I am gong to go with the dean that has the better hair.

What's wrong with calling for the destruction of Israel? I watch Fox News nightly, and it seems like they are all calling for the destruction of Iran, and are smugly pleased with the destruc...er, liberation of Iraq...

Who would win in a tag team fight? Bush and Cheney or Ahmadinejad and a duffle bag full of doorknobs?

Commenting on this is not as fun as some of the other posts.

There are some people and some subjects that are so repungent and so dangerous that they should not be toyed with. This man and the ideas that he represents are simply evil. There are no two ways about it and it is not open to discussion. His country (and he was involved) held american's hostage, actively promoted terrorism and is actively conducting a covert war against american soldiers. He should not have been allowed in the country, and definitely not allowed to speak.

"There are no two ways about it and it is not open to discussion."

Actually, it certainly is open to discussion. That said, on the balance, even the possibility of granting any sort of legitimacy to Ahmadinejad's views is a sufficient concern to override any potential benefits of extending the invitation.

I think it would have been funny for us to bomb Iran while he was speaking.

He is the president of a country that many in this country want to attack. I think we should start learning who people are before we brand them an enemy... Yes, he is a lunatic with absurd views, but then what is the danger of having him speak? Listen to him for a minute and you can see right through him. The guy is an idiot. By not letting him speak you make him more important than he really is. Isn't our free society strong enough to handle the ramblings of an idiot?

Any problem with allowing this guy to speak but not allowing ROTC?

It would be nice if at some point - after receiving zillions of dollars in federal grants - Columbia University actually acted like it was part of the United States. Relativism gone completely rampant.

Pluralistic yes! And we should be exposed/expose ourselves to "different views." You know, antisemitic, Holocaust-denying, gay-executing, woman-beating, Islamic supremacist views.

M.A.:"I want to kill you and wipe you off the face of the earth"

4:29: "Oh really. Let us sit and talk and maybe I can see if you have any valid points. I mean I am sure I have some room for improvement."

4:29,

"Isn't our free society strong enough to handle the ramblings of an idiot?"

We've made it almost 8 years now...

amen, 4:29

and for all of those people who like to bring up the issue of ROTC, ROTC is not "speaking" - it is recruiting. i don't think anyone would object to an ROTC representative coming on campus to defend their right to recruit, but to do the actual recruiting is a different issue.

I'm sort of torn. On the one hand if I was making the choice I would never decide to invite him.

Yet, if it turned out he was coming to my school I would certainly want to go and see it.

Yeah, complicated.

"and for all of those people who like to bring up the issue of ROTC, ROTC is not "speaking" - it is recruiting. i don't think anyone would object to an ROTC representative coming on campus to defend their right to recruit, but to do the actual recruiting is a different issue."

Really? How?

4:29 - if Columbia were known as some great forum for speech where unpopular views were consistently sought out, maybe. But it's not - Columbia would not give David Duke or Trent Lott a stage if they asked (rightly). Why this guy? Here's why: Bush and "his gang" have spent a lot of time criticizing him. This gives Columbia the opportunity to look "open minded" while gaining huge points in liberal academic circles for accommodating someone who dislikes Bush as much as they do. The rest of the nation cringes.

Won't this dramatically diminish Columbia's abilities to attract Jewish students and to solicit gifts from Jewish donors? Is Bollinger that shortsighted?

"even the possibility of granting any sort of legitimacy to Ahmadinejad's views is a sufficient concern to override any potential benefits of extending the invitation"

He said that Iran has no homosexuals. Are we really worried about people thinking this visit grants him legitimacy?

The fact that this guy is evil and should not be allowed to speak does not mean that ROTC should or should not be allowed and does not mean that the moron in the White House is doing a good job.

There should be a "Who cares?" option on the poll.

4:38 - Love the linking Trent Lott and David Duke together. Are you for real?

I heard a rumor that the Iranian president is going to be speaking about white guys with asian girls. Lat, interested in attending?

"Isn't our free society strong enough to handle the ramblings of an idiot?"

Many of us were subjected to public education. We're used to it.

Joe, to the folks at Columbia, there is no difference. I see your point.

Any info on Tehran bonuses?

We let Lat come and speak to us last year; it's only fair to let Pres. A. come as well.

4.32 first,

are you for real?

He never said he wants to wipe the US off the face of the earth.

Tehran to 190k and two free admissions to public executions!!!!

Our blind support of Israel will be our undoing as a once great nation

4:53: Am I for real? Think about this for a few minutes. Have you ever listened to this guy? Do you think he is open to any suggestions?

Shame on us for letting him go back to Iran and say See, Columbia lets me speak, America may not like me but they respect me enough to let me speak. I am not a big joke.

I guess to them the only true evil is the Minutemen.

Actually, in response to the poster who claimed that Columbia is one-sided in its promotion of open debate, the latest Columbia free-speech issue before the current situation involved the University's permission of a speech by a right-wing, vigilante border guard from the Minutemen Millitia. You may disagree with Columbia, but they're not hypocrites.

What's lost in this is that the entire uproar surrounding Ahmadinejad, both at Columbia and at the WTC, has been fostered by the New York tabloids as a way of conditioning the public to support neo-con plans to invade Iran in the wake of the public's understandable weariness of aggressive, offensive actions in the Middle East.

