Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The flop of Columbia

He came, he spoke, he went. Just before he did speak, however, he listened to some supposedly tough questions and lectures from Columbia president Bollinger which had enchanted many on the net.

It is amazing how little is needed for some people to forget about the core issue. A little name-calling and a small rebuke on history and everybody is happy. This incident shows why globalist liberalism still captivates the minds of the general population. But I digress...Anyway, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that, albeit with a minor inconveniance, Ahmedinejad has achieved his goal. He gave a speech in the heart of the US exposing his views and besides the audience at the university itself he had all the networks covering him live.

Worse yet, Bollinger's pathetic and clumsy attempt at being tough in order to save his behind(do you honestly think he would adress Ahmedinejad in that way had the public not raised holy hell before the event?) and most likely quite a few financial donations to Columbia was rebuked by the Iranian president in such a manner that the latter quite succesfully potrayed himself as a victim. To top it all there was a loud round of applause coming from the students at some parts of the Iranian president's speech.

Many have pondered over the reason why Columbia University invited him to speak in the first place. We had all sorts of explanations, from the university being run by radical leftists, to motives of general principle of free speech all the up to the ridicolous claim that it was Bollinger's attention all along to lecture him. Does it really matter? Whatever the Columbia University management tried to achieve, it only resulted in handing Ahmedinejad a PR triumph. It not only could have been forseen, it was obvious. And the fact that the management of Columbia didn't see it or didn't want to see it speaks volumes of the state of the academia today.

10 comments:

padjen said...

why are you anti Ahmedinajad?

He is pretty much the only one standing up to America and between him and Bush I pick Ahmedinajad. Surely you are aware that his speeches have been twisted and censored. He is no angel by himself but I think he is right and should be supported in his confrontation with the western imperialists

Witch-king of Angmar said...

Why do I, or anyone else for that matter, have to pick between Bush and Ahmedinejad? Why do such false dychotomies have to dominate the spectrum? BTW, Ahmedinejad is just a show, it's the shi'ite imams who really rule Iran.

And if you think islamist Iran is not imperialist, think again. Or rahter, read some statements from Homeini.

padjen said...

Well can you tell me what specifically offends you with Ahmedinajad ? Saying he is a bad fundamentalist just isn't the reason Americans want to attack him for. Does he threaten you in any way and what about Bush ?
and yes I think we have to pick between these 2 people because what follows after Bush will be the same or worse and Ahmedinajad is the only world leader willing to stand up to American imperialism and actually has means to do it.

Actually I have met with some iranians which prompted me to learn that Iran has not attacked anybody in 300 years or so. The regime there is pretty tight and backward but it's not my problem and eventually the people will decide what to do with it

I am Sebian Canadian and I am pretty disappointe that someone seemingly intelligent and informed has swallowed american and israeli lobby propaganda which they do to serbian people as well . It's also disappointing seeing other serbs fight others battles where it's completelly against our self interest and preservation

Witch-king of Angmar said...

First of all, it offends me that Ahmedinejad questions the holocaust(and it should offend you as well, if you are Serb). I have relatives murdered by the ustaĊĦe and my grandmother escaped with her life by a sheer miracle. Plus it is obvious why he questions the holocaust, surely you don't believe his story about wanting to shed academic light on the subject and other nonsense(and before you start, let me tell you that in no way do I support laws against holocaust denial that exist in France and some other European countries, but that is beside the point)

As for Iranian ambitions, I was talking specifically about islamist Iran. I agree that pre-Homeini Iran was anything but an imperialist state, but since 1979 it is no longer the case. And the Serbian people have felt that since islamist Iran armed and trained Bosnian muslims in the 1990-ties. Or have you forgotten all about that?

In any case, to quote Stalin, "historical parallels are risky". Just because some people who attacked the Serbian people in the past now attack Ahmedinejad as well doesn't make the latter a hero all of a sudden. By studying the ideology of the Iranian ayatolahs(who are the true rulers of Iran, not Ahmedinejad) I have some to the conclusion that, if they had anything close to the power of the US they would be at the very least just as bad, propably worse. That's why I refuse to make that kind of a choice.

padjen said...

