position on this question easily enough. So that is not really the point of this post.

My point is this: Columbia's students have a history of bum-rushing the stage when Conservative speakers appear at the university and not allowing the speakers to speak. In at least one case, they physically attacked the speaker at the start of his speech on immigration issues and border control issues.

Will those same students, who claim a love of "freedom of speech" be rushing the stage when I'msomadi'msad is speaking? Or will they politel applaud his rants a raves about how the USA has caused terrorism throughout the world, how Israel has caused a new "holocaust" against Palestinians, and how Islam, "the religion of peace" is going to take over the world and destroy anything that isn't Muslim?

Elliot

Typical of American institutes of higher learning... Yale treated that idiot Taliban leader Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi as a rock star also when they let him enroll as a student. John Coatsworth, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia,defended the decision to invite the Mahdi Hatter by saying he would invite Hitler to speak if he were visiting at the "League of Nations" and were willing to answer all those "tough questions "he is bound to get .

Coatsworth may have a point. 1938 Hitler like Ahamamadjihad was only a potential threat. But then again ; Hitler railed against the Bolsheviks so one has to wonder what kind of podium he would've gotten when he ranted against the orthodoxy .

I am sure he will get a rock star reception. He has all the left's talking points down if you were to judge by listening to his '60 Minutes ' interview . Ahmadinejad: Iran Not Walking Toward War, Iranian Leader Tells Scott Pelley His Country Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons - CBS News

What Coatsworth needs to understand is that to at least some degree Columbia Universty get's public assistance. NY Sun is reporting that the NY legislature are not happy campers today.

Quote:

---

"There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver said. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution."

Mr. Silver faulted Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual," saying, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country. It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome. We don't have to give him a forum."

---

Legislatures May Act on Columbia - September 24, 2007 - The New York Sun

Otherwise I think the alumnus should withhold contributions to the University until the current leadership is replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Iran's own High Priest of Lunacy, Mahmoud Ahmadgenocide is going to be appearing at Columbia University today.

There has been much discussion on the question of whether Columbia should or should not offer this forum to I'msomadinside or whether they should have told I'mamadjihad to f@*& off. I'm sure that most of you can figure out my position on this question easily enough. So that is not really the point of this post.

My point is this: Columbia's students have a history of bum-rushing the stage when Conservative speakers appear at the university and not allowing the speakers to speak. In at least one case, they physically attacked the speaker at the start of his speech on immigration issues and border control issues.

Will those same students, who claim a love of "freedom of speech" be rushing the stage when I'msomadi'msad is speaking? Or will they politel applaud his rants a raves about how the USA has caused terrorism thoughout the world, how Israel has caused a new "holocaust" against Palestinians, and how Islam, "the religion of peace" is going to take over the world and destroy anything that isn't Muslim?

Elliot

---

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_ir..._070924_ms.jpg


Zeinab Fard, a 25-year-old graduate student studying economics, estimated there were more than 100 Iranian students at Columbia.

"It's good that Ahmadinejad is speaking here directly and not through the filter of the American media, which sometimes twists his words," she said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Otherwise I think the alumnus should withhold contributions to the University until the current leadership is replaced.

---

Wouldn't those be the same alumni that were taught to think that way by this very school? Aren't they the same alumni who support the idea that "everybody deserves a forum"? (Unless they are a conservative, support Israel, or believe that our borders should be secure, of course. People like that don't deserve a forum.)

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_ir..._070924_ms.jpg


Zeinab Fard, a 25-year-old graduate student studying economics, estimated there were more than 100 Iranian students at Columbia.

"It's good that Ahmadinejad is speaking here directly and not through the filter of the American media, which sometimes twists his words," she said.

---

Good for her. Ms. Fard has my respect and my support.

But where is the rest of the "liberal" student body and faculty of Columbia? These so-called liberals have a tendency to support regimes that force women to wear veils in public, limit and even eliminate basic freedoms, and reject the very idea of freedom. What is "liberal" about that?

