Printable View
This whole sordid affair was done for the benefit of the American press and the Iranian Pres's reputation at home. The Uni of Colombia invited him to speak, but to welcome him would have pushed the sensitivities of the American anti Iran posture. But at least they let him speak.
I love the quote in a press conference "there are no homosexuals in Iran", not since they shot them there arent ....
Im glad Im here
Generally I agree with the free speech and politeness view. One of the problems with Iran (and a number of other nations) is that their political classes do not hold to the same views on these freedoms - look at the irrational reaction of the Iranian republic to the Danish cartoons....
If a political representative of a nation which is a serial abuser of fundamental civil liberties is invited to speak at a university, then it is up to the uni authorities to welcome that person politely and then listen repectfully. If there is a question time, or an opportunity to comment, then free speech rights entitle any person (including a uni officeholder) to put in a restrained way their comments on the subject of the speech or to ask appropriate questions.
Bollinger steppped over the line - Sctoo is right, but if he had something he really wanted to say, he should have said it in reply to the Iranian President or as a question to him.
As has been better said a long time ago - I reject every word you utter, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
Well said Ding. He was certainly treated appallingly. I believe there would have been a lot of pressure on Coatsworth after the president had been invited to speak. There was certainly a lot of protest about it. Most thought it best to deny him an audience even though he had some valid points.Âyatollâh Ali Khamenei is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who themselves are elected from a government-screened list of candidates by direct public vote. Whilst not an ideal democratic system from a western point of view, I believe that the leadership of Iran is popular among its peoples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Dingo
But they’re different from us, and they have lots of oil, so I suppose that may be a good reason to go and instill some democracy on them.
I’d like to quote what I thought were some highlights of President Ahmadinejad’s response:Operation Ajax anyone?Quote:
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 have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting 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 mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.
I couldn’t find any reference to CIA involvement in the terrorist attacks that he was referring to twentysix years past now, however I don’t think there’s any denying that through covert means, the US has supported dictatorships, supplied chemical weapons to Iraq during the gulf war with Iran, and plotted assassinations of heads of state where it may be an advantage to their own ends.A most valid argument.Quote:
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 the 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 the embargo and sanctions, because we are against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext you deny us that technology?
We want to have the right to self-determination towards 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?
Of course they may be striving for nuclear weaponry, but rather than start a war over it lets keep up the diplomacy. If they did develop a nuclear weapon and decided to use it, I don’t think there’s any denying that they’d be wiped off the map.
They simply wouldn’t be that stupid.
He answered the question, and he threw the issue back in Mr Coatsworths' face following his retort. And justifiably so. :2tsup:Quote:
What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)
I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)
There's a plight of a people.
MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.
He asks two very valid questions.
1. Why stifle debate on the Holocaust, and imprison Holocaust researchers/deniers?
2. Given that the Holocaust occurred, why should the Palestinian peoples be expected to pay?
Unfortunately a lot of people feel the same. They don't want to even attempt to see the issues from another perspective, and they'd prefer to just eat what's fed to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schtoo
It’s the time for diplomacy, not scaremongering, insults and saber rattling, and I believe that if Bush were placed in the same position as this leader from the ‘axis of evil’, then he would find it difficult to respond with the same restraint and eloquence.
I wonder if they'd treat a visiting dignitary from China in the same manner. China isn't exactly 'squeaky clean' itself in regards to human rights, and for that matter, neither is the US.
If I were the ayatollah, I might make a quote from another 'religious' leader's bible:
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawnhead
I hope that's not pointed directly at me... :cool:
I simply said that a better response from the Uniclown would have been to just stay out of it and don't give the Iranian President the dignity of an audience. Inviting someone to a conference so you can openly insult them isn't exactly cricket.
Would I have walked out? Probably not.
Would I have listened? Probably yes.
Would I have agreed? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Would I have asked questions? Yes, but I know I am not as eloquent, intelligent or calm enough to ask really biting questions.
I would expect that the head honcho of a large, well respected University would be eloquent enough, intelligent enough and calm enough to ask questions that would show the Iranian Government for what it really is.
