Questions for the Debate:


1. An invitation to Ahmadinejad to Speak at Columbia was withdrawn in 2006 (see above). So why was he welcomed in 2007?
2. Did this give a madman a forum in the US or was it productive in some way?
3. Is Columbia fair in who is allowed to speak there or is there political bias at work?

Hmm... I wouldn't call that "welcomed". You don't invite somebody to speak and then insult him in front of his audience. Regardless of what you think of Ahmadinejad or anybody, this is just plain bad manners. You do not insult guests in your own house. What a shameful display it was.
So, Ted, if Ahmadinejad is a madman, why are you afraid of giving him "the forum"? Surely people can see through his madness and see the madman for who he is? Freedom of speech should work both ways, including our adversaries. If there is a place for Ahmadinejad to give a speech, a major university should be the place.

My problem EH is that folks like the US military (ROTC) are banned from liberal Columbia. Why was he banned in 2006 and this year – when we know his forces are helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq, he in invited to speak?

IMO he does not deserve a forum in New York or any US city. We here him speaking his crazy rhetoric all over the world – did he say something different at Columbia? Did anyone convince him this country isn’t his natural enemy and should be destroyed (or become Muslim) – I think not.

And I agree with you on the insults. If you invite a man to speak it is certainly bad manners to insult him at the outset.

And what will this do for the students at Columbia if, as is being discussed, some school funding is cut?

What would be the basis for cutting funding to school? Ahmadinejad was granted a visa to United States, he is certainly NOT persona non grata... at this time anyway. Also I don't think he ever called for the destruction of United States... I may be wrong indeed, but I think you got him mixed up with Osama b. Laden...
Invited speakers like that rarely say something new that students never heard before. Do you really think that Bill Clinton or Giuliani, who are getting paid tens of thousands of dollars per speech, provide something new and insightful at every lecture of theirs?
The value of that meeting was the opportunity for students to ask the President of Iran live, unscripted questions. Which they did.

You know, even in Soviet Union Margharet Thatcher was given an opportunity to be asked questions - not by students, but by seasoned commentators - on live TV. Her performance was legendary, she got them beaten completely. When the truth and facts are on your side, you win.

1. An invitation to Ahmadinejad to Speak at Columbia was withdrawn in 2006 (see above). So why was he welcomed in 2007?

I'm not sure, but if I thought that I might be introduced the way Bollinger "introduced" Ahmadinejad, I would be sure to decline the invitation.

2. Did this give a madman a forum in the US or was it productive in some way?

I think it was productive in a way. I do not think that Ahmadinejad is a madman. But after listening to him sidestep questions, it became apparent that he is a slick propagandist in a way that his 16-page letter to President Bush could not disclose. I learned just how well he can twist things; apparently that talent is not restricted to English-speaking politicians.

How he hedged rather than admitting to denying the historicity of the Holocaust was revealing. "More research," indeed!

Reminds me of the saying, "Give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself."

3. Is Columbia fair in who is allowed to speak there or is there political bias at work?

Not having followed Columbia's track record in who they do or don't allow to speak there, I couldn't possibly say.

It is always useful, I think, to hear the leaders themselves rather than relying on soundbites and commentaries about what they say, such as is common on networks like CNN.

Well how do you interpret “Death to America”? And he has been accused of harboring AQ.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0212/p01s02-wome.html




And he gave evasive and scripted answers. Did you hear anything new? I didn’t.




Colleges are dependant on donations. Many Jewish donors, unhappy about the invitation may cut donations. And …….

“Hunter: I Will Try To ‘Cut Off Funds To Columbia University’ Because Of Ahmadinejad Speech
Earlier today, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said in a statement that if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger “follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of Federal Funding to Columbia University.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/hunter-columbia-funding/

Yeah sure. That's something FoxNews is saying. And they get their info from "senior US sources" or "unnamed US senior officer" and bullcrap like that.

I'd hate to burst anyone's bubble... but even the Discovery Channel agrees with the fact that the majority of "insurgents" are from foreign soil (not Iraqi's).

Consider this. When Osama Bin Laden joined forces with the Taliban, in the late 90's (I think), a large portion of the Taliban was formed from Saudi and Pakistani fighters.

Why couldn't Iranians be a part of the insurgents in Iraq? Consider how Anti-American they are? It's not hard to cross the border, so logically it seems more than feasible.