Any school that doesn't allow ROTC is full of bunny-nuzzling cocksuckers.

Your last paragraph is absolutely correct. The fact that this guy is evil does not negate the fact that our own country is being run by neo-cons. There is little doubt that they are planning to invade Iran and sadly the yahoos in this country will go along with it.

But it was still not a good idea to invite this guy to speak.

Does anyone really think that if Israel didn't exist there would be no terror in the world?

The reality is the Islamist movement seeks one thing -- world domination and the re-establishment of the world caliphate and the imposition of sha'ria throughout the world, and they are willing, planning even, to use violence to attain that goal.

I ask you, would any of the world's despots be provided a forum to speak? Idi Amin? Sadaam Hussein? Chavez? Jong Il?

What makes this guy different? Oh, right, his country has actually killed American soldiers in Iraq and funded other terrorist organizations that have in the past and continue to kill Americans.

His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two.

Commenting on this is not as fun as some of the other posts.

There are some people and some subjects that are so repungent and so dangerous that they should not be toyed with. This man and the ideas that he represents are simply evil. There are no two ways about it and it is not open to discussion. His country (and he was involved) held american's hostage, actively promoted terrorism and is actively conducting a covert war against american soldiers. He should not have been allowed in the country, and definitely not allowed to speak.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 04:24 PM
================

What's crazy is that some American lawyer believes this.

Jeebus!

Does anyone really think that if Israel didn't exist there would be no terror in the world?

The reality is the Islamist movement seeks one thing -- world domination and the re-establishment of the world caliphate and the imposition of sha'ria throughout the world, and they are willing, planning even, to use violence to attain that goal.

I ask you, would any of the world's despots be provided a forum to speak? Idi Amin? Sadaam Hussein? Chavez? Jong Il?

What makes this guy different? Oh, right, his country has actually killed American soldiers in Iraq and funded other terrorist organizations that have in the past and continue to kill Americans.

His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two.

Not hypocrites??? Where was the rushing of the stage and disruption of speech today? No one was ever disciplined . . .no faculty took a stand. Good job.

Nice try though. Not hypocrites. That's really good. I love it.

Hold on there, I am more concerned about his hatred of freedom and the United States. Let's not make this a love Israel or hate Israel thing.

We should let Israel worry more about itself. It has not helped our cause much lately.

Commenting on this is not as fun as some of the other posts.

There are some people and some subjects that are so repungent and so dangerous that they should not be toyed with. This man and the ideas that he represents are simply evil. There are no two ways about it and it is not open to discussion. His country (and he was involved) held american's hostage, actively promoted terrorism and is actively conducting a covert war against american soldiers. He should not have been allowed in the country, and definitely not allowed to speak.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 04:24 PM
-------------------------------------

What's CRAZY is that an American lawyer believes this.

Jeebus!

Yes, yes, it's all Israel's fault.

A 60+ year old country, with what, 7 million citizens - and NO OIL - is to blame for the backward societies, failed economies and oppressive regimes of the Arab states and Iran? Wait, wait, don't tell me: Israel has done so well, and has managed to so harm its neighbors, all because of our generous aid. Yet Egypt receives more US aid than Israel...

Check out the UN's most recent report on human development in the Arab world (authored by many prominent and, of course, anti-Israel, Arab scholars), I believe from 2005. It lists Palestinians as having among the best quality of life, healthcare, and freedoms in the Mideast.

Of course, that isn't saying much, and there are no doubt Jewish factions within Israel that continue to place "peace" out of reach. But they are a tiny minority, however obstreperous and crazy. The MAJORITY of non-Jews and non-Christians in the Arab states, Iran, and Asian-Muslim world want Israel wiped off the map - regardless of what Israel does to make peace.

Right 5:05, because NY papers are so right-winged. How's the weather in conspiracy land?

The problem is not fear that we can't handle it, and that suddenly Americans will be won over by Ahmadinejad's brilliance. I'm all for letting idiots speak, so that all can see that he's an idiot. But everyone knows what Ahmadinejad stands for, so Columbia wasn't exactly exposing us to something new.

And the record is clear: Ahmadinejad is a repulsive individual and goes against virtually every principle of our society. (Not to mention that he actively works to harm our people). What Ahmadinejad stands for is no less disgusting and ignorant than what white supremacists stand for. Columbia knows this, but they still invite him to speak. So it makes me question what Columbia's actual motive is here.

New York tabloids are not right wing? Have you been to NYC lately.

What's your definition of right wing? If it doesn't support off-the-wall theories and constantly write about how America is the source of all the world's problems? Then yes, some of the papers are ring wing.

Free discourse is a good thing. No one at Columbia was saying that his comments had any legitimacy. Allowing him an opportunity to speak might be a step towards reconcilliation between the US and Iran. The last thing we need is another war against a country that is not out to attack the US.

5:19 is just some baffoon from the southeast who has "heard" that NYC is full of crazy liberals (and gays).

"His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two."

Anyone who critizes Israel's human rights abuses is dubbed as a racist. Did the guy spout racist hate during his talk?

