Ahmadinejad's Visit to the University

[Eleftherios]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

So what are your thoughts on his visit? Did you support the university's decision to invite him or the way they treated him?

[RedStarOverChina]

The host's behavior is really wacko-----Probably just wanted to be know as the guy who stood up against the "foreign dictator" (but at the same tme scared shitless by his native ruler).

The guys lured poor Ahmed into the university with good words, shut the doors and beat the crap out of his unsuspecting guest.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did so under the the instruction of the US government.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:38 am
The host's behavior is really wacko-----Probably just wanted to be know as the guy who stood up against the "foreign dictator" (but at the same tme scared shitless by his native ruler).

The guys lured poor Ahmed into the university with good words, shut the doors and beat the crap out of his unsuspecting guest.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did so under the the instruction of the US government.
I completely agree. Even though I am not a big fan of him, I do not like the way they treated him at all for two main reasons:

1) Its always bad to treat your guests like crap, no matter who he/she is

2) This has probably improved Ahmadinejab's image because it made him look like the victim. In the article it even states that even his critics in Iran were unimpressed by the way he was treated

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:45 am
1) Its always bad to treat your guests like crap, no matter who he/she is
Hitler?

But, just playing the devil's advocate.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by RSOA+September 26, 2007 01:57 am--> (RSOA @ September 26, 2007 01:57 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 01:45 am
1) Its always bad to treat your guests like crap, no matter who he/she is
Hitler?

But, just playing the devil's advocate. [/b]
I don't mind people treating their guests like crap if they are conservative dictators like Ahmadeenijad, but the Columbia University people are petty bourgeoise imperialist trash and I hope they get the backlash personally from the invasion they are stoking.

[RedHal]

The higher learning institutes of the US are increasingly turning right wing. Not surprising, considering most of their grants are from right wing institutes. The University President's rant is just part of the ruling class' efforts to demonize Iran in order to launch their invasion. He's nothing but a mouthpiece for his neocon and zionist financial backers.

[Red October]

Ahmadeenijad is still a total dick. He said homosexuals don't exist in Iran :wacko:

[The Something]

I have mixed feelings on this, on one hand they gave him a space to speak and yet on another they.... gave him a space to speak. Heh. People there booed when they did not agree with him and that is normal no matter who the person is. I think they accomplished their objective of showing him for what he really is.

I personally like the way he speaks and he allmost has me convinced at times(watch the cspan interview), but then he pulls out the whole "holocaust didn't happen" and "CIA is responsible for 9/11" stuff which makes me cringe. He is odd in the sense that he talks about not suppressing american freedoms and opening channels of communication and yet his country is one of the most repressed.

I guess it's like (I'm using this comparison loosely) a calm smart articulated hitler. You start believing him and stuff because of his intelligence then......... the fundamentalism kicks in during the middle of his interviews and he goes back to crazy town.

The main reason I can never beleive anything he says is not because of some stupid close minded "I'm american and anything different is bad especially when the president tells me so" mentality, but rather he follows Islam so literally (somewhat relative to our ultra-right wings here) that I could not trust him. Explaination:the quran states that you shall dominate all other religions, period. No maybes if's and's or but's about it.


"Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (idolaters, polytheists, pagans, the disbelievers in the Oneness of God, etc) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful".
(Quran 9:5)

Convert, submiss to their rule and law which is the the law of the quran or die.

Osama shares this same view of literalism and violent takeover of "infidels". While I admire his smooth talking skills and wish his words were that of a true muslim of peace I cannot easily be be swayed (recently they admitted to mortaring kurdish gorrila groups, Iran generals stated this, not U.S. propoganda)

:\

[Labor Shall Rule]

I watched the entire event.

Of course, it seemed the host was considering the interests of bourgeois academia, who pay lip-service to several corporations, when he addressed his audience. He had all the liberal terminology of 'terrorism', and upheld certain lies on Iran's intervention into Iraq, as well as holding onto progressive rhetoric in order to veil the true purpose of his speech.

I would agree with Red October though, Ahmadeenijad is a nationalist bourgeois that is the head of a reactionary state that forces women to hide under their hijab, that hangs homosexuals, and that shoots down striking workers.

[LSD]

It's funny, so many people seem to have strong opinions on this subject and yet it seems like such a non-issue to me.

I just don't see where the passion comes from, on either side. The guy was coming to New York to speak anyway, Columbia just let him give an additional address. And it's not like anyone was endorsing his positions or there was ever a risk that a student body in the US was going to take a Muslim theocrat seriously ...so what's the big deal?

