COLUMBIA

Reply to the Objective view article

Although he is a hypocrite to say the least and his words mean nothing to me simply because '' actions speak louder than words". But here you have the article outlining his speech and the words of wisdom which are not backed by anything that is going on in Iran.The world is laughing at him and Iran.Denying the existent of Homosexuality,glorifying women's right and boasting about none existence of human rights in Iran are just despicable.
He should not have been given the chance to speak.He is simply one of Israel's premier diplomatic and security assets. His expressed views make Israel look pragmatic, clear-eyed, non-paranoid.They couldn't have created the man if they had tried.Israeli News paper Haaretz is claiming "He is everything we want in a neo-Haman nemesis".
He and the other leaders of the regime in Iran have disgraced a nation and will be accountable by history. The list of damages to Iran and our great people are endless and i doubt if even the Arab invasion of Iran was as damaging to us as these mullahs.

Objective view of Ahmadinejad's Speech

The problem with Ahmadinejad's remarks during his visit to Columbia University wasn't that they were ALL or even mostly ridiculous, off base, or even illogical. Listening and then reading what he said I found myself in total agreement with most of the remarks he made especially this comment:


They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.


In fact I recommend that you read the excerpts that I've copied below and objectively decide had someone other than Ahmadinejad --- perhaps a handsome clean shaven white man wearing a navy blue Brooks Brother suit and the usual power red tie had said the comments below would you still have the same opinion of his views?


Of course this speech was given by none other that Ahmadinejad who clearly does not fit such a profile but more importantly given his political ties with the current fascist Iranian regime makes his comments and viewpoints not so much illogical or even as it was suggested by the dean of the school uneducated, but in my opinion simply hypocritical. That is all. This is where everyone who has interviewed him has failed. So in my opinion just because the message is being delivered by a hypocrite should not stop genuine civlized and peaceful people to accept the logical parts of the message.


Anyways this is the excerpts that I found to be logical and of course hypcritical:


Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you.
At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims... (APPLAUSE) ... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.


The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered. Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion.


In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given.


In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination. In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit.


One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.


Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.


It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.


My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests. Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.


There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities. Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?


My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself. Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.


First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people. Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.


And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.


They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.


As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities.


They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.


Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?


Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come. Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.


Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well. This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.


I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions. Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions.


My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.


My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it. But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age?


Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.


And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.


And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me. We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.


Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.


But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right.


They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you.


Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.


Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you are deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.


If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes? For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed. It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.

We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.

Another Thought

I have witnessed how the Ahmadinejad appearance at Columbia has quickly become homogenized into a finger-pointing contest fuelled by soundbites.  In the past few days, Lee Bollinger has been taking the lion's share of these lumps.  Many have remarked about the hypocrisy or emptiness of Bollinger's remarks to Ahmadinejad, and the fact that those statements were made to appease Jewish pressure groups and neoconservative organizations.  That may be partially true, and we'll have no way of knowing what role such pressures actually did play in shaping his remarks.  Others have commented on the fact that Bollinger would never have spoken like that to Bush or someone like Ariel Sharon or Olmert, and in the past, he did not take the opportunity to put similar criticisms to other infamous heads of state who have spoken at the World Leaders Forum at Columbia, such as Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf. 

This perceived exceptionalism has put a very harsh light on Bollinger and has somehow cast Ahmadinejad as the noble victim of an ambush in the eyes of many.  As of yesterday, Lee Bollinger stood by his opening remarks, and defended them and the event as a whole "as free speech at its best."  Bollinger did raise many sensitive topics in his remarks, and admirably raised the profile of those who must suffer quietly under the rule of the IRI in a way that most journalists should study and take notes on.  But did such efforts pale in comparison to his more controversial soundbites? Did his derisive comments overshadow Ahmadinejad's vagueness and frequent side-stepping of many sensitive and direct questions?  Bollinger very forcefully made his personal displeasure of the Iranian President known to all. But there is a price to pay for making such remarks to Ahmadinejad, and defending them afterwards as an exercise of free speech.