Complete at total falsehood which, again, comes from unnamed sources. Whatever. So AEVANS, China invades the US, occupies the US and within four years kills the equivalent to say about 15 million Americans....you're gonna say the people fighting against the Chinese are for the most part going to be Canadian's crossing over to the US side of the border so they can be the ones to kill the occupying Chinese forces? How deluded. No. Since almost every Iraq family has been touched by the illegal US occupation, I'd say the ones killing Americans are angry Iraqis. Flip the coin and see the logistics. Doesn't really seem plausible now does it?

I am new here, I have been trying to get used to reading the format here, and it strikes me as useless when people keep repeating large tracts over and over again. An honest debate would keep to the simplest, clearest statements possible. On the other hand, sophistry relies on fundamental dubious assumptions as reasonable and then constantly reinforces and builds upon those dubious assumptions as real, operational and critical. A good example of a fundamental dubious assumption is to assume Americans are somehow better or superior to all the other people in the world.

A real debate would try to resolve what makes a person truly superior, beginning with self-evident assumptions and simple terms agreed as reasonable. A real debate has a point. It is civilized. Like Civilization, it seeks to move towards a clearer view of reality from that which the debaters began with. Sophistry, on the other hand, seeks to move away from a clearer view of reality and has that aim in common with the definition of a Dark Age. Mostly what I see online (I say this from past online experiences) are rants of sophistry and gobs of written jingoistic ooze designed to bury, obscure and ultimately consign some decent thread to the eternally unread 'dead pages'. It is a written version of some barbarian 'pile on' of village oafs. If Americans online are mostly engaged in rants of sophistry, how does that make them 'superior' when what they are doing is engaging in activity found only in Dark Age societies? Civilized societies, like the ancient Greeks, debate and give the world enormous gifts of the mind like mathematics and science. Dark Age Societies hoot and holler and bring on misery, arrogance and ignorance.

1. An invitation to Ahmadinejad to Speak at Columbia was withdrawn in 2006 (see above). So why was he welcomed in 2007?

The answer may be found in one of the links you supplied. Here's what the situation was like in 2006:



(Bold added for emphasis)

In 2006 it seems that the decision was made that he could speak at the University, as he did in 2007, but that he should not be a part of the "World Leader's Forum," which would seem to be a special event, open only to those judged to "reflect the academic values" of Columbia. In other words, a lot of people can speak at Columbia, but very few people can speak at this special forum. Seems like a reasonable decision to me, in both 2006 and 2007.


2. Did this give a madman a forum in the US or was it productive in some way?

I tend to think that it never hurts to listen to those who oppose you. At the very least, it confirms your worst opinion about them. In this particular case, Ahmadinejad's absurd comment that there is no homosexuality in Iran was very revealing, and quite properly exposed him to mocking laughter. After such a statement, who can take him seriously?

By the way, it might be a good idea to distinguish between those who are genuinely insane, and those whose thinking is imprisoned by religious ideology. Reading the transcript of Ahmadinejad's remarks in like reading the remarks of any other religious fundamentalist.

3. Is Columbia fair in who is allowed to speak there or is there political bias at work?

Since Ahmadinejad seems to have provoked a very negative reaction with his talk, I can't imagine that Columbia was somehow biased in his favor. Rather the reverse, if anything. ("Let's listen to this guy talk and laugh at him.")

Hunter's threat to cut off funds to Columbia is an empty gesture. It only makes him look like Ahmadinejad.

1. An invitation to Ahmadinejad to Speak at Columbia was withdrawn in 2006 (see above). So why was he welcomed in 2007?

I figger it was to bawl him out for being a moron. That happened.

2. Did this give a madman a forum in the US or was it productive in some way?

You're placing him up to the level of a madman? I don't think so. He's a freaking kid, a punk, a no-nothing squirt. Madmen are smart, overachievers who hit the brink and went off the edge. Hitler was a madman. This guy is nothing but a child without a clue, a rockstar who got fame early and is heading for burnout. After that he might attain the status of madness.

3. Is Columbia fair in who is allowed to speak there or is there political bias at work?

Huh? What does "fair" have to do with anything? We learn that life is not fair by age 5.

Of course he was set up to fall. The idiot took the bait.

"NO GAYS IN IRAN!!!!"

Uh-huh scooter, sure there aren't. You're not looking.

I think he has this position of being the spokesperson for Iran without any real power. Now he has shown what an incompetent spokesperson he is, and if the real powers in Iran think he should keep his job, that reflects on them. Also, if he thinks it's a plus to have been involved with the 1970s hostage thing that got Reagan elected, at least in this country among those who have lived through that, then reduce the IQ to negative numbers.

I have noticed that the talking heads have mastered the guy's name pronunciation. Now there's a lot of wasted effort. He will always be Sammy Simpleton to me. Got to admit that the whole affair was pretty funny though.