Comments on: EDITORIAL: Ahmadinejad’s free speech http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/ ... with attention to the unseen Mon, 21 May 2012 21:39:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Laurie Ray http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-460 Laurie Ray Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:07:47 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/#comment-460 It does not do justice to the issue at hand, nor to the case for Norman Finkelstein that Barrington should write "One Stephen Spielberg movie, ...can promote a mythical holocaust that is so fearful of any real investigation that its creators have forced many countries to make any investigation of the real holocaust a crime." What is mythical about Spielberg's holocaust? As far as I was aware the only major disagreement Finkelstein has is with the total number of Jews murdered, which, when you're talking about the different between 5 and 6 million, does not seem all that important. Everyone else's comments were spot on the mark however. It does not do justice to the issue at hand, nor to the case for Norman Finkelstein that Barrington should write “One Stephen Spielberg movie, …can promote a mythical holocaust that is so fearful of any real investigation that its creators have forced many countries to make any investigation of the real holocaust a crime.” What is mythical about Spielberg’s holocaust? As far as I was aware the only major disagreement Finkelstein has is with the total number of Jews murdered, which, when you’re talking about the different between 5 and 6 million, does not seem all that important.

Everyone else’s comments were spot on the mark however.

]]> By: Barrington http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Barrington Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:10:34 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/#comment-31 I can hardly think of a more pathetic sight for freedom of thought and speech than the President of Columbia being forced out of fear for his job and perhaps for his life giving a 15 minute rant to appease the Zionists before the President of Iran has a chance to even speak. Why should it be so in America this poor pathetic man had to act like Colin Powell and play like a fool before the world rather than let Ahmadinejad sink or swim on his own. Why was he so afraid? At least Ahmadinejad had the courage to try and tell his truth to the American public who foolishly believe everything they see from Hollywood, TV  or read in their so called news media.  This is no easy task.  One Stephen Spielberg movie, for example, can set back their beliefs in evolution 70 years and it can promote a mythical holocaust that is so fearful of any real investigation that its creators have forced many countries to make any investigation of the real holocaust a crime. Americans, as we have just learned from the American treatment Mr. Finklestein and the actions of Lee Bollinger must be prevented from questioning even the most important claims in history. What chance to do Americans have to ever find the truth about the world when the very people we should be investigating control the media, their universities , their government and Hollywood? Americas greatest sin will not be its brutal treatment of Haiti and South America, its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its support of Stalin, its destruction of its native people, its hundreds of years of slavery, both white and black, its support of dozens of dictatorships including Marcos, Chiang Kai-Shek, Batista, Duvalier, Suharto, Salassie, The Shah, Mobutu, Pinochet, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein and , of course, the Saudis. It will be its ultimate failure to follow the of the principles of democracy. I can hardly think of a more pathetic sight for freedom of thought and speech than the President of Columbia being forced out of fear for his job and perhaps for his life giving a 15 minute rant to appease the Zionists before the President of Iran has a chance to even speak. Why should it be so in America this poor pathetic man had to act like Colin Powell and play like a fool before the world rather than let Ahmadinejad sink or swim on his own. Why was he so afraid?
At least Ahmadinejad had the courage to try and tell his truth to the American public who foolishly believe everything they see from Hollywood, TV  or read in their so called news media.  This is no easy task.  One Stephen Spielberg movie, for example, can set back their beliefs in evolution 70 years and it can promote a mythical holocaust that is so fearful of any real investigation that its creators have forced many countries to make any investigation of the real holocaust a crime.
Americans, as we have just learned from the American treatment Mr. Finklestein and the actions of Lee Bollinger must be prevented from questioning even the most important claims in history. What chance to do Americans have to ever find the truth about the world when the very people we should be investigating control the media, their universities , their government and Hollywood?
Americas greatest sin will not be its brutal treatment of Haiti and South America, its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its support of Stalin, its destruction of its native people, its hundreds of years of slavery, both white and black, its support of dozens of dictatorships including Marcos, Chiang Kai-Shek, Batista, Duvalier, Suharto, Salassie, The Shah, Mobutu, Pinochet, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein and , of course, the Saudis. It will be its ultimate failure to follow the of the principles of democracy.

]]> By: Alma Jurgensen http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Alma Jurgensen Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:38:24 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/#comment-30 Paul: Kudos to you for an intelligent and cogent response to Ahmadinejad's visit and speech. Would that our president and vice president had the gumption to go before 'unfriendly' audiences like this man did. They speak only at military confabs and veterans' groups. I think that by and large we were very, very rude to the visitor. Ahmadinejad looks 100% better to me at this moment that does this administration OR Lee Bollinger. Paul: Kudos to you for an intelligent and cogent response to Ahmadinejad’s visit and speech.

Would that our president and vice president had the gumption to go before ‘unfriendly’ audiences like this man did. They speak only at military confabs and veterans’ groups.

I think that by and large we were very, very rude to the visitor. Ahmadinejad looks 100% better to me at this moment that does this administration OR Lee Bollinger.