The Pres of Iran can speak all he wants. Columbia is not compelled by the First Amendment to offer him a platform. It sickens me that I've taken on all this debt to give money to a school so it can be used, among other things, to subsidize this kind of speech. I'm glad Schizer came out against the invitation, but Columbia won't see one dime from me after graduation while Bollinger is still in charge.

Bollinger can exercise his First Amendment right to invite whomever the school wants to speak. I can exercise my First Amendment right not to subsidize speech I don't approve of.

"We should let Israel worry more about itself. It has not helped our cause much lately."

What planet have you been living on? Did Israel invade Iraq, run Abu Grahib, Gitmo, etc. (i.e. things that haven't exactly "helped our cause much lately")?

When Iraq rained nearly four dozen SCUD's upon Israel during the Gulf War, Israel did nothing - BECAUSE WE TOLD IT TO DO NOTHING.

In June of 1967, when pretty much every major country in the Mideast (armed and supported by the Soviet Union) postured for their invasion and complete destruction of Israel, the US basically ignored Israel's calls. In less than a week, Israel crushed the militaries of all of its aggressors. June 6, 1967, determined the last forty years; September 11, 2001, is determining the next forty.

"""His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two."

Anyone who critizes Israel's human rights abuses is dubbed as a racist. Did the guy spout racist hate during his talk?""

Don't link a critisism of M.A. and his outrageous statements with a fondness for Israel and it's racist policies. They are two different things. Just because you love Israel or hate Israel does not mean that this guy and his crazy ass supporters should be given a platform to speak.

"I think it would have been funny for us to bomb Iran while he was speaking.
Posted by: Destroy Iran. Long live Israel!!!! | September 24, 2007 04:28 PM "

These are the "peaceful" people who "evil" Ahmadinejad "threatens."

The neocon fringe seeks to live in a world where only the voices of those with whom they agree may be heard.

All hail the new American facism.

This non-issue is a tempest in a teapot.

In reality it is a simple example of the Twain quote: "It is better keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

American's know stupid when they hear it.

"In June of 1967, when pretty much every major country in the Mideast (armed and supported by the Soviet Union) postured for their invasion and complete destruction of Israel, the US basically ignored Israel's calls. In less than a week, Israel crushed the militaries of all of its aggressors. June 6, 1967, determined the last forty years; September 11, 2001, is determining the next forty."

That isn't what happened. A ceasefire was called. The US dropped off a bunch of big-ole guns. Then Israel whopped some Arab -a$$. Since then, the US has given Israel billions every year.

5:29: The other guy was being funny, you are being a naive fool.

I for one liked seeing Ahmadinejad laughed at today.

For now, he's a joke.

We just have to make sure he stays that way.

Actually 5:24, I grew up in NYC, work and live there now, and am gay. But I think your categorizing all Southerners as bumpkins just proves my point and disproves yours. Thank you for that.

free speech from columbia? total nonsense!

how come minutemen from arizona were denied their side of the story but this guy was not. i was wondering if it is academic freedom to get osama or the head of hizbullah or the head of janjaweed militia (it kills sudanese people) to come and speak? Imagine the outcry it would bring. columbia - i am very disappointed.

Simply a test.

5:19 --- did you know Iran has no gays!?? Ahmadinejad said so today

sure, 5:33. sure.

was it hard for to type, "and gay"? or did it feel sort of nice to reveal your curiosity?

twerp. bumpkin.

There is nothing wrong with Columbia allowing Ahmadinejad to speak - everyone has the right to speak. What is wrong is Columbia allowing Ahmadinejad to speak AND refusing to allow members of the Minutemen to speak about border issues.

Columbia there became selectors of speech rather than just a forum for speech. They obvioulsy think it is ok to hate Jews and deny the holocaust, but not ok to speak about securing our southern border. Apparently one form of racism is ok with Columbia, and another (not a form of racism actually) is not. I would encourage all law students reading this blog to summarily decline offers from Columbia Law School.

"Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak."

Please. If they took this stance they could never invite another elected official to speak there.

I would encourage all law students reading this blog to summarily decline offers from Columbia Law School.

HAAAAAAA!

What a dope.

5:38 - I honestly don't know if it was "hard for to type, 'and gay?'" Perhaps if you put together a cogent sentence we can continue.

Columbia DID allow the minutemen to speak. Leftists stormed the stage and drove him off; it just shows that leftists aren't well behaved.

LOL!

5:19, I love that you can't stop typing "gay" and now you've added "hard." This is getting so racy. I love you closeted bumpkins.

You can't hug a child with nuclear arms.

beer not bombs!

Where does the Judge with the great tits fit in to all of this? When will Columbia ask her to showcase her great cans?

"His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two."

Hmm, while Ahmadinejad is president of a Persian country, don't forget he is being accused of supporting SEMITES. Yes, 5:11, Arabs (including Iraqis) are Semites too.

That said, his remarks were not consistant with what he has been saying all along in Iran, but the idea of giving him the opportunity to speak - fascinating.

"His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two."

Hmm, while Ahmadinejad is president of a Persian country, don't forget he is being accused of supporting SEMITES. Yes, 5:11, Arabs (including Iraqis) are Semites too.

That said, his remarks were not consistant with what he has been saying all along in Iran, but the idea of giving him the opportunity to speak - fascinating.

