This is a much more horrendously sad and serious post about evil Ahmadinejad (a.k.a. I'm-in-a-jihad). I present to my readers here much more dire and heartbreaking reasons why the Madman should never have been allowed to appear and speak at Columbia University.
The reason I gave this post the title that I did was because I am hoping that when students, professors, and leaders at Columbia U. do a search for content about their university, they will see this post.
At first, I didn't want to read this article or look at these photos. But in order to see the brutal acts of this despicable dictator, you must read the article and look at the photos. You may need to scroll down at the second link and then click on the numbers, one by one. Go through them all. Go all the way to the very end. See the horror of reality in Iran.
After you look at the photos, think back about how the Columbia U. audience burst into laughter when I'm-in-a-jihad claimed, "there are no homosexuals in Iran. We do not have this phenomenon."
Then, think about how a liberal university like Columbia could ever have invited and allowed a monster like that to speak to those college students.
What a horribly evil dictator Ahmadinejad is!
It still, just sickens me no end that he was given a platform to spew his lies in our country.
Also, think about all of our brave men and women fighting in Iraq who have been wounded and/or killed by Iranian weaponry and insurgents.
Our country lost some of it's integrity by allowing that Iranazi to speak at that Columbia U. event.
Ahmadinejad misused our U.S. freedoms that we enjoy here. Everything about him is a lie. Everything he said was mostly based on lies. He refused to answer the tough questions given to him. We all can see the evil in his disgusting "smile" and smug demeanor.
Allowing him to speak at that university ultimately caused an unwelcome foreigner to abuse our country's Constitutional freedom of speech rights. It was truly ugly. The Founding Fathers would have been absolutely horrified. I'm horrified. We all should be so ashamed that we let this Iranazi thug get away with it.
The Iranian people must think we are crazy over here...
And, I wouldn't blame them one bit for thinking that way.
Iran Does Far Worse Than Ignore Gays, Critics Say
Warning! Graphic content. Teenagers hanged
Horrified yet?
Posts
5 comments:
I both agree and disagree with you thoughts on this subject. Initially, I was horrified that anyone would even let that monster into this country, let alone speak at one of our universities. But, Mr. Jaded and I had a long discussion about it, and now my thinking has changed somewhat. Oh, not about the fact that this guy is a monster, but about his being granted entrance into the US.
If we would like to be allowed entrance into Iran for diplomatic or humanitarian reasons, if we had denied their president entry into our country, there's no way we'd ever be able to visit Iran peacefully. Next, after some thought, I think it's good to let him speak to a group of people who know better. It's good to let him expose himself as the delusional liar and dictator that he is. That way, no one can say it's just the Americans putting their spin on it. The people who attended his lecture, as well as those who were able to see it on the internet etc., have now heard, directly from his own mouth, just how crazy and narcissistic this man is. There can now be no confusion as to why so many consider him dangerous. No one put words in his mouth, they were all his own. He was on his BEST behavior and STILL appeared delusional. So, for those reasons, I can see why the monster was allowed to come here and to speak.
You and Mr. Jaded make some really good points. I have gone back and forth on this issue in my own mind, too. However, I still worry that the true evil nature of this dictator has not "sunk in," so to speak, with these or any other students who may have watched it on T.V.
I'm not saying that all students are like this (as was evidenced by the many protests against the event), but I think that unfortunately, the majority might be so far-liberal-left indoctrinated that they won't believe (or, refuse to believe) anything that came out in agreement with the Bush Administration's evidence of this madman's dangers.
Why do I think that?
Because the audience cheered for I'm-in-a-jihad's comments; especially when he boo-hooed his "harsh" treatment by Bollinger.
This worries me about the next generation. They are being highly influenced by Moveon.org, and George Soros liberal lunatics who actually support the likes of dictators such as Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Castro.
These kids are being lied to and they are taking it hook, line, and sinker.
It is the fact that this forum happened in an atmosphere where many impressionable minds were present. Being that they have been indoctrinated from the liberal left side (with obvious particular hatred of the religious or conservative right in America)anything that "tickles their ears" towards what they already have been indoctrinated into, could quite possibly solidify such beliefs.
Believe me. I am finding out more and more how brainwashed liberal college and university students really are. My daughter shares what goes on at her campus all the time.
I have an unrelated example to share.
A young male friend of my daughter ended up arguing with her regarding whether or not human trafficking actually occurs in the U.S. My daughter could not believe the naivete of this guy! Now, in his case, perhaps he's not savvy on the news and issues around the world. Maybe it's not as a result of liberal indoctrination.
But I think that the students at Columbia have been brainwashed so bad into believing that our U.S. foreign policies are evil and the Bush Admin. is (unfairly) labeled as "dumb." Thus, the magnitude of danger, evil and fear that the Iranian regime presents to the world,especially Israel and the U.S., falls on their young, uninformed, deaf ears.