Ahmedinajad just questions the use of the holocaust, as you may know he is labeled just the latest "Hitler" by the american and jewish media after Hussein and Milosevic. This is a political propaganda tool as a preparation for military invasion. I am offended by the use of the holocaust for propaganda purposes by western media. People like holocaust celebrity Eli Wiesenhal have compared serbs to nazis surely at the behest of their government and it's regularly used expression in imperialistic media.

As for bosnia, the majority of fighters were arab afghans who were transported by cia, there were no iranian fighters . Cia have used some iranians for weapons like they used them in iraq and afghanistan.

I have not studied Iran deeply I admit and I don't think there is much to it, They are not seen as muslims by arabs mostly because they almost never wage wars and they have not attacked anyone in 300 years. Still Americans and Brits aren't attacking them because of their ambitions or their weapons or their fundamentalist like Iraq before remember, it's only as a way to sidestep Iraq debacle and ensure american / israel hegemony of the middle east. Iran is the only country they really fear and would love to partition it like they do to Iraq

You say "Just because some people who attacked the Serbian people in the past now attack Ahmedinejad as well doesn't make the latter a hero all of a sudden" and I never argued he is a "hero" but his detractors are the same imperialistic invaders who want to label him a hitler and then commit genocide on his people as a way to subjugate them. He is defending freedom for his people but also the last leader to resist naked american imperialism and probably the only one who can do it and that's why he is really hated because Iran is big enough so it can defend itself.

Witch-king of Angmar said...

Ahmedinejad questions the holocaust itself, not the abuse of it, which of it there is an abundance, that I agree with you. Just look at the people who attended the conference in Teheran David Duke, Faurisson et al. None claim the holocaust is abused they all deem it "zionist invention".

Yes, the "Hitler" imagery is worn-out by various globalist propagandists and it's now reached the point where it looks exactly like the story of the boy who cried "wolf". Obviously, the pundits who are most vocaly attacking Iran do it for more or less the wrong reasons. But the Iranian rulers have their own agenda and it's not a simple defense of their own land.

Iran constantly gave financial and military aid to Bosnian muslims during the war. Just last week Bosnan "president" Komsic thanked Ahmedinejad for the aid they recieved from Iran durng the war.

padjen said...

You say"Iran constantly gave financial and military aid to Bosnian muslims during the war" I am sure US did much more or are you in denial about that ?

You say Iranian rulers have an agenda and I don't see it and if they have it they can't do much with it while I know that American/Jewish hawks have a real agenda of aggression and domination

You say "Ahmedinejad questions the holocaust itself, not the abuse of it, which of it there is an abundance" , well we can talk about nuances of what he meant and I am not here as his apologist but tell me how many people have been killed, invaded and lied due to his holocaust analogies and how many did from american/jewish side by their abuse of it?
I think answer should be clear and why we should give him the privilege of doubt instead of those who have constantly abused it .

Witch-king of Angmar said...

You are the one in denial. You jumped on the anti-US banwagon so quickly you refuse to see anything that is outside your "bad America/Jews"-"good just about anybody else" matrix of thought. And then you propably complain how people "do not understand the complexities of the Balkans" and "look at ex-Yugoslavia issue one-sidedly".

Ahmedinejad was quite clear about the holocaust, there are no nuances in what he said. Period. And I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt any more then I'm giving it to Croatian revisionist historians, which is none.

Padjen said...

You say"
You are the one in denial. You jumped on the anti-US banwagon so quickly you refuse to see anything that is outside your "bad America/Jews"-"good just about anybody else" matrix of thought."

Well given their record in balkans and Iraq I am extremely sceptical of any claims made by Washington and their allies. Is there any reason to give them benefit of the doubt ?

You continue to insist that he is denying holocaust as if to demean victims but couldn't it all be part of an effort to paint him a new "hitler" so that any hostility and invasion would go easier.

Anyway looking at the blog I doubt we'll agree and you didn't give an inch I must say which is too bad but at least we laid it out and spoke openly

Witch-king of Angmar said...

"You continue to insist that he is denying holocaust as if to demean victims but couldn't it all be part of an effort to paint him a new "hitler" so that any hostility and invasion would go easier."

No it could not. I read his statements first hand.