On the other hand, if he hadn's spoke, it wouldn't have mattered either. The guy has more than enough outlets to get his message out. It's not like Columbia's the only platform available.

All in all, it seems like a big fuss over absolutely nothing, though I suppose it's actually an expression of misdirected rage. The guy represents everything that Americans have been trained to hate over the pat 6 years, so I guess it's to be expected that they'd be somewhat irrational in his presence.

Still it's a rather sad display of collective missing of the point.


The guys lured poor Ahmed into the university...

By "poor Ahmed", I take it you mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, the noted dictator, theocrat, racist, and sexist?

Yeah, I'm sure he's really suffering from all the name-calling he's suffered. Poor, poor, guy... :rolleyes:

[RedStarOverChina]

By "poor Ahmed", I take it you mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, the noted dictator, theocrat, racist, and sexist?

No, I was refering to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, the noted dictator, theocrat, racist, and sexist.

Try and keep your cool, will ya?

[YSR]

Eh, I refuse to choose between capitalist imperialism and Islamic theocracy. I saw part of his speech and I thought it was crazy bullshit. But I also thought the media's fear-mongering was equally dangerous.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 26, 2007 03:48 am
I personally like the way he speaks and he allmost has me convinced at times(watch the cspan interview), but then he pulls out the whole "holocaust didn't happen" and "CIA is responsible for 9/11" stuff which makes me cringe.
Not to defend him but where did he say it DIDN'T HAPPEN??? He just stated he wanted a review of it and he wanted to make the point of "why should the people of Palestine suffer for the crimes of the Nazis?". He didn't say (at least to my knowledge, someone correct me if I'm wrong) that it didn't happen at all.

Is there a link to this CSPAN interview???

Again, I'm not defending him. He is regressive in his country and to say that homosexuals don't exist in Iran.......................well.................wo w. Shows how religion itself can make people think.

But if we're going to bash him, lets bash him using logic and reason and lets not spit out the same un-reasonable crap that the bourgeoisie U.S. press and the un-educated United Statians have been spitting out please. We're better than that. Let's make the point that he destroys workers movements, he denies the existence of homosexuals in his country, etc.

[anna79]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:30 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

So what are your thoughts on his visit? Did you support the university's decision to invite him or the way they treated him?
Well, i think it was good to invite him, its the right thing to let ur enemy talk! The way they treated him might be little bit bad, coz he was a guest and representative of a nation after all!!! Although I am sure the university didn’t do it without permission of their bosses in government!!!
But believe me he did worth it! He is a dictator, uneducated and cruel! A real lire! Fascist!
Words can not describe what a devil he and his group in Iran are! They r torturing university students in Iran coz once during his speech they laugh at him! Or they asked him questions he didn’t like!!! Torturing teachers coz they want their payment!!! Imprisoning and executing workers coz they ask for a pay raise.
And dear friends please do not assume Iranian government a leftwing government! They r extreme-right wing, and they murdered and still are murdering all left-wing people!!!!
They just need some support in the world and they are using your anti-imperialist feelings! Please be realistic!
They used this same trick to get into power after revolution in Iran. The revolutionaries in Iran weren’t Islamists! They are all now either executed or immigrated from their home and live as refugees all over the world.
Anyhow, University used him to make American ppl hate Iran more and ease the way to any action against Iran! And the president helped them quit well!!!

[ComradeR]

anna79 sums it up pretty well.
--


Again, I'm not defending him. He is regressive in his country and to say that homosexuals don't exist in Iran.......................well.................wo w. Shows how religion itself can make people think.
Yeah i know what you mean.

Ahmadeenijad is still a total dick. He said homosexuals don't exist in Iran :wacko:
He's right homosexuals don't exist in Iran! openly that is, they're all hiding for fear of being hanged thanks to those fucking religious nutters.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Of course, it helps smoothe the way for US aggression if those who claim to be on the left join in with all this Iran-bashing.

We had the same just before the invasion of Iraq.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Of course, it helps smoothe the way for US aggression if those who claim to be on the left join in with all this Iran-bashing.

We had the same just before the invasion of Iraq.

finally someone oppose this disgusting reactionary bashing of those threatend from US imperialism. There are too many reactionaries here on revleft who either fall innocently into the imperialsit trap or are intentionally hiding thier bigotry behind the being "progressive" banner. Thanks Rosa for this this progressive stance, even though I strongly disagree with you on your Mao bashing.