And why are they so outspoken against the ideas of conservativism that are designed to protect their very safety and security so that they can continue to be outspoken against conservatives, while at the same time supporting oppressive regimes that would eliminate their very right to be outspoken?

Will the rest of the Columbia University community protest the way Ms. Fard is?

Elliot

Here is the list of Columbia Trustees for all considering sending them regards .

Office of the Secretary of The University: Background Information

Armen A. Avanessians
Lee C. Bollinger, President
A'Lelia Bundles
José Cabranes
Stephen Case
William V. Campbell, Chair
Patricia M. Cloherty
Kenneth Forde
Eric Holder
Ellen Oran Kaden
Ann F. Kaplan
Mark E. Kingdon
Marilyn Laurie, Vice Chair
Gerry Lenfest
Philip Milstein, Vice Chair
Vikram Pandit
Michael B. Rothfeld
Joan Edelman Spero
Esta Stecher
Kyriakos Tsakopoulos
Savio Tung
Faye Wattleton
Richard E. Witten
Dr. Clyde Y. C. Wu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Good for her. Ms. Fard has my respect and my support.

But where is the rest of the "liberal" student body and faculty of Columbia? These so-called liberals have a tendency to support regimes that force women to wear veils in public, limit and even eliminate basic freedoms, and reject the very idea of freedom. What is "liberal" about that?

And why are they so outspoken against the ideas of conservativism that are designed to protect their very safety and security so that they can continue to be outspoken against conservatives, while at the same time supporting oppressive regimes that would eliminate their very right to be outspoken?

Will the rest of the Columbia University community protest the way Ms. Fard is?

Elliot

---

“You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” said Mr. Bollinger, addressing the forum before Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks. Speaking directly to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was sitting to his left on the stage, Mr. Bollinger said the Iranian president was either “astonishingly uneducated” or “brazenly provocative” for denying the Holocaust.

But Mr. Bollinger said that he wanted to emphasize that “this is the right thing to do” to have Mr. Ahmadinejad speak at the university, because of the country’s tradition of openness and free speech.

“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies,” he said.

Questions and Protests Confront Iran's President - New York Times

Quote:

---

Columbia's students have a history of bum-rushing the stage when Conservative speakers appear at the university and not allowing the speakers to speak. In at least one case, they physically attacked the speaker at the start of his speech on immigration issues and border control issues.

---

Another example of blatant liberal hypocrisy. I'm sure you heard the University of California uninvited former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers because it "conveys the wrong message.. . To invite a speaker who has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia."

We can't have a Harvard president speak because it sends the wrong message but it's proper to invite an insane Jihadist that wants to wipe Israel off the map, or in the case of Kent State, keep them on the payroll as an educator.

Steve

I'm not a fascist like *you* and I'minmypajamas. I believe in free speech... let him dig his own grave at Columbia... The President of Columbia introduced him as a PETTY DICTATOR. That's just for openers. There are the marchers and the questioneers to deal with.

Should be interesting.

I don't need a fascist like yourself telling me who can speak in my country. Fascists like you and your Board friends Tom and Tex.

I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH.
DANGER IS THOSE WHO WANT TO SILENCE WHOEVER THEY DON'T AGREE WITH. THAT MEANS THEY HAVE NEFARIOUS GOALS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I'm not a fascist like *you* and I'minmypajamas. I believe in free speech... let him dig his own grave at Columbia... The President of Columbia introduced him as a PETTY DICTATOR. That's just for openers. There are the marchers and the questioneers to deal with.

Should be interesting.

I don't need a fascist like yourself telling me who can speak in my country. Fascists like you and your Board friends Tom and Tex.

---

Except for the part about calling me a fascist I agree with you (I bet that hurts). Even you have the right to your little tantrums.

Bollinger did have some tough words for the little dictator, which makes me wonder if the left really does get it why haven't they been saying those things the last 5 years instead of demanding impeachment of Bush and apologizing for our starting wars in I'mamadjihadist's section of the world. Personally I think they'll seize on Bollinger's words as being heroic while still condemning every conservative that's said the same thing all along.