Columbia is a university where students and professors study history, international affairs, political science, etc. Ahmadinejad is relevant to those fields. Whether he's right, wrong, honest, evil, crazy etc. has nothing to do with it. He's an important figure in our times.

If he wrote a book, Columbia would carry it in its library. Noone would object, because people understand that universities in free societies don't only teach what they believe. I don't see the difference. And who are these people who are going to think he has some sort of legitimacy because he spoke at Columbia? "Oh, Ahmadinejad spoke at a college, I guess he's right about the Holocaust." If we have to dumb down our public discourse to pander to someone that stupid, then what can we still talk about?

If we have to dumb down our public discourse to pander to someone that stupid, then what can we still talk about?

We can start with that Judge from Florida with the great tits!

5:59 - Arabs are Semites, Persians are not.

Persian women are generally hot and demure.

6:06 - that's just, like, a stereotype or something.

Hello all:

Aymadinejad was one of the heavily armed middle-eastern terrorists (or "students," as they preferred to be called) who invaded American soil (the Embassy), killed Americans, and held Americans hostage in Iran.

It may have been a few years but the guy is not on equal footing with your average hostile politician. He's a criminal who's never faced justice for his violent acts of terror against American civilians. That's why Columbia was so very, very wrong to permit him to come on campus.

This guy isn't a terrorist in a rhetorical sense, or in a figurative sense. He is a no-kidding kidnapper.

6:12 -- If he was one of the 1979 embassy terrorists, why isn't he indicted for it?? We could simply arrest him when he comes here.

I think we should force the Iranian Prez to have gay sex and then post it all over Iran so he is beheaded.

"If he was one of the 1979 embassy terrorists, why isn't he indicted for it?? "

He's not. These are more neocon lies intended to start another expensive war.

6:17--

He has diplomatic immunity.

6:17, he has diplomatic immunity as president and he's here for a UN visit. But he's admitted to being among the hostage takers.

I promise.

5:06: Amen

5:05 (2nd): get your head out of your arse- Didn't you pay attention? Yeah they let them speak and then left them to get attacked and physically threatened. Hmmm somehow I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Aymadinejad's views/ statements are objectivily rediculously more repugnant (and for that matter adds nothing to intellectual debate) yet Columbia sees to it that he has a safe platform to share his "views."

The long and short of it is that who cares if you are a card carrying liberal or a conservative, of course this country is founded on the principal that the school should have the right. But that certaintly does not mean they should invite the bastard. Just because they have the right doesn't make it right.

Intellectual honesty my butt. Debate, laughable. Abhorrant, without a doubt.

Send that asshole back where he came from and fly the American flag high and proud whether you lean left or right.

5:31,

Perhaps you should have really taken that quote in yourself before you opened YOUR mouth.

Dear 5:31,

you posted...

"The neocon fringe seeks to live in a world where only the voices of those with whom they agree may be heard.

All hail the new American facism.

This non-issue is a tempest in a teapot.

In reality it is a simple example of the Twain quote: "It is better keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

American's know stupid when they hear it."

- Perhaps you should have taken that quote in yourself before you opened YOUR mouth.

6:17, he has diplomatic immunity as president and he's here for a UN visit. But he's admitted to being among the hostage takers.

I promise.

Here's the problem with letting him speak and Dean Schizer pointed it out...

Allowing him such a high profile stage gives him credibility... maybe not in the eyes of educated individuals such as us, but in various parts of the world this type of thing is easily spun. Do you really think news reports in the Middle East of his speech today discuss the idiocy of his viewpoints? No, they most likely emphasize that Ahmadinejad was greeted with open arms by one of America's foremost universities...

"But he's admitted to being among the hostage takers. I promise."

No he hasn't. You're really shameless.

anon at 6:36,

wow, although I'd agree that most of us here are "educated" your post reveals you are one of the (much fewer) "intelligent" posters.

Bravo!

Its fun watching the israelis and jewish americans squirm in their liberal boots on this topic. Gee, do we back liberal education or do we react to an enemy of israel? I'll say this, the "state" of Israel, has little if any bearing on the future of the United States, other than the fact that 1.5% of the populace of these here United States is jewish. There's more southeast asians in this country than there are jews. Hell, there's roughly, 15-20 times as many mexicans in this country as there are jews. Yet, we are inundated with news about Israel, a country which we arm, we fund and we direct. And we wonder why enemies of Israel are OUR enemies. Only probelm now is that since Israel stole our nuclear technology, we cannot withdraw support b/c those crazy bastards are liable to start the next nuclear war. The U.S. made the mistake of getting behind that country in the first place and we have been bitten in the ass by that decision, and then some.

Thanks

6:40 - that didn't make any sense. Are you saying that he is among the few intelligent posters, or that he has "fewer intelligence." Whatever that means.

6:36, so we have to limit the range of opinions we hear and compromise our own free speech values for the sake of countries in the Middle East that don't have the same freedoms? Should we also not critisize the war in case people in the Middle East see it as a sign of weakness?

