« It.Did.Not.Matter. | Main | Racism at Rutgers - never criticize the athletics program »

September 25, 2007

Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia? It's a JOOOO conspiracy!!

Unreal

pablo
September 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm

This is an AIPAC manufactured controversy. Ahmadinejad doesn’t even hold real power in Iran.

but not surprising at a site [in]famous for dancing right up to the line on anti-Semitism.

or this

Kyle
September 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm

I’m really glad you mentioned this. It’s important to point out that a packed house of college students couldn’t help but laugh at the president of a major world power. That says plenty about how serious or threatening his ideas are. Like:

1. “There needs to be more research on the Holocaust.” No, there doesn’t. There’s plenty of evidence and we still have first-person accounts. This conversation is pretty near over.

Personally, I think there are way better arguments against Israel anyways. He should start using those.

Of course, VW Amanda wanders the map on "I just don't understand!" in regards to the problem of having an ostensibly prestigious American university give an ugly little man such as Ahmadinnerjacket an honorable platform from which to spew. Her Willing Blinkeredness blabs
As Ezra notes, the crowd at Columbia laughed their asses off at Ahmadinejad.
Well, only that the "gays? what gays? we have no gays in Iran." part. About eliminating the Jews? Not so much.

(I understand why only that caught St. Amanda's attention; she's all about teh sex)

For those of us paying attention, there was quite a bit of applause in there and, as I pointed out in the previous post, Islamist media has already picked up on the "Moudy was given a standing ovation! He was beloved!" meme already.

This was never about "free speech" but to understand that, one must have at least a passing acquaintance with virtue.

Technorati: Ahmadinejad, Columbia, ,

Posted by Darleen at September 25, 2007 09:50 PM

Comments

I'm glad you have the patience to keep up with those types of folks and pass the info on to the rest of the world.

Frankly, if I go to Panda gone, my blood pressure shoots up. Why are they not talking about the fact that Iranians do not have free speech?

Posted by: Beth at September 26, 2007 03:45 AM

What do you mean? They're free to criticize the West and to lionize Ahmadimeadozen without any fear of reprisal. And no correct-thinking Iranian (or American) would even consider opposing viewpoints.

Posted by: CGHill at September 26, 2007 05:48 AM

I like to check sources so does anyone know if this is true? If it is ... it's quite frankly bullshit. Women buried to the neck for stoning - men to the waist. If the men somehow get free (which is much easier when you're only buried to the waist) - then they go free. If the women perform a miracle and somehow escape - they get executed by firing squad?

How can anyone defend this kind of barbarism and double-standard? How can anyone think that talking to the head Islamic fool of Iran will produce any kind of enlightenment? These people are nuts. Why do liberals love them? Because these guys hate GW as much as they do?

Anyway, here's the source ...

http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/lawsiran.htm

And here's the unbelievable part ... like I said, anyone can confirm it's truth?

Article 114 of Iran’s Civil codes states: When rajm [stoning] is being administered on a man he must be
placed in a pit almost down to his waist, and when administered on a woman she must be placed in a pit
almost down to her chest. Such barbaric behavior by the regime includes dictating the style, size and the
administration of stoning while differentiating between male vs. female victims. Female victim up to her
neck to avoid physical escape, however, even if condemned female victim is able to flee the scene,
authorities are obliged to arrest her and execute her by firing squad. As for the male victims, they are
buried up to their waist and if able to escape the scene no further punishment awaits them.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at September 26, 2007 04:17 PM

Ahmadinejad is a petty dictator, even though he holds elective office, still, I want the right to confront him.

Columbia did the right thing in inviting him.

What I don't like is the way right-wing ideologues, contrary to American tradition, try to (1) shut up Ahmedinejad and (2) keep Americans from confronting him.

What does the far right think? Do they actually think that by listening to the Iranian head of state ,that Americans will want to become Islamic extremists?

In any event if Ahmedinejad isn't confronted in AMerica, where will he be confronted?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at September 28, 2007 03:28 AM

"In any event if Ahmedinejad isn't confronted in AMerica, where will he be confronted?"

Confronting him in America (whatever that means) will serve what purpose? So the president of Columbia called him out....this accomplishes what? It accomplishes what is so dear to the liberal's heart: to win an argument.

This kidnapper was here for one reason: a photo op to spread across his world of influence. No other purpose was served.

Americans should confront him in this manner: a tactical nuclear strike which destoys Iran's strategic millitary infrastructure.

Posted by: HughS at September 28, 2007 03:37 PM

That could happen Hugh. But negotiation might make that sort of thing preventable.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at September 29, 2007 12:22 PM

Darleen, here's a quote for you:

http://striderweb.com/blog/2007/09/a-failure-of-ideas/

:)

Posted by: Stephen at October 4, 2007 10:26 AM

dayakker shoebindery vibrant bechalk diaconicon gabbler radiable monograptidae
Gabriels
http://www.holabird.com/

Posted by: Cathryn Bird at October 15, 2007 09:08 AM