If nothing else, this puts Bollinger and Columbia University in a position in which they must subject their future invited guests to the same levels of scrutiny if they are to maintain integrity of Columbia's reputation for academic debate and freedom.  Having embarked on such a path, they cannot back away from it and expect to retain respect.  The open format of the event, which allowed students to pose questions on the spot to Ahmadinejad should be lauded, but not limited to that one event alone.  And to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of speech and debate, Columbia should facilitate such forums for our own leaders in the US to appear before such scrutiny and open questioning.  That is to say, if Bush somehow magically agrees to speak at the next World Leaders Forum, he should be held to the same standards as Ahmadinejad.  That goes for any person involved in the violation of human rights of others or violence against others, including those who are conventionally referred to as "our (U.S.) friends or allies".  If they do so, all kudos and praise should go to Columbia and Bollinger.  Anything less will invite justified calls of hypocrisy, further mar Columbia's reputation and vindicate Ahmadinejad in the eyes of many (bizarrely enough).  Ultimately, the legacy of the Ahmadinejad event at Columbia will be largely shaped by how Columbia welcomes and challenges its future speakers in such forums.

Close follow-up!

For the first time, I closely followed the presence and speeches of someone from the Islamic regime in a Western country. Ahmadinejad got that benefit to present freely the same extreme religious points and beliefs in a free country. He didn't answer about the brutality of his government, executions, absence of free speech and he denied the absence of human rights and homosexuality in Iran which was more like a comic presentation than expressing from a head of state! Apart from all these, I have to claim I was impressed from some of his points when he talked to Charlie Rose. Rose's show is one of my favorites. Rose mostly showed his great background and knowledge before any show and some Ahmadinejad's comments were interesting to hear. He also got my empathy, when he was introduced by Dr. Bollinger. Even though Bollinger was right about this so-called non-democratic president but that was against an officially invited presenter to be insulted directly. Ahmadinejad's reply that the audiences should evaluate him from his speeches and no need for a pre-speech vaccination was a nice reply. As president Bush said, hopefully as the US gave Ahmadinejad the chance to freely speak on his behalf, he also gives the Iranians inside Iran to speak freely and give them a chance to freely elect a democratic government.

Midwest, you can't be serious.

Midwesty,
It is incredible to me that you question the truthfulness of the claim that the IRI has ruthlessly gone after people who challenge its power or question the status quo. Were the reformist newspapers not shut down, one by one? Was Akbar Ganji not imprisoned for spreading propaganda against the IRI? Was Abdollah Nouri not imprisoned for religious and political dissent? Was Hashem Aghajari not condemned to death for apostasy, for simply saying Iranians don't have to blindly obey the clergy in Iran like monkeys?

And these are simply the regime insiders who have been prosecuted, not to mention the thousands of regime outsiders (the rest of the country), the religious minorities, the political opposition groups and members, the writers in 1998 and the students at Tehran University in 1999. Mehrangiz Kar was arrested and sent to Evin simply for stressing the need for political change through constitutional reform. Iranian Americans such as Kian Tajbakhsh and Haleh Esfandiari are arrested for trying to incite a "Velvet Revolution." Such lists can go on for quite some time, not to mention all the political executions, stonings, and hangings of people for thinly veiled charges.

Considering the ready availability of such empirical evidence in print, on the internet, on television, and the real life stories of Iranians who have suffered at the hands of this regime, questioning the Islamic Republic's government-sponsored brutality against and primal fear of its own citizens is frankly jaw-dropping. You cannot be serious. Such a practice hints either at your own woeful ignorance of what the socio-political realities are in Iran, or your political agenda.

Your "mind might be numb at seeing Iranian officials insulted each day", but I don't give a damn for these officials, neither do the people of Iran. I am tired of the three decades of brutality that the overwhelming majority of Iranians have suffered at the hands of this government, and its refusal to respect the wishes of its own people. And I would venture that most Iranians inside and outside of the country are too.

Roozbeh, You argument is

Roozbeh,

You argument is baseless. You’ve built the whole argument on “No one else has said that to an official of the Islamic Republic and escaped unscathed”. While this is a vague sentence and leaves your reader to wonder about what you meant by untouched, it is a twisted statement begging the reader to be accepted as a fact. IRI officials if not worst but not better received than Israeli counterparts. Our minds are numb seeing Iranian officials being insulted every day.

At one point you call Ahmadinejad the man who “wields no real power” on the other hand you label him as a “notorious leader”. Is it possible to be powerless and notorious at the same time?

There is nothing easier than calling Ahmadinejad petty and cruel in the middle of NYC. There is no value in it. What we expect was to see Bollinger to take over the event with strong logic and do not let Ahmadinejad to use it as a propaganda tool. However as a first-time-listener of Ahmadinejad’s speech I am very impressed with his sincerity and intelligent if not his genius. This is a man who has no physical appeal to the audience. He is hairy, out of fashion and ugly but I tell you, his intellect and intelligence has captured many people’s mind. I urge you to see the Charlie Rose’s interview with him. I hold a great regard for Charlie but even he seems to be very impressed by Ahmadinejad. Let the guy talk. He has some points.