Quote:

---

I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH.
DANGER IS THOSE WHO WANT TO SILENCE WHOEVER THEY DON'T AGREE WITH. THAT MEANS THEY HAVE NEFARIOUS GOALS.

---

Again, I agree. Enough of the speech codes, political correctness, shouting down conservatives and whining about those dangerous abortion protesters.

I forgot the word CRUEL!! A PETTY CRUEL DICTATOR!

Many of us listened to the speech of A (as I will refer to him as, because my fingers are tired). I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction to his speech. Many on the Right feel that A should not have been given this opportunity. I feel otherwise. To allow the light of day to shine on this charlatan, with his ever present, Alfred E. Newman grin, will let people with a mind to see him for what he is: a consummate liar.

Last night on 60 Minutes, A. denied providing weapons that kill American soldiers. This I believe to be a flat out lie. Why does the US PR machine do such a poor job of bringing out the truth? I remember when Henry Cabot Lodge, the US representative to the UN embarrassed the Soviets with his disclosure of clandestine listening devices hidden in a gifted seal of the US, to the embassy. It sure would be nice to have a US ambassador to the UN, provide conclusive proof to the members of the UN, as to the complicity of Iran in providing these munitions, as well as their other crimes.

CIA, FBI, FDA, FCCA, DEA, NFG, BFD, where in the hell are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Will those same students, who claim a love of "freedom of speech" be rushing the stage when I'msomadi'msad is speaking? Or will they politel applaud his rants a raves about how the USA has caused terrorism thoughout the world, how Israel has caused a new "holocaust" against Palestinians, and how Islam, "the religion of peace" is going to take over the world and destroy anything that isn't Muslim?

Elliot

---

Elliot-

Any U.S. students so encouraged to cast their lots with Mahmoud Haman (shake gragers) should be forced to join him on the plane ride back to their new residence.




Bobby

Help. I started a thread on the same topic probably a bit late. Is there an administrator who can move my ramblings to this one without me retyping?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr D

Many of us listened to the speech of A (as I will refer to him as, because my fingers are tired). I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction to his speech. Many on the Right feel that A should not have been given this opportunity. I feel otherwise. To allow the light of day to shine on this charlatan, with his ever present, Alfred E. Newman grin, will let people with a mind to see him for what he is: a consummate liar.

Last night on 60 Minutes, A. denied providing weapons that kill American soldiers. This I believe to be a flat out lie. Why does the US PR machine do such a poor job of bringing out the truth? I remember when Henry Cabot Lodge, the US representative to the UN embarrassed the Soviets with his disclosure of clandestine listening devices hidden in a gifted seal of the US, to the embassy. It sure would be nice to have a US ambassador to the UN, provide conclusive proof to the members of the UN, as to the complicity of Iran in providing these munitions, as well as their other crimes.

CIA, FBI, FDA, FCCA, DEA, NFG, BFD, where in the hell are you?

---

I'm not an admin, but I agree with your point!

Even if proof was provided do you think it would make a difference ?

I can't believe that America is providing so many outlets and forums for him to spout his lies. Yesterday The Mahdi Hatter met leaders of a movement called Neturei Karta International. This is an Orthodox Jewish group that believes that Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah and are therefore opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.

Quote:

---

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman of Neturei Karta International, issued the following statement on the eve of the group's meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"It is always our pleasure to visit with President Ahmadinejad. This will be the third such meeting, in addition to our many visits to Iran in the past. We have each time emphasized to the Iranian leadership that, despite media hysteria and the statements of some misinformed Jews, we have found the Iranian people and their leaders to be friendly and respectful.

"Likewise, although we as Jews are not to be involved in politics, (According to Jewish law, Jewish people are required to be loyal citizens to the countries wherein they reside), We have found the Iranian President to be a deeply religious man, dedicated to a peaceful world, based on mutual respect, fairness and dialogue.