In the case of Iran (and a few other places on this rock), maybe diplomacy among the governments in question would serve better if it were conducted along the lines of....
"Saying nice doggy, while searching for a large rock."
I would also expect that he’d be impartial enough to debate the plight of the Palestinian peoples, as well as the behaviour and reputation of his own government. There were many questions posed by President Ahmadinejad that were left unanswered. Perhaps he will take up the presidents offer to speak in any of the 400 universities in Iran. Although somehow I believe that he’d prefer to play the ball in his own court, even though he did ask for the invitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schtoo
Time will tell.
Well that’s the sort of thinking that’s got us into the mess that we’re in in Iraq. I don’t believe that many people actually approve of this war since the deceptions of the Bush administration have come to light. It was an illegal invasion conducted without UN approval, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush fulfils his promise to deal with the Iran situation before the end of his term in a similar underhanded manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schtoo
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering
“You’re either with us, or you’re against us” George W Bush
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawnhead
Shrub must be a sithQuote:
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Kenobi
After reading through the arguments outlined here, and after thinking about it, I stand by my assertion that it was a great and brave speech. I can see that Bollinger sent down a straight, fast delivery in a diplomatic world much more used to spin, and that his behaviour may be quite offensive to people in the Arab nations.
But it was a speech about the freedom of speech, and it was directed at a person who is increasingly depriving his own people of this freedom. To see why I appreciate it, you need to read the first part, before he turns to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, very carefully. What he says in there is that one of the most beneficial aspects of freedom of speech is that it teaches us self-restraint, the restraint that is required to listen to that that you fear and dislike.
I thought this to be an eloquent and thoughtful probing of the power of free speech and debating; to be able to talk openly so that differences can be identified and then hopefully resolved.
Then he turned to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and bowled a quick but dead straight delivery that almost went through him. I love it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Being offensive to people in Arab Nations (or any other people) is not something we should aspire to.
woodbe.
There's nothing brave about introducing someone who you've invited to speak as a "petty and cruel dictator". Especially when you're on your own ground. You should play the ball and not the man, and you should do some research to find that he was in fact democratically elected to his position.
Unless you're trying to provoke another war, then I see it as nothing more than a cowardly slap in the face. :tdown:
I'm in the Invitations = Courtesy camp.
It did nothing to open up dialogue to help ease world tensions - just reinforced existing prejudices.
The points of disagreement/dislike could have been put courteously without being soft on the subject.
Yep. Sure can. Amazes me too. I could go on with a rant about all this crap of the past 3 years, but it'd make me sick. For now, I'll just say this about Bollinger and company:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Dingo
Ditto the invitation equals courtesy. The way Bollinger handled it made the "discussion" into a kangaroo court from the outset. He could have better expressed himself piecemeal during the process, and nibbled his way to his conclusion instead of the meat-axe approach. Tortoise and the hare, remember?
Joe
I'll go along with this, Joe. I'll acquiesce to the extent that I think the meat-axe section was a little harsh. I read yesterday that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was warned before going to Columbia that his appearance was going to be more a debate than a speech, and that Bollinger was going to pose some "sharp questions".Quote:
Originally Posted by joe greiner
But to me it boils down to a question of how many crimes does someone have to commit before they lose some of their rights to diplomatic respect. Maybe what's being said in this thread is that Bollinger said the right stuff in the wrong way. I'd go along with that.
In 2004, 5700 people were officially listed as executed.
Iran was 174
The US was 59 (71 the year before)
China was a minimum of 5000........
What hypacrites, oh thats right, they need to trade with China :rolleyes:, better not talk too loudly :wink:
Nah mate, hypocracy requires fiscal matters to be completely and utterly uninvolved.
And perhaps Mr Bollinger forgot that Iran lost soldiers in the thousands thanks to US support with weapons and satellite intel during its war with Iraq in the 80's.
I wonder why the US did that?
Cue Mr Garrett......Short memory must have a, shor or ort memory :D
What an idiot. :)