Iran is being threatned by US imperialsim. Any leftist should be in its defence. The fact the Iranian state happens to have a different ideology or the fact it isn't democratic wouldn't change this. You can't be "in the middle". You can't be both against US imperialism and its vicitm. It doesn't work. As communists, our differences with Iran is minor compared to our opposition to US capitalist imperilaism

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 27, 2007 05:26 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 27, 2007 05:26 pm) Of course, it helps smoothe the way for US aggression if those who claim to be on the left join in with all this Iran-bashing.

We had the same just before the invasion of Iraq. [/b]
The SWP, on the other hand, are consistent in their support for Iran:


[email protected] 28.11.87
We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime...it would be wrong to strike... socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies... not support action which would lead to the collapse of the military effort.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dev:


The SWP, on the other hand, are consistent in their support for Iran:

Just as you are at misquoting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolution Until Victory, I am happy to pin my colours to the mast of anti-imperialism, and join with you in condemning those who are doing Bush's work for him.

But you need to know that I also hope the workers in Iran overthrow their own ruling class -- they will be able to fight off the US all the better that way.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 05:53 pm
Dev:


The SWP, on the other hand, are consistent in their support for Iran:

Just as you are at misquoting.
Where is the misquotation? The quote is there alongside the issue of SW that it appeared in. This is what they said. Of course, if I were misquoting, it would be quite easy for you to check your parties records and disprove it.

Devrim

[WWKMD?]

Ok, the President of Iran sucks, but as a westerner, thats none of my business. We have our own shitty leaders to bash, let the Iranian people take care of theirs.

He is very unpopular in Iran, and few things can make him popular among the people, a Foriegn Invasion is one of those things.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dev:


Where is the misquotation?

In your last post. Don't tell me your memory is going!!!


The quote is there alongside the issue of SW that it appeared in. This is what they said. Of course, if I were misquoting, it would be quite easy for you to check your parties records and disprove it.

I can't do that, and neither can you.

But, we know you like to twist things, as we saw in that other thread.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 06:23 pm
Dev:


Where is the misquotation?

In your last post. Don't tell me your memory is going!!!


The quote is there alongside the issue of SW that it appeared in. This is what they said. Of course, if I were misquoting, it would be quite easy for you to check your parties records and disprove it.

I can't do that, and neither can you.

But, we know you like to twist things, as we saw in that other thread.
No, I didn't. The fact that you failed to understand English is your problem. The SWP said this. It is absolutely shocking thing for a so-called socialist to say. The only defence you have as ever is to throw abuse, pretty pathetic really.
Devrim

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:14 pm
Ok, the President of Iran sucks, but as a westerner, thats none of my business. We have our own shitty leaders to bash, let the Iranian people take care of theirs.

He is very unpopular in Iran, and few things can make him popular among the people, a Foriegn Invasion is one of those things.
I totally agree.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Revolution Until Victory, I am happy to pin my colours to the mast of anti-imperialism, and join with you in condemning those who are doing Bush's work for him.

But you need to know that I also hope the workers in Iran overthrow their own ruling class -- they will be able to fight off the US all the better that way.

of course, that what we all hope for all. We should hope the Iranian anti-imperilaist workers can sieze political power and overthrow thier explioters, before the imperialist aggression begins. Even though destroying US imperialism would be better to be done first, so it would pave the way for the the workers to emancipate themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dev:


No, I didn't. The fact that you failed to understand English is your problem. The SWP said this. It is absolutely shocking thing for a so-called socialist to say. The only defence you have as ever is to throw abuse, pretty pathetic really.

Nice try again, but we are going to need the full quote, and the context before we believe a dissembler like you.

[Faux Real]

I agree with comrade WWKMD? and Rosa.

The whole visit was pointless. Why fuss over this menial stuff?

The moronic news headlines, bad treatment by the host, Ahmadinejad's intentional ignorant statement on the gay community, the nutjob protectors outside the building with billboards supporting an invasion on Iran...

The current Iranian govt is unpopular with the people of Iran. In fact, if the country wasn't so much under an external threat by the US they would vote him out of office as soon as possible. Through the instigation that he and the reactionary abomination of an "Islamic Republic" stay in power.

"Americans" should have all learned by now that imperial "interventionist" attitudes have fucked the world over time and time again.

The situation here is no different, the Iranian people will take necessary action when the conditions are there for them.

If, of course, another US invasion doesn't happen. -_-

[Leo]

First of all I have edited the title. It's Ahmedinejad, not Ahmedinejab.


Ok, the President of Iran sucks, but as a westerner, thats none of my business. We have our own shitty leaders to bash, let the Iranian people take care of theirs.

Then I guess I should say something like "ok, the President of US sucks, but as a middle easterner, that's none of my business. Let me worry about my ruling class and let them worry about theirs"?