If I had been asked before the speech whether it was the right thing to do, I probably would have said no. Having read the coverage of what actually happened, I think Columbia President Bollinger had the right idea -- he wasn't giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he turned him into a foil, for himself, for the Columbia audience, and for the thousands of protestors outside. He forced a dictator -- used to enthusiastic crowds at home (backed up by gun-toting thugs) and sedate diplomats at the UN to be publicly called to account by an American audience that appears to have uniformly despised him. I hope it was filmed, and that bootleg videos on YouTube will circulate widely through Iran. Ahmadinejad wanted a photo-op, and he got one, but I don't think it was the one he wanted.

Sure, 6:49, but if we were going to be rude to him it would have been better to not invite him, no? How we treat him says more about us than him. I disagree with the invite but an invite's an invite; Columbia's been total jerks now to two supposed "guests," counting the minutemen and president A.

6:06,

I believe I made that distinction.

6:40,

Ahmadinejad was a central committee member of the main student group behind the embassy takeover, the "Office for Consolidating Unity between Universities and Theological Seminaries."

I tend to agree with the Dean. This goes beyond free speech, but tolerating a message of someone like Ahmaninejad's record. There are some situations where there aren't 2 sides to a debate (e.g. holocaust, killing) I would be outraged if a school invited a notorious racist to speak so I tend to be outraged when they invite this dude.
However, 6:29 makes a good point and I know that the school wasn't endorsing him. I also feel the point that he is a figure of our times. I'm torn between bad decision or healthy and provocative exercise.
So basically... my whole post is pointless.

someone *with* his record.

Living in a free society means putting up with speech you may not agree with, in fact speech that you might find disgusting.

That is the price of freedom.

Or, we can all live in a place where everyone is made to think the same way.

Which would you choose?

"His views are not "controversial." They are anti-Semitic. There's a big difference between the two."

Anyone who critizes Israel's human rights abuses is dubbed as a racist. Did the guy spout racist hate during his talk?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 05:25 PM

----------------------
The fact that he didn't "spout" it here doesn't mean he gets a pass for all the other times in the past that he has. If that is the standard, then I guess David Duke would not be considered a right-wing racist if he merely gave one speech somewhere one day and didn't "spout" any hatred. Surely the designation of racist, anti-gay; anti-Semitic or even terrorist doesn't depend on such a swiss-cheese stanfard; indeed there could be no designations under that standard.

And if you want to talk about human rights abuses, we can do that in another forum. But the fact that Israel's security fence has all but eliminated suicide bombings speaks volumes as to its effectiveness. The real human rights abuses occur when terrorists shoot rockets targeting Israeli children, and forcibly use their own Muslim women and children as human shields in so doing, so that when Israel retaliates to the source of a rocket attack there is an increased likelihood of headline-grabbing news reports.

Jews are responisble for all wars...

6:46 you have no idea how much this country gets out of israel. it is a worthwile investment. it is a free base in the most hostile region in the world and it is a beacon of technology that is way more advanced than 99% of the world (they wrote XP, AIM, invented cell phones, firewalls). also, mossad is the best intelligence service in the world. cia frequently uses mossad for its own benefit. supporting israel is a good strategic investment in a world that has ALWAYS been hostile to the US. i tell you this since i am an immigrant.

6:46 you have no idea how much this country gets out of israel. it is a worthwile investment. it is a free base in the most hostile region in the world and it is a beacon of technology that is way more advanced than 99% of the world (they wrote XP, AIM, invented cell phones, firewalls). also, mossad is the best intelligence service in the world. cia frequently uses mossad for its own benefit. supporting israel is a good strategic investment in a world that has ALWAYS been hostile to the US. i tell you this since i am an immigrant.

8:25

I would trade AIM and XP any day for peace in the Middle East.

RE:Minute Man issue

I've read this misinformation too many times. Columbia DID ALLOW the minute man to speak. But during the speech some students came and stormed the podium, preventing the guy from saying all he wanted to say.

8:25

"supporting israel is a good strategic investment in a world that has ALWAYS been hostile to the US."

Weren't some Israelis caught spying on the US a few years back? You act like Israel is the US's only ally.

Does anybody most anything of substance here? I am a student at Columbia and was present during all of this -- the fact of the matter is, the man has every right to speak and believe me, if you watched it, you would see that nothing he said was of any beneficial substance. He only made a bigger fool of himself when he said that women are given freedom in Iran and that there is no homosexuality in Iran. The audience broke out in laughter. He was under strict scrutiny from Prez Bo and from all of the questions, which he made absolutely obvious that he was NOT going to answer. Its not a matter of right or wrong decision, but whether it was a smart decision. The fact of the matter is, seeing what was happening on campus today, was scary. There was so much protest and security. In terms of security of the students and faculty it was NOT a wise decision. However, in terms of opening up a discussion of intellectual discourse to show the atrocities that this man considers to be justified IS an extremely wise decision. It is time that we face the consequence that we need to learn about and listen to our enemies to learn how to defeat them. That is, of course, under the conclusion that Iran is an enemy.

And regarding the minuteman -- yes they spoke, and a group of students stormed the stage which resulted in a physical fight. Those students were punished for their actions. President Bollinger made a very specific decision and statement on that - the students had no right to prohibit his freedom of speech. This year he was not invited to return because a non partisan student group, the columbia coalition concluded that he had nothing of substance to say or contribute any longer, which is true. A lot of you need to get your facts straight before you say unnecessary things.