---

CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS: Rabbis Say Iran Seeks Peace, Respects Judaism - Calls for True Dialogue With Ahmadinejad

It was also reported that he will meet with 9-11 families.

Yes we are probably required to let him into the General Assembly ;but that is where our courtesy should end. He should've been escorted to his hotel room and confined there until he was required to attend the UN session. Then he should be immediately escorted to the airport.

You know he will go back to Iran stronger for having taken on America on it's own turf. The whole concept of a free and open society will be lost in translation except to the dissidents who already understand it and are being purged as we speak;and even as the UN Human Rights Commissioner is in attendance ;a front row seat while dissidents were hung.
Anne Bayefsky on United Nations on National Review Online

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

“You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” said Mr. Bollinger, addressing the forum before Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks. Speaking directly to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was sitting to his left on the stage, Mr. Bollinger said the Iranian president was either “astonishingly uneducated” or “brazenly provocative” for denying the Holocaust.

But Mr. Bollinger said that he wanted to emphasize that “this is the right thing to do” to have Mr. Ahmadinejad speak at the university, because of the country’s tradition of openness and free speech.

“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies,” he said.

Questions and Protests Confront Iran’s President - New York Times

---

First of all, Bollinger seems to be the one who only believes that an open forum for "free speech" and the concept of "know thine enemies" only apply to dictators and liberals. Conservatives and military organizations need not apply. If a conservative speaker appears at Columbia, he or she will be bum-rushed and attacked on stage. And the ROTC has been BANNED at Columbia for the past 25 years. So "knowing thine enemy" doesn't seem to apply to conservatives, and neither does "an open forum for civilized debate".

Second of all, Bollinger had to take a hard tack on Imadeinmyjodpurs. He was being threatened by state and federal officials with having his public funds cut off at the school's next review. If he didn't take a strong line, he was risking losing state and federal funding for capital improvements and operations. He's no hard-liner.

Third, let's take a look at part of Bollinger's statements/questions to I'mafatpieceofcrap.

Quote:

---

Frankly, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do.

---

So in essence, what Bollinger is saying is that he doesn't expect any civilized or educated debate from I'masadsheephead. So what was the point of the invitation in the first place? If the "reason" for inviting him was in order to "promote civilized, educated debate", and if Bollinger doesn't actually expect any civilized educated debate from him, then why invite him.

Answer: he invited I'madinthehead because it would cause a ruckus that would promote the school and cause lots of free press. But it started backfiring on Bollinger when so many public officials, students and even administrators and staff of the school started protesting strongly against the invitation. On the other hand, he couldn't withdraw the invitation without embarrassing himself (he did that last year and ended up looking incredibly foolish). So he had to take a completely different action... he had to attack I'mafagwithalad in order to show that he isn't pro-dictator/anti-American.

I admitt that Bollinger asked some tough questions last night, and didn't let the Mahdi Hatter get away with much. His questions were hardballs, and he pressed them. But the truth is that Bollinger is incensere, in my opinion, when you look at the entire affair as a whole, and at Columbia's history. Put in that context, Bollinger was a guy desperate to save his school from losing government funding after making a huge blunder.

Elliot

Even though Bollinger "threw down the gauntlet" so to speak, I'madinerjacket still used the opportunity to lie to his audience and attempted to generate sound bites. The interpreter did nothing but confuse the listener into thinking there was intelligent speaking. Frankly, I kept waiting hopefully for the precision munitions...

Besides ;it doesn't matter how it played here. When the editing is done it will play well in Iran... the Mahdi hatter standing up to the big mean US on our own turf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Besides ;it doesn't matter how it played here. When the editing is done it will play well in Iran .....the Mahdi hatter standing up to the big mean US on our own turf.

---

So true!
It will be interesting to find out how this gets spun when aired over there.
Probably similar to how anything from the west gets twisted and morphed to suit the wishes of those in control.