[Guerrilla22]

I applaud Ahmadinejad's courage. Bush would never allow himself to face one tough question after another from 60 minutes, he'll only appear on Fox news where he's tossed one softball question after another for 15 minutes. Nor would Bush show up at a public university and allow students to grill him with questions for an hour. The only school Bush has ever showed up at was a bible college and he was a guest speaker at a graduation, which meant he didn't have to answer questions.

[WWKMD?]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:49 pm
"Americans" should have all learned by now that imperial "interventionist" attitudes have fucked the world over time and time again.
But it makes them rich.

Long pointless wars sell alot of guns and bombs. For them, its all a matter of keeping the uppidy masses scared enough to comply.

How do they do it? Simple: tell them "Ahmadinejad=Hitler"

And nobody likes a Hitler.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 07:03 pm
Dev:


No, I didn't. The fact that you failed to understand English is your problem. The SWP said this. It is absolutely shocking thing for a so-called socialist to say. The only defence you have as ever is to throw abuse, pretty pathetic really.

Nice try again, but we are going to need the full quote, and the context before we believe a dissembler like you.
That is an interesting use of the royal 'we'. It is interesting that you try to smear people rather than address the arguments of what the SWP was doing. People will believe what they like.

I didn't quote from the original source, but from a secondary one. I do remember reading the article at the time( I was working in London then), and using it myself.

At the time I was shocked that even the SWP could write such things. However, back in 1986, I was comparatively young, and didn't know that it was normal for so-called socialists to take such outrageously anti-working class, pro-nationalist positions. Now I know better.

The SWP must have an archive though, and I would imagine that it is relatively easy for a member to request a copy of an article. As for the context. I imagine that this is quite clear, anti-imperialism leading the SWP to take up pro-nationalist positions...again.

Looking forward to you ignoring the politics yet again,

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

A newspaper here showed a collage of covers from "Daily News". Apparently, they had made Ahmadinejad the target of a four-day hate campaign. This sort of thing makes my journalist heart bleed.

[A Suvorov]

I deplore the hatchet-job that Mr. Bollinger tried to do on Mr. Ahmadinejad- regardless of how he personally felt (or was pressured into appearing to feel that way, more the likely) it is simply inexcusable for a host to treat his guest in such a fashion. The only thing Mr. Bollinger accomplished was making himself look like a fool, a) for being such a poor host, and for b) in the end, looking like nothing more than a Quisling for caving in to the the rabid right-wingers.

As for Mr. Ahmadinejad's actual speech, I fully confess I have not read it in it's entirety. However, some of the highlights that have been repeated ad nauseum I can comment upon:

His 'denial' of the Holocaust: He hasn't 'denied' that the Holocaust occurred; he, like a growing number of scholars, simply believes it didn't happen on the scale or in the manner that has been sold to the world at large according to those who benefit from perpetuating misinterpretation of the events. In addition, I side with his view that, while the Holocaust was a terrible event regardless of its scale, it should not be used to justify any actions taken by the Israelis against the Palestinians or any other group wihtin Israel's grasp.

His claim of 'there are no homosexuals in Iran': Simply put, the Iranian/Islamic interpretation of 'homosexual' is not quite the same as ours in America. Certainly there are those who engage in those practices in Iran, but in that society they are viewed differently and not as merely a cultural or societal norm.

His claim referring to 'destroying Israel': Again, a misinterpretation- a more accurate translation was one calling for 'the removal of the oppressive regime over Palestine'- that's not exactly saying that Israel should be detroyed! In fact, up until the US stupidly installed the Shah back in the 70's Israel and Iran were 'bestest buddies' in the Middle East, being the two most powerful movers and shakers in the region. In the absence of harmful US influence, there is every reason to believe there could be a return to regular diplomatic relations- neither Israel or Iran are stupid nations; they are grown-up enough to work it out without our meddling in their regional affairs.

These are the only instances I will comment upon; after reading the speech in it's entirety I may offer additional comment.

I am appalled at the media circus that has arisen over Mr. Ahmadinejad's visit, particularly over his desire to lay a wreath at Ground Zero- if anyone cares to remember, immediately following the attacks there were massive candlelight vigils and demonstrations in the streets of Tehran with the citizens of Iran offering their prayers and solidarity with the US. With everything else we have to be concerned with, why did everyone choose to make such an issue over one man offering a show of sympathy for the victims of the attack? Grandstanding for political gain- Mr. Ahmadinejad was an easy target so naturally they took the shot regardless of how ridiculous they presented themselves.