And again in regard to the president of Iran, he was invited by the school of international and public affairs because they have been doing an ongoing investigation and research on oppressive regimes in the middle east. this was a significant and relevant part of their studies. in addition, it was a part of the world leaders forum at columbia every year

oh and do me a favor, stop changing around what president bollinger said to whoever is posting that link and playing it off like that were his words. i go to columbia, i got that email. the first line is accurate. the rest - was your own magic creation

LCB is a free speech scholar and DS is a card carrying member of AIPAC. Their respective views on this issue are about as predictable as could be.

There's a pretty good discussion here.

the fact that it took him saying that Iran doesn't have the phenomena of gays for the idiots in the audience to boo him is proof that Columbia's political correctness has run amok. seriously, couldn't you have booed him when he wouldn't answer whether Israel should exist? or when he blatantly lied and said Iranian women were the freest ever? i also found it ironic that bollinger had the guts to "stand up" for the military members in iraq to mahmoud, while people at his university undermine the war effort thereby putting our men and women in greater danger all the time.

people keep talking about ahmadinejad's "right" to speak. columbia is under no obligation to open its podium to everyone who has a view to espouse. universities don't grant the mic to anyone who asks for it; they INVITE speakers. such an invitation, especially from a school of columbia's caliber, is an honor, period. it implies that the speaker has something valuable to say, even if it is justly debatable. university lectures are not an "open forum" for speech; they are an educational enterprise. and ahmadinejad has nothing educational to say.

The very fact that that fat old fuck Dov Hikind protested Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia makes me ever more inclined to support Bollinger's invitation. Hikind is a hate-mongerer of the worst kind - the kind that cloaks himself in the aura of indignant Zionism, yet has no respect or sympathy for the Palestinians, who, much like German Jews, were cruelly displaced from their homes in the last century.

There is no hope for the world as long as monsters like Hikind or Ahmadinejad are supported. A bridge to peace in the Middle East will only be constructed through wholesale rejection of the politics of hate - which these idiots use to make themselves richer and seem more relevant.

"Columbia student" --

(1) "Does anybody [p]ost anything of substance here?" Well, yes, if you would bother to read any of the posts. Many of the issues you raise were already addressed or refuted. Before you summarily dismiss everyone's posts, try reading them.

(2) "Its not a matter of right or wrong decision, but whether it was a smart decision." Again, the point has been made by others. Thanks for belaboring this.

(3) "However, in terms of opening up a discussion of intellectual discourse to show the atrocities that this man considers to be justified IS an extremely wise decision." Was there truly "intellectual discourse" today? By your own admission, MA declined to engage in any intellectual discourse. I suppose the discourse didn't involve MA; rather, it followed his speech, after those at Columbia were enlightened to how feeble-minded MA is. Ok, then. Fair enough. But...

(4) "It is time that we face the consequence that we need to learn about and listen to our enemies to learn how to defeat them." Truly, what did we learn today from MA that we didn't already know about him? We'd heard him loud and clear before. He only repeated his usual nonsense. Are we closer now to knowing how to defeat our enemy now?

(5) "This year [the minuteman] was not invited to return because a non partisan student group, the columbia coalition concluded that he had nothing of substance to say or contribute any longer, which is true." But the same should be said for MA. Anyone who thought that MA was going to say or contribute anything of substance was delusional.

So, when Ahmadinejad states that the U.S. is one of the main causes of terrorism in the world, the audience cheers, and when Ahmadinejad states that there are no homosexuals in Iran, the audience boos/laughs. Classic.

5:58 p.m.: You seem confused as to what "anti-semitic" means. I suggest that you look up the word in your dictionary.

9:27 p.m. and others: The fact that the University allowed leftist thugs to assault the Minutemen's speech is the problem. If Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson had been similarly assaulted by conservatives, is there any chance that the conservatives would have been able to get away with it? (And Sharpton/Jackson are more the equivalent on the left as David Duke is to the right. The Minutemen are eminently more respectable than a guy like David Duke on the right or Sharpton/Jackson on the left).

and you wonder why people hate lawyers...

The university did NOT allow anyone to assault the minutemen. Those students were punished severely. Also, when they stormed the stage, they did so with posters and screams, not with violence. (granted, it was still wrong for them to prevent the minutemen from exercising their free speech). The assault, however, the violent part of that situation came when the minutemen began to kick and push the students who stormed the stage. The students did not attempt to cause any violence, eventhough they were of course wrong for storming the stage. Also, just fyi ... it was the Chicano Caucus that stormed the stage primarily -- due to the relevant issues of Mexican illegal immigration to them. It was NOT the entire Columbia community nor was it a large/ significant portion of it. The university did not know about what was going to happen and tried as hard as possible to stop it from occurring, but when a group of students unexpectedly stormed the stage - what could they do?

Oh, and when you talk about the audience cheering - just an fyi -- the first 5 or so rows o the right side of thoe auditorium was seating for MA's following -- his people that travel with him -- a bunch of other guys from IRan. THEY WERE THE ONES CHEERING TO COMMENTS LIKE THOSE, NOT THE COLUMBIA STUDENTS AND FACULTY.