Thank you Gary Sick and Dabashi

I hope every one of those psycho mullahs are invited to speak for the world to see what kind of idiots we're dealing with.

The Iranian Stain
September 25th, 2007
He came, he spoke, he left.

In the end, the Mahmoud Ahmadenijad confirmed the bigotry, hate and brutality that he, the regime he represents. More importantly, those who even remotely support his ideologies and beliefs have been exposed for what they are.

Let’s look at some of those beliefs and ideologies.

The Iranian leader wants continued academic study on the Holocaust. This self proclaimed ’scientist’ and ‘academic’ has made clear his academic bona fides by appointing David Duke and other, similarly credentialed individuals as a honored guests at the Holocaust Conference in Iran.

Ahmadenijad has embraced those who continue to be proponents of ugly racist ideologies. The leftists who embrace Ahmadenijad and turn a blind eye to his support of anti Semitic ideologues need to consider a few realities. The support of oppressive and dysfunctional Middle East regimes for whom anti Semitism is mothers milk, is also an expression of support for the purveyors of other kinds of hate. When the left, via Mahmoud Ahmadenijad gives David Duke a free pass on Jew hatred, they are willingly aligning themselves with Duke’s other ugly ideologies. Embrace Ahmadenijad and you are embracing David Duke.

Let’s put it this way. There are those who are willing to turn a blind eye to the evil directed against the Jews in World War Two. Denying that Holocaust is to deny the evil committed against the Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, terminally ill and physically deformed individuals.

Have you ever noticed how those who deny the Holocaust are the same people who think racial or religious holocausts are a good idea?

While David Duke and an assortment of renowned racists and anti semites are Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s idea of ‘academics,’ it bears noting that there were none from the more traditional Halls of Academia, either here or in academia. The idea promulgated by the Iranian leader that academics are ‘intimidated’ in the west is absurd. American universities are replete with fringe professors and teachers who are advocates for all kinds of ideas, including anti Semitic and anti Israel causes. Professors who regularly promote deceit, advocate violence and even genocide are tolerated on American and European campuses.

The left has embraced the likes Ahmadenijad, the man who welcomed David Duke and other racists and bigots with open arms. Their moral, political and ethical ideologies speak as to who they really are.

Ahmadenijad’s absurd assertion that there are no gays in Iran just like saying there is no persecution of women, Jews, Bahai’s and Christians in that nation. His psychopathic remarks fly in the face of reality. If he can look at the audience at Columbia and shamelessly make such ridiculous remarks, to believe his other remarks speaks to the stupidity of those who find him credible.

There were those in the audience at Columbia who applauded the Iranian leader when he took umbrage when called on the persecution of woman, gays and Baha’i in Iran.
They applauded Ahmadenijad’s response when he said Bolliger was ‘rude’ to do so.

Newsflash! Addressing the persecution of minorities in Iran (something Ahmadenijad did not explicitly refute) or anywhere is more important than diplomatic niceties. For two decades, the slaughter in Sudan that has resulted in the death of over 2 million has been the result of diplomatic niceties.

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad also declared that he ‘loves’ the Jewish people.

If that were true, why would he surround himself with racists, bigots and anti Semities? You are indeed known by the company you keep. Ahmadenijad has aligned himself with bigots like Hassan Nasrallah (’let the Jews gather in Israel. It will save us the trouble of rounding them up’ ) who regularly refers to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs’ and Syria’s Bashar Assad, where references to Jewish blood libels and other forms of vile hate are an integral part of state sponsored media and educational curriculum.

Like all the other dysfunctional and tyrannical leaders in the Middle East, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad ran like a cockroach in the night when the lights came on. He and others like him, are like the pedophiles who say they love children.

The nation of Iran does have a great history and culture- and it is an outrage that the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the mullahs have hijacked and shamed thousands of years of that history and culture. Ahmadenijad, declaring himself the guardian of Iranian culture is like David Duke declaring himself the guardian of American culture or Adolph Hitler declaring himself the representative of German culture. Ahmadenijad and the mullahs that pull his strings are no more a representative of Iranian and Persian history, heritage and culture that Arafat, Osama bin Laden and every single dysfunctional Arab leader are representative of Arab and Muslim culture.

It is an outrage that the likes of Ahmadenijad and the mullahs have denigrated the culture and history of Iran.

Ahmadenijad and the mullahs have shamed the Iranians on the world stage. There will be a time when the Iranians will give Ahmadenijad and the mullahs exactly what they deserve.