Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

[the crispy badger]

Did anyone catch this "debate" on cnn this afternoon? he was grilled pretty hard by the faculty and managed to dodge most of the major questions including saying that "homosexuality doesn't exist" in Iran and admitted that the holocaust happened but more research is needed.

[Juventus3]

This news story is somewhat related

Standing outside the UN, Mr Ahmadinejad, in his address to journalists, opened with a 20-minute, at times rambling, statement about God, human development and corruption. But he put into the mix a warning to the US that it could not prevent "the pursuit of science"- Iran's nuclear research - adding: "No one has the right to take this away."

He denied that Iran abused human rights, saying: "People in Iran are very joyous, happy people. They're very free in expressing what they think."

To sceptical laughter from the assembled journalists, he described Iranian women as "the freest in the world".

Sounds like he'd be a good stand up comic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...d=networkfront

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm actually glad that he got his spotlight in the states, you would never see the president of a Western Nation being invited into Iran to appear at their universities. It allowed the world to see first hand what a delusional buffoon this guy is. Nuclear weapon's in his hands would be a scary concept because I have no doubt that he would use them to support his religous beliefs.

[the crispy badger]

He actually invited members of the Columbia faculty to go to Iran and speak there as he did in going to the U.S..I would be surprised if this actually happens.

[Locke]

Um yeah, somebody should get this guy's hand away from the big red button.

Its good to see that at the very least he established the fact that Iranian Ambassadors are raving, propaganda slinging lunatics.

Thats a big step to get out of the way.

[WinnipegJets]

Iran attacks Canada's human rights record

The Winnipeg Free Press ^| Sat Sep 22 2007 | Steven Edwards



UNITED NATIONS -- In a bid to discredit Canada at the United Nations, Iran is equipping world diplomats with a 70-page booklet on Canada's alleged human rights violations.
Written by Iran "in the name of God," the document asserts that the Canadian government denies its people food, clean water and the right to work.

"Routine unlawful strip and beatings by Canadian police has been a matter of concern for international community," notes the booklet, entitled Report on Human Rights Situation in Canada, adding that "the practice of police is alarming simply because I it is functioning as if there is no need to have judges."

The publication, which claims its allegations are drawn from "objective and factual information released by authentic and credible international sources", alleges that a range of human rights violations occur in Canada, especially toward aboriginal peoples and immigrants.
"To the great dismay of the international community, it is a great concern that the rights of women are violated, and no serious attention has been paid in promotion and protection of women's rights in Canada."

Moreover, the document concludes, "Canada's position as a self-declared standard-bearer on human rights has been demoted to a blind-folded-and-bullied follower of the new school of unilateralism and the axis of derailment of international human rights law."
The booklet emerges on the eve of the UN's annual summit, to be attended by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier.

Part of the two men's efforts will be to convince other world leaders to stay on side with a resolution Canada drove through the UN General Assembly in 2006, denouncing Iran's poor human rights record.
Iran's booklet signals that its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will also be in New York for the summit, will argue that Canada is guilty of hypocrisy.

"It may well (win Iran support), and Canada will have to stand in the General Assembly and explain its position," said Max Morrison, a former Canadian diplomat at the UN who is now president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Canada has long led scrutiny of Iran at the world body, but tensions between the two countries erupted after the 2003 torture and murder of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in an Iranian jail.


-----

Is this guy for real?

[Slava]

^ I wonder if that was written by the Iraqi information minister?

[badnarik]

I dont think this guy has the power to push the button. The Ayatollah Khomeini runs Iran.

[Ozy_Flame]

Ahmedinejad is a puppet; a figurehead of the Ayatollah in power. He does what they tell him to do. The guy has an entire supporting cast.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I wonder if that was written by the Iraqi information minister?

I was thinking to myself that this guy sounds just as delusional as that guy was.

[Vulcan]

When he was being questioned on CNN and asked about his country's interference in Iraq, he danced and he danced around the question like a skank about her fidelity. This guy is a piece of horsemanure despite his friendly manner.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ahmedinejad is a puppet; a figurehead of the Ayatollah in power. He does what they tell him to do. The guy has an entire supporting cast.

So what you're saying is people should take his words no more seriously than they would those of Bush???

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

So what you're saying is people should take his words no more seriously than they would those of Bush???

Exactly. It's all rhetoric, but Bush and Ahmed spin it differently. Both lack credibility in their words.

You seriously expect Iran to "wipe Israel off the map"? It's all pandering, they would never attempt it, especially violently. It's a show of force, a confident voice in the media that satisfies the anti-Western pundits with power in Tehran, and also provides an easy answer to appease the less fortunate.

Actually, I'm more scared of Bush, because he actually followed through with the failed invasion of Iraq, and cost thousands of people on both sides their lives.