]]> By: Ian Arbuckle http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Ian Arbuckle Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:43:02 +0000 http://warincontext.org/2007/09/25/editorial-ahmadinejads-free-speech/#comment-29 Thank you Paul for your comment and I agree. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia was an excellent example of the weak underbelly of American thinking. A potpourri of prejudice, ignorance, with a large dose propaganda apparently similar to if not reflecting the US administration’s and or Zionist lobby’s stance. If anything one would hope that such an august intellectual institution would be able, through free speech and the use of “intelligent” dialogue, cut through the purely peripheral and get to the meat. But the willingness to present and face the music on one side and the dogma and pre-conceptions on the other, if anything, won the debate for the visitor, although there is no competition in reaching understanding. The Bedouin have a tradition that is adopted by the Arab and I guess the Persian cultures too, and that might well be learned by some Americans, and that is that one cannot aggress, disgrace, or disrespect a guest while he is under your roof. Even if he is your enemy it is an abuse and an offence and your own home to treat him with disrespect in your house. It is more than unfortunate that as an academic and administrator Bollinger as you say can do little more than “a crude and ill-conceived exercise in damage control — an effort to protect Columbia’s brand value and placate a few disgruntled wealthy donors”, while like the US administration in particular, as well as the media and an important part of the masses in general, it seems is trying to purvey a contrived judgment on another by purely ingenious and domestic criteria, while not even understanding the effect of their own dangerous, destructive and shortsighted actions. This is a great mistake in even the most basic understanding of foreign affairs and the essence of the problem of American domestic schizophrenia and foreign imperialism. In fact Mahmud Ahmadinejad did a far better job than his hosts to get to the root of the matter in his speech by among other things answering the question of the Zionist ploy of “marketing” the holocaust discussion as the catch-all for “anti-Semitism”. Without an open mind, and in the Orwellian Columbia of Bollinger terms, it seems that to question is to deny and even to apply perspective is to dishonor. It is not Ahmadinejad who put forward the Holocaust as a cause for the threatened and existential mind set that reportedly justifies the legitimacy or even the crimes of the present day Zionist state of Israel. To call Ahmadinejad a “petty dictator” more than anything expressed simply the ignorance of Bollinger, someone who by his position should know better and must now be seen as an embarrassment to Columbia U., in view of the fact that, unlike the US president, the Iranian head of state has little direct executive power, either in terms of foreign affairs, military or even domestic matters. But, as punching bags go I suppose he suits the bill, if war is where you have decided to go anyway. Also questions on treatment of women’s rights, homosexuals, and human rights from the floor, showed if anything, a kind of “mote in your own eye” idealist blindness that precludes real understanding and development of meaningful dialogue. It is important to remember that other groups and societies are different, and apply different rules. That is even true within a country. Iran can not be judged by US norms. Even questions of capital punishment, sexual discrimination, laws related to homosexuality, and human rights are very much under discussion and not settled in many states and communities inside the US itself. So by what measure can anyone at Columbia U. deride a leader of a state in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa on their different self asserted position nationally? Self determination and sovereignty is all about what they want to do not what America wants them to do and they have to find their own way to do it their way. Thank you Paul for your comment and I agree. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia was an excellent example of the weak underbelly of American thinking. A potpourri of prejudice, ignorance, with a large dose propaganda apparently similar to if not reflecting the US administration’s and or Zionist lobby’s stance. If anything one would hope that such an august intellectual institution would be able, through free speech and the use of “intelligent” dialogue, cut through the purely peripheral and get to the meat. But the willingness to present and face the music on one side and the dogma and pre-conceptions on the other, if anything, won the debate for the visitor, although there is no competition in reaching understanding.

The Bedouin have a tradition that is adopted by the Arab and I guess the Persian cultures too, and that might well be learned by some Americans, and that is that one cannot aggress, disgrace, or disrespect a guest while he is under your roof. Even if he is your enemy it is an abuse and an offence and your own home to treat him with disrespect in your house.

It is more than unfortunate that as an academic and administrator Bollinger as you say can do little more than “a crude and ill-conceived exercise in damage control — an effort to protect Columbia’s brand value and placate a few disgruntled wealthy donors”, while like the US administration in particular, as well as the media and an important part of the masses in general, it seems is trying to purvey a contrived judgment on another by purely ingenious and domestic criteria, while not even understanding the effect of their own dangerous, destructive and shortsighted actions. This is a great mistake in even the most basic understanding of foreign affairs and the essence of the problem of American domestic schizophrenia and foreign imperialism.

In fact Mahmud Ahmadinejad did a far better job than his hosts to get to the root of the matter in his speech by among other things answering the question of the Zionist ploy of “marketing” the holocaust discussion as the catch-all for “anti-Semitism”. Without an open mind, and in the Orwellian Columbia of Bollinger terms, it seems that to question is to deny and even to apply perspective is to dishonor. It is not Ahmadinejad who put forward the Holocaust as a cause for the threatened and existential mind set that reportedly justifies the legitimacy or even the crimes of the present day Zionist state of Israel.

To call Ahmadinejad a “petty dictator” more than anything expressed simply the ignorance of Bollinger, someone who by his position should know better and must now be seen as an embarrassment to Columbia U., in view of the fact that, unlike the US president, the Iranian head of state has little direct executive power, either in terms of foreign affairs, military or even domestic matters. But, as punching bags go I suppose he suits the bill, if war is where you have decided to go anyway. Also questions on treatment of women’s rights, homosexuals, and human rights from the floor, showed if anything, a kind of “mote in your own eye” idealist blindness that precludes real understanding and development of meaningful dialogue. It is important to remember that other groups and societies are different, and apply different rules. That is even true within a country. Iran can not be judged by US norms. Even questions of capital punishment, sexual discrimination, laws related to homosexuality, and human rights are very much under discussion and not settled in many states and communities inside the US itself. So by what measure can anyone at Columbia U. deride a leader of a state in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa on their different self asserted position nationally? Self determination and sovereignty is all about what they want to do not what America wants them to do and they have to find their own way to do it their way.

]]>