Iran leader condemned by university host

[GaryC 7]

Iran leader condemned by university host

Ahmadinejad calls Columbia president's opening remarks 'an insult'

Updated: 11 minutes ago

NEW YORK - As hundreds protested outside, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was strongly condemned inside Columbia University on Monday by no less than its president, who called him a dictator with preposterous beliefs, then ceded the podium to Ahmadinejad for a speech.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger, who had been criticized for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, described him as having a "fanatical mindset."

The Iranian leader previously has called the Holocaust “a myth” and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

Story continues below ↓advertisement

"Do you plan on wiping us off the map too?" Bollinger asked in his opening statement ahead of a question-and-answer segment.

As Ahmadinejad sat nearby, Bollinger ended his remarks to wild applause from the audience.

Iran's president then began his comments by calling Bollinger's comments "an insult," not only to him but all of Iran.

Earlier Monday, Ahmadinejad said Iran would not launch an attack on Israel or any other country, and he does not believe the U.S. is preparing for war against Iran.

“Iran will not attack any country,” Ahmadinejad told The Associated Press. Iran has always maintained a defensive policy, not an offensive one, he said, and has “never sought to expand its territory.”

Asked whether he beleved the U.S. is preparing for war, he responded: “That is not how I see it ... I believe that some of the talk in this regard arises first of all from anger. Secondly, it serves the electoral purposes domestically in this country. Third, it serves as a cover for policy failures over Iraq.”

In a 30-minute interview at a hotel near the United Nations, where he will address then General Assembly on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad struck a soothing tone. He said Iranian foreign policy was based on humanitarian concerns and seeking justice.

He reiterated his call for a debate at the United Nations on world issues with President Bush.

Referring to fears of a military campaign against Iran, he said: “We don’t think you can compensate for one mistake by committing more mistakes.”

The Iranian president, in what is believed to be his first comments on a reported attack Sept. 6 by Israeli bombers inside Syria, said the attack stemmed from Israeli expansionism and “it had nothing to with Iran.”

Defends human rights record

Ahmadinejad also defended his nation’s human rights record, as hundreds of protesters gathered outside the U.N. and Columbia University to protest appearances by the hard-line leader.

“People in Iran are very joyous, happy people,” he told a National Press Club audience that questioned him about the arrests of students, journalists and women. “They’re very free in expressing what they think.”

He said women in Iran were “the freest women in the world ... They’re active in every level of society.”

Human rights activists inside and outside Iran have decried a recent wave of arrests of people calling for political and legal reforms of the Iranian theocratic system. Ahmadinejad said those complaints were baseless, and denied knowing about any detention or harsh punishments of reformists.

“The people who give this information should see what is the truth and disseminate what is correct,” he said. “I invite everyone in this session to come and visit Iran for themselves.”

Hundreds of protesters also gathered for a noon rally against Ahmadinejad at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza across from the United Nations, where Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Tuesday.

“I don’t think he deserves a right to even be here in the United States,” said Sam Morris, a senior at Yeshiva University High School, one of at least 500 students from Jewish day schools.

Scores of evangelical Christians of all ages also protested, holding blue-and-white signs that said, “Christians United for Israel” and “Israel is on the map to stay.”

Ahmadinejad's visit to New York drew tabloid headlines calling him "evil" and a "madman," and stirred debate about free speech ahead of his appearance at Columbia University.

Columbia controversy

Bollinger said ahead of the Columbia speech that it was a question of free speech and academic freedom.

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why the Right Is Wrong About Ahmadinejad

This post, written by Azadeh Ensha, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

The man whose name you can't pronounce is landing in New York. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address a select group of Columbia University faculty and students on Monday as part of the school's annual World Leaders Forum.

Reactions to Columbia University's decision to invite him have been mixed, and right in line with expectations. McCain, Giuliani and groups including The Anti-Defamation League have come out swinging against the Columbia-Ahmadinejad coupling, armed with terms like "Holocaust denier," "Persian Hitler" and "state sponsor of terrorism." They also make note of what they see as Columbia's other failings: lack of an ROTC chapter, the decision to let Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist speak last year and Columbia Dean John Coatsworth's recent remark that he would also invite Hitler to speak "if he were willing to engage in debate and a discussion."

Supporters, including Columbia President Lee Bollinger, have for their part expressed concern about the dangers of curtailing free speech. In a prepared statement, Bollinger wrote: "That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here."

Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here's why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad's Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more "evidence" the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime's elimination -- like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad's words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn't afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.

As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O'Neil rightly notes: "If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr."

While all eyes are on Manhattan, precious few are watching what's happening in Washington. On Thursday, Senators Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman filed an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill that would make it official U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. Section 5 calls for the United States to formally designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. If passed, this amendment would open the door even wider for military action against Iran.

Why hasn't this bit of news sparked similar debate?

Born in Tehran, Azadeh graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Los Angeles and received her M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[DeadPoolX 9]

Maybe I don't understand, but... if Columbia University's President felt that way about Ahmadinejad, then why did he get a free pass to speak there, in front of tons of impressionable college students?

As far as I know, one has to be invited to speak at a university; they just can't say, "Hey, I'm gonna speak there on such-and-such date, and because I'm a bigwig and I know it, you can't do a damn thing about it!" It doesn't work that way.