[Ayrahb]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I dont think this guy has the power to push the button. The Ayatollah Khomeini runs Iran.

Dude, get your Ayatollahs straight. Khomeini died in 1989.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

Dude, get your Ayatollahs straight. Khomeini died in 1989.

oops Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

[LChoy]

A few devil's advocate thoughts from a political science guy here

- Ahmadinejad is actually very unique leader of Iran. He's an academic with a master in Engineering (although I imagine there would be less beer involved in the Engg program in Tehran ). Most of his actions and speeches are heavily edited by the Ayatollah, so to even be in his position, he has to be by default a hardliner. I can’t remember the source, but he studied with Soviet policy people in his early days. His model is similar to the traditional USSR model (Brezhnev) with fiery speeches and threats with the thought that the US (mainly) won’t act. However, he doesn’t have the actually ability to carry out those threats. He just pushes the envelope but one day, the West will have enough and push back.

- I remembered reading a report that I haven't been able to find again that showed that it was through the Pakistan border, that the majority of weapons and explosives are brought in from and used against Western Forces in Afghanistan. This is contrary to what is mostly being reported.
- Iran armed forces have been involved in poppy eradication activities on its borders with Afghanistan, and has been cooperating with Western Allies on this front
- Iran’s biggest supporter is China due to Chinese interest in Iran’s Oil reserves. The Chinese have been quietly providing Iran with military expertise, intelligence, and more importantly, political veto power
- With N.Korea having the bomb, and the subsequent backing off by the West Militarily, Iran maybe hoping for the same bargaining power. Granted, if they were close, Israel has a precedent of pre-empt attack
- Most Middle Eastern countries don’t want the bomb not to destroy Israel, but as a counter to Israeli (and by de facto the US) <IMO>. With MAD, country like Iran knows that it’ll literally be wiped out if it ever tried. Israel was able to beat 3-4 (I forget) countries simultaneously in the 50s (barely, but they did), but now with a modern air force and armour corp., Middle Eastern countries feel the need to balance the scale.
- It’s amusing from an outside perspective in that the US first created the conditions in Iran by installing an unpopular Shah into power via coup. After the revolution in Iran, the US went to Iraq, and trained and equipped them to fight the Iranians. Soon, power got to Saddam’s head, and he had to be taken down. Now with the mess over in Iraq, Iran has the ability to sympathize with the Sunni population it couldn’t under Saddam. However, it stops being amusing when you think of all the people who died in this tug of war between these 2 countries.
- I believe if the US were really to attack Iran, it may be more of an air war a la Bosnia conflict due to current troop levels. Pre-empt strikes on their nuclear capabilities, Iranian National guard units, and government structures would be the plan, and then they hope that brings the Iranians to the table (or creates an internal government change). I’m not convinced yet (unless a sudden multinational support for providing additional forces) that they can put “boots on the ground”
- Lastly, just a really interesting article. The speech that got everyone mad at Iran was about how Israel should be wiped off the map.

“I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

However, when the speech is read in the context (remember it was translated into English) he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) analyzed the speech, and came out that the meaning was

"I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world"

From that article, he may be apparently referring to the dispairing way of life for the people of Palestine. The article can be found here: http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12790.htm
Granted, this site usually has its articles taken from a left spin, so take everything with a grain of thought.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. It’s been awhile I’ve been able to talk Politics.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I dont think this guy has the power to push the button. The Ayatollah Khomeini runs Iran.

There isn't a button to push.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There isn't a button to push.

i realize that, i was responding to locke's post

i dont think iran will have a button for a long time even if they arent attacked

[Clever_Iggy]

I found the remarks made by Columbia University President during his introduction of Ahmadinejad to be... inappropriate.

That Ahmadinejad possessed "all of the signs of a petty criminal and cruel dictator."

"A critical part of freedom of speech is that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open up their views for debate."

"I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

I dont think he should have applauded Ahmadinejad's presence, but it just seemed inappropriate to invite someone to speak about controversial issues, and then chide him during your introductory remarks. Challenging him afterwards in your own speech or taking time to challenge him with a question would have been more appropriate.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I found the remarks made by Columbia University President during his introduction of Ahmadinejad to be... inappropriate.

That Ahmadinejad possessed "all of the signs of a petty criminal and cruel dictator."

"A critical part of freedom of speech is that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open up their views for debate."

"I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

I dont think he should have applauded Ahmadinejad's presence, but it just seemed inappropriate to invite someone to speak about controversial issues, and then chide him during your introductory remarks. Challenging him afterwards in your own speech or taking time to challenge him with a question would have been more appropriate.

I agree entirely. And to come from the president of the university no less. Those remarks put a bit of a dark spot on the university, in my opinion. Not behaviour that should be practiced in an 'intellectual environment' like that, and also just extremely impolite.