Mahmoud Ahmedinajad spoke at Columbia U, as he is in NYC to address the UN General Assembly (a.k.a. the Gen Ass. (kidding… I’m a big UN partisan).
Fun speech, especially the parts about how there are no homosexuals in Iran!
But seriously, the most amusing was the people’s reactions. Pre-pubescent Columbia kids, who couldn’t place Iran on a map (and who still pronounce the name as ‘Eye-ran’!), were vociferously insulting. And the ‘Iran = Swastika’ posters were probably the most tasteless I’ve seen in a while.
The introduction of Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, was extremely insulting - you don’t invite the president of a country to call him a ‘petty and cruel dictator’, nor call him ‘ridiculous’ - even if he is. Bollinger’s lack of decorum has made a complete ass of him. I think Ahmedinejad kept his cool remarkably, because I would have felt like smacking Bollinger on the head.
It’s kinda dumb but the BBC invited a guy from Georgetown who was introduced as a professor on Arab politics - and as much as the guy was a good speaker (Samer Shehata, I believe), doesn’t it feel silly? I mean, didn’t they get the memo that Iran isn’t an Arab state?
Now I'm not a fan of the dude (although I think he's entertaining. A new Kadhafi, if you will) but I think that this pointless and misplaced hatred gotta stop. People being so vitriolic about Iran is just because they are supposed to, according to the ambient mood, and know they'll get away with it for those same reasons. Think of Americans bashing France in 2003. OR, think of kids in an internet chatroom. :)
People, grow up! Think before you shout!
I'll look forward to hear the speech at the UNGA...
5 comments:
My first observation is that Ahmedinajad has out shined Bush for the second year in a row. To see how little the world cares about what Bush has to say is shocking (Well not really but it is the USA). The American news media has been talking about Ahmedinajad like its the story of the century. I am glad he spoke at Columbia, an example of free speech. I couldn't understand the people who didn't wanted him to speak and on the same breath spoke about "western" value. Columbia's president was on a lot of heat for allowing Ahmedinajad to speak, so I guess that is the reason he was so harsh. If he had welcome him "nicely" everyone would turn against him. He really had no choice. I do agree with you that the accusations against him (even some which are valid) are funny. The media and some Americans see things as black or white and that is a mistake.
No, no, no, Im sorry but i dont agree with you, ruck.
You dont invite someone home to insult him at his face...
If you are brave enough to do it and you really believe in free speech, you shouldnt feel pressed to treat him in an impolite way if he accepts.
Especially if you are an University's president.
What are you making him understand, then? "I invited you but now i've thought about it twice and you are not welcomed anymore, even if now i have you here"???
I believe Bollinger's introduction was a "cheap shot" against Ahmedinajad. If I was in his position, I would have done it differently. Instead of calling him names, I would address the importance of free exchange of ideas, and to listen to those whom we don't agree with. Name calling was not necessary since the public would find out the type of man Ahmedinajad is anyways through the Q&A.; What I was trying to say is that Bollinger was basically saving his position as president of Columbia by calling Ahmedinajad a "petty and cruel dictator." If he didn't do what (which I believe was unnecessary), the media would turn from "Should Ahmedinajad be allow to speak at Columbia?" to "Why was Bollinger appeasing a dictator?" Believe me, the media would have been all over Bollinger.
And is that a reason to call someone names? First you invite a dictator to your University, then you call him names.. In my opinion, Bollinger just wanted to get media attention over him.
He wasnt the speaker, but he is the one everybody talks about...
Pretty sad..
If a western statesperson or leader had received such a welcome, things would have gotten very frosty very quickly. It was rude and incorrect of the President of Coloumbia to speak in such a way.
Ironically, the leader of Iran was able to make the point that they shared a great deal of common points with the US. Interesting....(B+ poster)
Post a Comment