Edited September 24, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Maybe I don't understand, but... if Columbia University's President felt that way about Ahmadinejad, then why did he get a free pass to speak there, in front of tons of impressionable college students?

You really don't understand?

They invited him to insult our President. Then the media backlash happened and this is how they're saving face. Uninviting him would seem cowardly, so they bring him in and pretend they don't like him.

It's all an act. They love Ahmedinejad, they love anyone who opposes Bush.

[Caladan 19]

Maybe I don't understand, but... if Columbia University's President felt that way about Ahmadinejad, then why did he get a free pass to speak there, in front of tons of impressionable college students?

As far as I know, one has to be invited to speak at a university; they just can't say, "Hey, I'm gonna speak there on such-and-such date, and because I'm a bigwig and I know it, you can't do a damn thing about it!" It doesn't work that way.

It's not like being Muslim gives him magical voodoo powers. Ahmadinejad isn't going to convert them into theocrats. H

People need to realize that at universities, people often present views that a large number of other people disagree with, who then challenge them on it publicly. The reason Bollinger is being so outspoken is likely because if he doesn't Columbia will get even more hate mail from people that thinking listening to a Muslim speak makes people sprout hijab. It's more usual to offer the criticisms after the talk.

Columbia University invited Ahmadinejad to give a speech because he's the president of Iran and due to current events that makes him a moderately important player in the region (or the representative of an important player in the region) even if his politics are horrid. He's not some obscure guy, and he's not going to go away if Columbia doesn't extend an invitation to speak. Expose the darkness to the light of reason, I say.

So I think we're better off if he gives a speech, the president of the university denounces it, and the audience is filled with foreign policy scholars who can grill him and show his demented ideas for the lunacy they are.

[almaty 19]

really, brother arijit...i doubt if Columbia cares about Bush,. the rest of the country doesn't...

[chri'stina 190]

I saw some of the speech.

One thing I thought, is that even though he was introduced scathingly by the Pres of the univ, his applause at the end was pretty loud. I doubt if Bush spoke there he'd get such an applause. You'd probably hear more "boos". Was the audience just being respectful or did they like Ahmadinejad? And if they were just being respectful, would the same respect be given to Bush after a speech?

I do think it's good for someone like Ahmadinejad to have to be questioned somewhere besides at the UN or some diplomatic meeting, so I don't think it's so horrible that he spoke there. I just can't help wondering a few things.

I graduated college in 03 and even back then the environment at my Univ(USF) was anti-conservative and anti-Bush. We also had the lovely Al Arian case going on there.

Whether VJ troll was joking or not, I really wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe I don't understand, but... if Columbia University's President felt that way about Ahmadinejad, then why did he get a free pass to speak there, in front of tons of impressionable college students?

You really don't understand?

They invited him to insult our President. Then the media backlash happened and this is how they're saving face. Uninviting him would seem cowardly, so they bring him in and pretend they don't like him.

It's all an act. They love Ahmedinejad, they love anyone who opposes Bush.

I dunno - that seems pretty far-fetched to me. Also not really very fair to the student body of Columbia University IMO.

Its not like the "media backlash" as you put it was unpredictable. Its a fair bet that if you invite someone like MA to a (relatively) public forum that its going to draw controversy and protest. I can't imagine the organizers of the event wouldn't have been aware of that... if for nothing else dealing with the security arrangements that someone like that would necessitate.

[DeadPoolX 9]

All I'm saying is it seems sort of... well, stupid to invite someone to your place for the specific purpose of insulting them. I know it's done, but that doesn't change the fact I think it's dumb. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything a speaker says, but in general, I'd imagine if someone is invited to speak, what they have to say would be "welcomed" there.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All I'm saying is it seems sort of... well, stupid to invite someone to your place for the specific purpose of insulting them. I know it's done, but that doesn't change the fact I think it's dumb. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything a speaker says, but in general, I'd imagine if someone is invited to speak, what they have to say would be "welcomed" there.

I see it as an opportunity for him to face tough questions from citizens who can speak freely. It makes a poignant mockery of his views for the younger generations of Iranians to see...that can help progress reforms within Iran.

[DeadPoolX 9]

All I'm saying is it seems sort of... well, stupid to invite someone to your place for the specific purpose of insulting them. I know it's done, but that doesn't change the fact I think it's dumb. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything a speaker says, but in general, I'd imagine if someone is invited to speak, what they have to say would be "welcomed" there.

I see it as an opportunity for him to face tough questions from citizens who can speak freely. It makes a poignant mockery of his views for the younger generations of Iranians to see...that can help progress reforms within Iran.

I might normally agree with that, Steven, but how likely do you think it is that the average Iranian citizen would get to see or read the after-speech question-and-answer session? Without it getting filtered to make Ahmadinejad "look good" and the United States seem "bad?"

Whatever they see over there in Iran will be specifically tailored to appear as those in-charge want to and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. After all, who are they going to believe first and foremost? Their own leaders, government and media or those of a foreign nation (especially a country that they've been told numerous lies about). Even in the U.S., where we supposedly have "freedom of speech," we don't always get the "whole truth" so it's exceedingly unlikely that the Iranian media would be any more truthful in it's presentation -- at least when regarding Ahmadinejad and Americans.