Sure we'd invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia dean

[butterbut]

YouTube - Sure we'd invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia dean
Watch the interview with the Colombia University's dean.

This is the crap they teach in the Ivy leagues. Amenjiahd will not engage in a debate, all he will do is spread his propaganda. They would invite Hitler! Something is seriously wrong these people.

[spudnicks]

I think we should let him go to it and then assassinate him while hes speaking! That way the students will get the entertainment they wanted and the people of Iran can overthrow the government. We couldnt do this of course because... *gulp*... the United Nations might get very very angry and may be even condemn it!

[Jack]

Thread moved. Please be sure and read all the guidelines to posting in Breaking News:
Topics must be considered developing and significant stories to qualify as Breaking News.

The submission format is as follows:
TITLE: The title as it appears in the article
Link to the news article (must be a major news source)
A small quote from the article (use QUOTE and /QUOTE)
Your comments (optional)

[butterbut]

I saw the guidelines. I figured since it was a video of the dean himself talking it didn't matter.

[Milton Bradley]

Seeing Irans President on 60 Minutes tonight, I'd say the premise of this whole thread is compromised.

[butterbut]

I saw the interview too. What's your point?

[Kamehameha34]

The rational way to debunk a point of view is to bring it out into the open, and debunk it publicly - not to censor it so no one can hear it.

You also need to understand the difference between giving a platform to represent a point of view and being a proponent for that point of view. Just take a listen to what the dean says towards the end - Hitler would have to be willing to defend his position and respond to those who disagree with it. The debate would speak for itself.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Isherwood Thread moved. Please be sure and read all the guidelines to posting in Breaking News: Topics must be considered developing and significant stories to qualify as Breaking News. The submission format is as follows: TITLE: The title as it appears in the article Link to the news article (must be a major news source) A small quote from the article (use QUOTE and /QUOTE) Your comments (optional)

IMHO, recently recorded video newscasts that are originally from major news sources should be allowed.

[Jack]

They probably would be, but YouTube isn't a major news source.

You also need to understand the difference between giving a platform to represent a point of view and being a proponent for that point of view.

In a country that values freedom of speech and expression, that is a very important point. For instance, the owner, staff and members of Volconvo certainly don't approve of or endorse every idea expressed here.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: butterbut I saw the interview too. What's your point?

Your framing this debate as if he is blindly clinging to his own delusional point of view.


I happen to think the people who insist that theat the opinion that inspired the original post are far less rational than the man I heard speaking on 60 Minutes.


Probably less likely to cheat at Monopoly as well.

[butterbut]

He shouldn't be given the time of day. He doesn't deserve the respect.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is lies.

In the 60 minutes he denied his government was helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq by saying that the US govenment was lying. Which do you believe?
He denies that gay people even exist in his country, "we don't have that problem in Iran."
He denied the holocast.

You cannot debate someone who lies about everything.

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, you can. With facts, citations, and otherwise hard evidence.

If it ends up being his word vs. the evidence presented by the students, then the debate will speak for itself.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: butterbut He shouldn't be given the time of day. He doesn't deserve the respect. Everything that comes out of his mouth is lies.

OK. But the idiot shouting "the world is ending in 15 minutes" on the street corner still has the right to stand there shouting and look like a fool to all the passers-by.

In the 60 minutes he denied his government was helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq by saying that the US govenment was lying. Which do you believe?

Is this a trick question? Which idiot despotic leader who makes enemies wherever he goes should I believe, ours or theirs?

[Praxius]

So much for Reedom of speech.

What could hurt letting him rant on anyways? Just let him make a fool of himself, if he's so inacurate with his information..... the public can see him for what he is.

What's to fear?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Praxius So much for Reedom of speech. What could hurt letting him rant on anyways? Just let him make a fool of himself, if he's so inacurate with his information..... the public can see him for what he is. What's to fear?

Exactly. I fear the administraions problem isn't really with the man, it's the message.


It's also interesting to note that just like Saddam, he indicates that the American people are not getting the whole story, though he did stop short of calling it theater. ( Which I think is a fairer analogy. )


When our government lost it's transparency, it became all that it opposed, and became our enemy as well.