I agree with you! I believe that on many college campuses, kids aren't free to be conservative because it's considered politically incorrect. In an effort to show how PC they are, professors often exclude many other thoughts/opinions as valid. I think this is not only irresponsible, but dangerous.
I think it's good for kids that age to question things, authority included. That's the only way they'll be able to sort things out for themselves. However, both sides of the picture should be revealed.
I'm still torn about the Iranian monstor. I do see valid reasons for his visit, however, I still think that we should think twice before allowing someone who literally has blood on his hands to be presented as if he were a scholar and a gentleman. (PS- I think the kids may have cheered in the instance you mentioned just because kids often rebel against the powers that be if given the opportunity. It may not have had anything to do with "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" as they called him on The View.)
I just read an article written by the Columbia professor who invited I'm-in-a-jihad to the event that supposedly explains Why I Helped Invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia.
But what's even more shocking are the comments! I didn't read through all of them, but several were typical of what I suspected and feared that students would "come away with" from this event. We don't know the ages of these commenters, but we do see the liberal left lunatic spin that has so obviously been inflicted upon their minds.
Awful!
God help America...
Here's a good article:
Columbia's Squalid Mistake: Academia's Ugly Blindness
Copy of article:
SQUALID MISTAKE
ACADEMIA'S UGLY BLINDNESS
By ARTHUR HERMAN
Ahmadinejad: A thug — not a thinker.September 25, 2007 -- COLUMBIA University Presi dent Lee Bollinger yester day made some cutting crit icisms while introducing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but that doesn't make the school's decision to offer a platform to the head of a violent terrorist state any less abject, squalid or shameless.
"Abject, squalid, shameless" is how Winston Churchill described the resolution passed by Oxford University's prestigious Debating Union in 1933 - the year Adolf Hitler came to power - that "this House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country."
And Columbia's event, like the 1933 Oxford resolution, sent (to quote Churchill again) a "very disquieting and disgusting message" to friends and enemies alike.
Many American's won't see that; their blindness goes to the heart of the "red-blue" divide in our country - much like the one in '30s Britain that split men like Churchill from the exponents of appeasing Europe's dictators.
On one side of that chasm, there is outrage and incomprehension that anyone could extend an invitation to a sworn enemy of the United States to speak on an American campus (a campus, moreover, that bans its own military's ROTC); that the head of the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism attacks be welcomed anywhere in the city that was 9/11's principal target; that a Holocaust-denier be welcomed to a university that has so many Jewish students and alumni.
On the other side, again, there is incomprehension that anyone should be offended. And that is the problem.
President Bollinger argues that a university is above all a forum for hearing conflicting views and opinions - as if Ahmadinejad were some controversial social theorist, not the leader of the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. In other words, this is a matter of "free speech."
Yet the real issue is not about words but actions - actions with consequences in an ongoing conflict in which American soldiers are being killed and Iranian dissidents are being beaten and tortured every day. And what Bollinger's actions (as opposed to his words) reveal is that Columbia somehow considers itself neutral ground in the War on Terror.
The left in this country concluded long ago that this is not a war between Islamic extremist fascism and Western civilization, but a fight between Islamic "militants" and President Bush. The events of 9/11 never changed the left/liberal view that the real menace to world peace is the Bush administration and what Sen. J. William Fulbright used to call "the arrogance of American power" - much as British leftists in the early '30s assumed that the real cause of war wasn't men like Hitler or Mussolini, but capitalism and arms merchants.
One of the signs outside yesterday's events summed this view up nicely: "We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism."
In short, too many men and women at Columbia (and on other U.S. campuses) see the War on Terror as something that they are free to judge and criticize as if it doesn't involve them.
Just as President Bush has the right to make his case, so the reasoning goes (yet when was the last time an administration official was given a major public forum at Columbia?), fairness demands that Ahmadinejad have the same right.
The left assumes this neutral posture puts them in the middle and keeps them safe. In fact, it leaves them nowhere.
Because what is actually at stake is whether these United States can stand together to condemn the head of a state that sponsors terrorism around the world and is killing American soldiers in Iraq, to send a signal to the people of Iran (and of Iraq) that we will stand firm against a corrupt and murderous Islamo-fascist regime.
Adolf Hitler got the clear message of the 1933 Oxford Union debate: We will not oppose you. Regardless of Bollinger's "tough questions" yesterday, Ahmadinejad the Iranian president is bound to use his speech to a hall of "open-minded" Americans as a major public-relations victory - and to see it as a clear sign that his enemy is divided at its heart.
As Churchill said, "There is no place for compromise in war. That invaluable process only means that soldiers are shot because their leaders in council and camp are unable to resolve."
He added, "In war the clouds never blow over; they gather unceasingly and fall in thunderbolts." It was the falling thunderbolts of Nazi bombs that finally convinced the appeasers of the '30s that they had been wrong. New York City has already gone through its Blitz. What more will it take before Bollinger and his cohorts admit their squalid mistake? (bold mine)
Post a Comment