Please, get your facts straight.

And to Let the Eagle Soar, I know some of those comments have already been made -- but they were refuted by others who don't really understand the situation at hand and aren't well informed about what went on,. didn't listen to the speeches, or didn't know the background information. I didn't meant to dismiss the things that others said -- some were relevant and well-informed.

The university did NOT allow anyone to assault the minutemen. Those students were punished severely. Also, when they stormed the stage, they did so with posters and screams, not with violence. (granted, it was still wrong for them to prevent the minutemen from exercising their free speech). The assault, however, the violent part of that situation came when the minutemen began to kick and push the students who stormed the stage. The students did not attempt to cause any violence, eventhough they were of course wrong for storming the stage. Also, just fyi ... it was the Chicano Caucus that stormed the stage primarily -- due to the relevant issues of Mexican illegal immigration to them. It was NOT the entire Columbia community nor was it a large/ significant portion of it. The university did not know about what was going to happen and tried as hard as possible to stop it from occurring, but when a group of students unexpectedly stormed the stage - what could they do?

Oh, and when you talk about the audience cheering - just an fyi -- the first 5 or so rows o the right side of thoe auditorium was seating for MA's following -- his people that travel with him -- a bunch of other guys from IRan. THEY WERE THE ONES CHEERING TO COMMENTS LIKE THOSE, NOT THE COLUMBIA STUDENTS AND FACULTY.

Please, get your facts straight.

And to Let the Eagle Soar, I know some of those comments have already been made -- but they were refuted by others who don't really understand the situation at hand and aren't well informed about what went on,. didn't listen to the speeches, or didn't know the background information. I didn't meant to dismiss the things that others said -- some were relevant and well-informed.

The lack of moral clarity that so many of the posters disply is simply appalling. One genius equates Dov Hikind, a low-ranking local politician, to Ahmadinejad, a man committed to bringing about the era of the hidden imam by whatever means necessary. These are the same people who call Evangelicals "scary" and argue that "neo-cons" (ie Jews) dominate America and force into wars that are not in US interests.

If the people posting learned this nonsense at Ivy League schools. they should ask for a refund. If they are, as Robert Frost suggested, "too broad minded to take their own side in an argument", they can enjoy living their lives in dhimmitude.

The ignorance on this thread is astonishing. Not that his was worse than any other, but Maxim Biller gets the prize for most clearly contradicting the factual record by asserting the US gave Israel nuclear arms. I've never even heard that one before. The Israeli's bought their nuclear reactor from the French.

Y'all ought to be careful, because a lot of what you think you know about the ME is crap you learned from a lot of successful propaganda - from both sides, though the anti-Zionists have done a better job of propaganda the last 20-30 years.

As to the issue at hand -- I wouldn't have invited him, but was pleased to see him laughed at for claiming there are no gays in Iran. I think less vitriol in the objections would have better served everyones' interests in having an lunatic exposed.

"Columbia Student,"

I thought Columbia had high admission standards?? How did you slip b/w the cracks?

Then again your posts suggest that such admisions standards are a poor proxy for intelligence and common sense.

please tell me - what common sense and intelligence am i lacking in any of my commentary?

i would like to hear some back-up for what yo are saying, dont just attack -back it up

just decided to share this:

www.columbiasupportsterror.com

interesting what people spend their time doing....

The Middle East solution? One, pack up the Jewish people in Israel and move them to Florida. Two, invest billions in identifying alternative energy sources that significantly reduce our reliance on oil from the region. Three, have all U.S. military and civilian personnel exit the region. Then let those barbaric animals bomb each other into oblivion. We should stop giving a shit about a region who hates us and the Christian and Jewish faith. Let those fuckers kill each other in the name of Allah.

everyone spies everywhere. i am sure there are even british spies here and american spies in england. even allies spy on each other.

11: 57:
"everyone spies everywhere. i am sure there are even british spies here and american spies in england. even allies spy on each other."

So it makes it okay for Israel to spy on the US?

When is the last time the british were caught spying on the US in the US?

The reason I compared Hikind to Ahmadinejad, and then said they were equally destructive is because of the influence they have on their respective communities.

Most common-sense people in Iran know A-jad is a hateful screwball, and most moderate Jews (at least in the US) know Hikind's raising of a war chest for Zionists in Israel will do nothing to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But that doesn't stop them from doing everything in their power to infect the hearts and minds of extremists in their respective camps. A-jad books planes full of American Jews to settle in the West Bank and Gaza, intimidating, if not outright dispossessing Palestinian refugees.

wtf (GULC '04) is either disengenous or an idiot. Dov Hikind has approximately zero influence on anything. Even though he is a Zionist, many of his constituents are not. Also, Hikind does not hold the levers of power in this country nor will he ever. A'jad has near control of Iran and certainly control over the Revolutionary Guard, a dangerous and large group of fanatical soldiers.

Your language also betrays a deeply antagonistic and ill-considered attitude towards Zionism and Israel. Your reference to war chests suggests you think that a few hundred thousand Brooklyn Jews are single handedly funding West Bank settlement and the purchasing of F-15s.

