Wow! Just in the nick of time! Columbia University, in an apparent mass search effort, managed to locate enough tasers to control the mobs outraged at Iran's terrorist-president Ahmadinejad before he showed up to speak at the university. One would hate to have seen his free speech rights hindered.
Let's see...here's the guy who has been sending missiles and foreign insurgents to kill American soldiers He is a violater of the U.N. Charter because he openly rallies nearby nations to destroy Israel (a fellow UN member nation), was identified as a leader in the kidnapping of Americans in Tehran in 1979, harbors al-qaeda terrorists, and is a known sponsor of terrorism worldwide—certainly somebody you want your 17-year old daughter to meet at school. It's educational, after all.
No doubt at this time next year there will be some other maniac responsible for the deaths of Americans they can warmly embrace at the university. Of course, in the interest of academic freedom, we must search out such people so as get the truth and not be misled by our own generals trying to fight a war, right?
Thank you Columbia University for proving once again that the heart of ignorance thrives in intellectual arrogance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ditto..and since when is any citizen of any country in the whole world FREE to speak here? It was easy to ask if they would have Hitler as a speaker, since the lastI heard he is dead. Why not ask about David Duke, who is alive and well with similar ideas as Ahmdinajaob(sic) but white. OH NO
What a childish attitude.
Students and participants got a chance to ask him some very difficult questions, and got a chance to her his answers and views. Listening to someone is by no means an endorsement of their opinions.
It's not like he was greeted with flowers and treated as a saint.
AZ Ace you wrote a great quote. Love it- Can i borrow it ?
"Thank you Columbia University for proving once again that the heart of ignorance thrives in intellectual arrogance."
Great sound bite. Sadly, it's untrue though - the heart of ignorance actually thrives among the intellectually insensate.
I'll accept that the heart of ignorance thrives in both...but "childish?"
Why does it make sense to invite a known terrorist, kidnapper, and sponsor of terrorism who only a week ago hosted an in-country demonstration—with a theme (complete with supporting signs) stating death to Americans and Jews—to anything other than a court of justice?
It's silly to pretend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is simply a world leader with another point of view to whom we should work to strengthen understanding and mutual cooperation.
Ahmadinejad was exposed to very difficult criticism and questions. He was most certainly not feted and treated with kid clubs.
People who attended the event (or viewed it) got an opportunity to see him answer questions, and gain a better understanding of just how outlandish and extreme his views are. The impact of having the opportunity to see and hear that in person can't be over-estimated.
An exchange like that most certainly does strengthen understanding, Many people mistake understanding for agreement. The two are not synonymous. It is, perhaps, more important to gather understanding of those we disagree with, so as to better counter them, than it is to understand those we generally agree with.
Yeah, it's very childish to simply say "I hate you, and refuse to talk to you." That's the response of an 8-year-old. I like to think most of us have progressed beyond that stage.
This is really a classic case of oversimplifying an issue framing it as this way or that to suggest only two possibilities. It is not a question of "I hate you, and refuse to talk to you." It's an issue of common sense and judgement in the decision to invite such a person to a forum, which by doing so, legitimizes him.
Some have used the example of Israel inviting Hitler to speak at a forum to answer questions about his views and achieve greater understanding of their differences. It would be ludicrous. The differences are: You want to kill me and I don't want you to. This is not about "understanding those we disagree with."
We should reserve our plaforms for understanding for those reasonably capable of such. Anything less is foolishness.
What legitimization does he need? He is the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation. He has legitimacy regardless of our opinions about him.
The comparison to Hitler (as with so many Hitler comparisons) is ludicrous. Ahmadinejad may be a Holocaust denier, but he hasn't actually launched a second Holocaust, even, not even within Iran. Holocaust-deniers _have_ spoken within Israel, where they often meet with tough, difficult, skeptical questioning ... similar to what happened at Colombia.
When I was talking about understanding, I wasn't referring to him understanding us (which I think is what you are referring to in your last sentence), although that might be nice. Rather, it's the opportunity for us to better understand him which is important.
The problem with "reserving our platforms for x" is the question of who gets to decide that "x is worthy to be listened to"? Frankly, I want to be able to make that decision myself.
Post a Comment