[The Decider]

Quote by: butterbut In the 60 minutes he denied his government was helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq by saying that the US govenment was lying. Which do you believe?

Is this the same US government that told the world about "solid proof" of WMDs in 2002 Iraq? If the US government has "solid proof" of Iranian orders to kill US soldiers in Iraq then by all means show that "solid proof." Only neo-cons blindly accept anything uttered about Iraq and Iran by the US government.

As for the little Iranian president, hold him to the same standard. Let's see the evidence. However, if we can't even make our own government corroborate its statements, how can we expect others to do the same?

Quote by: butterbut He denies that gay people even exist in his country, "we don't have that problem in Iran."

The Republican Party goes absolutely beserk when it finds a gay Republican in Congress. I find it hilarious that Republicans criticize Iranians for intolerance and denial of gays. The Iranian regime just takes the matter to its logical extreme.

Quote by: butterbut You cannot debate someone who lies about everything.

You're wrong--I've seen habitual liars like Ann Coulter debating on American television. Yet The Republic still stands. Astonishing.

[Zeebadee]

I didn't get to hear the entire visit to Columbia live, but from what I did hear, and from the transcript, it's clear why there was an attempt to silence him. I certainly don't agree with all he had to say, but he is clearly far and away a much better speaker than bush. In a live debate, I have no doubt that bush would be utterly demolished.

If you wanted to hear absolute answers to the questions put to him, you'd be disappointed, but this was certainly no different than wanting direct answers put to ANY U.S. politician. And, in spite of open insults by the person that supposedly invited him to speak, he did not respond in kind, merely acknowledged them and moved on.

He did make several very salient points, including (IMO) an honest approach to the Palestinian problem and the nuclear monopoly insistence of the U.S.

Whatever else you may say about this guy, I think it's clear that he's no dummy. george bush, on the other hand, couldn't have managed to read Ahmadinejad's text even if someone had written it out for him, let alone answered questions in real time afterward.

Thank you, Columbia.

Edited to add: Transcript:
washingtonpost.com

[Nigh Eve]

When our government lost it's transparency, it became all that it opposed, and became our enemy as well.

It's been transparent for quite some time now. Why isn't it changing?

I was about to say pretty much what Zeebadee said.

I think, at the least, he deserves some of my respect for coming to the US and speaking in open view of the public under such harsh criticism, unfortunately the reporters seemed to slander the man in an illogical manner much like the common sheeple and repeat exactly what they've been propagating by putting words in the man's mouth. It looks no different then the WMDs scenario and I am completely shocked (or should I even be this?) that the public can't learn from their past mistakes of full gov't and media trust and approach the subjects in a more reasonable manner.

I'm surprised, again, at the head of CU after he insulted and then justified his insults in what was supposed to be an exchange of honest discussion and a symbol of freedom.

He denies that gay people even exist in his country, "we don't have that problem in Iran."

I wouldn't be surprised if the population of open gays was in fact limited in Iran compared to the west. These are two completely different cultures. Still, take a look at your backyard. People are denying that gays are natural and even go to the extent of calling them evil. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to issue a punishment against homosexuals judging by their level of criticism. He didn't, however, give any proof to his claim and I felt it was more of an ill-humoured slap then anything else.

How many times has your gov't done exactly what they claim this man has done? Many times, it would seem. And there is more clarity in the evidence as well. They've supported terrorist actions, they have offensive nuclear capabilities, they ignore global calls for peace and they are supported by an irrational, fundamentalist religion. Who should I be looking at with scrutiny?

[Nigh Eve]

This is the crap they teach in the Ivy leagues. Amenjiahd will not engage in a debate, all he will do is spread his propaganda. They would invite Hitler! Something is seriously wrong these people.

I don't think anything is wrong with inviting Hitler to a debate. He thought he was in the right and there's nothing wrong with letting him speak even if it is propagandous. You won't fall for it, right? I have trouble making that assumption nowadays.

That is of course, prior to his war.

[Nono]

Failing to subject the wielders of power to searching questions means giving them a free ride.

Did Boy George and Uncle Dick Cheney refuse to appear before the 911 commission? You bet they did.