Here is a little news flash to everyone who thinks Israel would crumble without US Aid: Israel's GDP is over $100 billion, meaning US Aid accounts for no more than 3% of GDP. Israel is an OECD country with high living standards for all its citizens and first rate educational and medical facilities. Israel occupies 1/16 of 1% of the Middle East land area and this tiny oasis causes every leftist and arabist to shit a kitten.

No one in their right mind thinks Israel is perfect, but if perfection is the standard then we all suck.

Iran crying for the plight of the Palestinians is a joke - the Persians couldn't care less about what happens to them, they just use them to keep their people distracted from the oppression faced at home. King Hussein of Jordan killed 30,000 Palestinians and no one blinked; Saudi Arabia and Kuwait expelled 500,000 Palestinains after the Gulf War and the world didn't even notice. But if a Jew knocks over a sacred olive grove in Ramallah, the world freaks out.

Explain that to me...

"But if a Jew knocks over a sacred olive grove in Ramallah, the world freaks out."

Who's lacking in perspective now?

Nobody has ignored the brutality of the Arab states you mentioned. Syria is probably worse than them all given its history of picking off Lebanon's elected leaders (ala the U.S. in central and South America) and its treatment of that country as an annex, or territory of Syria. But Israel's aggression has been documented for decades, and (just like its neighbors), it has defied countless UN resolutions that condemn its illegal actions.

The bottom line is that the creation of Israel was a monumental mistake, for which all the western powers share blame. Dov Hikind and his ilk perpetuate the myth that its origin was legitimate and that it owes nothing to the people it displaced or murdered.

There needs to be a reconciliation that starts with a recognition by Israel of the Palestinian's right of return. The fact is, most would not return for a variety of reasons, but we need to start with good faith. And then, maybe, Israel could lead by example in treating their enemies with respect, instead of simply following the cruel, midieval tactics of its Arab neighbors in suppressing dissent.

Oh, and a note to "Unbelievable:" treating your enemies (or in this case your adversary) with respect can also start with responding to their arguments (see, me) instead of just hurling names like "idiot," (see, you).

WTF (GULC '04), the reason I called you an idiot is that your arguments are idiotic.

Here is your argument:

Israel's creation was a mistake (Your "bottom line")

Dov Hikind believes it wasn't a mistake (and behaves accordingly) so he is a monster like A'jad

Israel should commit suicide by allowing a non-sensical right of return

Once Israel does this there can finally be a reconciliation? Amongst whom? Dead Jews and joyous Arabs?

Brutal Arab states (your words) which were wholecloth creations of those same Western powers presumably should also cease to exist?

So Bedouins get 5-7 made-up countries (Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.) but Jews are not allowed one actual historical entity (or are you one of those nutters that claims Jews have no historical connection to Israel)?

And Israel, alone amongst nations, should embrace its enemies and treat them with respect? Enemies who've made Mein Kampf a number one bestseller in the ME? Who perpetuate the blood libel? Whose only joy is other people's misery? Who issued the infamous three "No's" in Khartoum?

You are ignorant of history and facts and possess no analytical ability whatsoever.

I would say "idiot" is overly generous

But you are oh so gracious - you must be the better person

10:26--6:46 here. It is most clearly you who lack information. The Israeli espionage program against the United States dates back to its inception. The "sale" of the reactor to Israel was opposed by the US and Israel never signed on the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I invite you also to research the Israeli attack against the USS Liberty in the late 1960s (killed over 30 servicemen). Not an accident, intentional. Not something Israel likes to talk about but it was a clear attack against America because the Israelis feared that the Liberty would learn about the Israeli sneak attack on Syria. Learn also about Jonathan Pollard, an American agent of Israel. We still dont know exactly what he gave to Israel because neither he nor Israel will admit it. Then Israel had the balls to demand that Clinton release Pollard, which Clinton was prepared to do but for the public outcry from within and without his administration. Fuckers even paid for his defense attorneys. These are not the actions of an ally.

Maxim, if you're still around (not sure why I bothered to check it again)

Learn to read and try to be consistent. I didn't comment on spying. And now, suddenly, you say the US opposed the "sale" of the reactor to Israel when before Israel stole it from the US? At least be consistent about the facts you claim to know.

I know all about the Liberty - I'm inclined to agree with those who call it a result of the fog of war, but am not wholly persuaded: remember it occurred before the US was a supporter of Israel when Israel was in a real jamb; they might have done it on purpose in those circumstances. With all due respect to those sailors and the tragedy of their deaths, so what? We've killed a lot more Brits and Canadians in friendly fire incidents in the last couple years than died on the Liberty - are we not good allies of those two countries? Do those deaths mean we do not share democratic ideals, common values, and a common enemy in Islamofacism? Or is there something magic about 30 servicemen's deaths, cause we seem to lose that many every week in Bush's stupid war? What does that make him?

Finally, the real question about Pollard is not how much he gave Israel, but the extent to which he's being scapegoated for the crimes of KGB agents. He got caught and we decided to jail him instead of exchange him - fine. I think it's mostly a PR exercise to protect the Company's image cause goodness knows the Soviets had no trouble getting people into the CIA, can't see why we'd be upset the Israelis did it, too. I also don't see how some minor espionage means Israel isn't an ally. You are beyond hope if you think the French and Brits, etc., don't snoop over here at least occassionally.