I was planning a post in which I could summarize my final thoughts on Mr. Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University. This incident needs to be put in perspective, we know what happened, we know who made it happen, and we will not forget. However, I believe too many bytes have been devoted to the matter already. In any case, a comment made by “Brian” illuminated a new, disturbing facet of the situation:
Comment by Brian on September 25, 2007 4:25 pm
How does everyone feel about there invite now? The president of the university ripped Ahmadinejad a new one in his introduction. So much for the Liberal-Islamofascist axis.
Well Brian, first, to answer your question, I feel disgusted and ashamed of Columbia’s Lee Bollinger. I believe Karl Rove hit the nail on the head when he explained:
“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
Now, of course, we are not talking about the savage Islamic extremists who attacked on 9/11. But still, Ahmadinejad is another savage Islamic extremist and Karl Rove’s insight has been proven correct yet again. It gets worse though, Columbia U’s dean has stated that Hitler would have been invited to speak as well, had he been in the U.S.
(See video at Hot Air, Video: Of course we’d invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia dean, by Allahpundit)
An argument between a NAZI and an Holocaust denier would sure make an interesting point/counterpoint debate!
As for Brian’s claim that Bollinger “ripped Ahmadinejad a new one,” if he had given the matter an once of thought, Brian might have seen through the melodramatic introduction. But alas, the simplistic liberal thought-process is an obstacle which is holding Brian back.
Most American’s would choose to go back and stop Hitler, but on the contrary, it seems Liberal’s would rather have him speak to American youths.
Filed under: Politics , Ahmadinejad, Iran
Mr.P,
Why are you so afraid of your own country?
You can’t bandy about slogans like ‘most libs’, and ‘most Americans’, without giving concrete statistics. Conversely, you accuse the Iranian president of being the worst thing since sliced bread.
You see life in good/bad, black/white, right?
No nuance,eh?
ps.
As for my opinion on President Ahmadinajad,
He’s a right-wing, religious zealot, who I consider in the minority of human opinion.
Vermontdave,
If LGFers/Freepers/etc. hadn’t known about and voted in this poll:
What do you think the results would have been?
(Hint: before LGF posted on this 45% were in favor of Ahmadinejad)
vermont Dave,
If the Leftists dislike Ahmadinejad why did Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews defend him?
What the Left denies is Ahmadinejad’s speech was a declaration of war.
He’s calling people to turn to Monotheism(Islam).
It’s a Muslim tradition.
He’s the new hero of the Left!
Trajan,
Did you see Brian’s response:
http://djkonservo.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/the-low-standards-of-columbia-univ/#comment-1101
He (like many Liberals) most likely had no idea that the Left and Islamofascists had an alliance.
These people need to inform themselves before they ruin the country!
He’s in denial.
Yes there a Liberals like Hitchens and Blair that’re Anti-Islamists.
I salute them for staying true to their core beliefs.
However the majority of Leftists do support Islamists because they view them as enemies of the Capitalistic/Judeo-Christian order they hate!
Trajan,
I don’t know if he is in denial, he may just be uninformed. Which means there is a problem with the MSM (imagine that!)
“As for Brian’s claim that Bollinger “ripped Ahmadinejad a new one,” if he had given the matter an once of thought, Brian might have seen through the melodramatic introduction.”
What exactly are you claiming here?
Serg,
Basically I’m saying that Brian, like many liberals, couldn’t see through Bollinger’s act.
Here’s a reinactment of the exchange found in my original response to Brian:
I speculate that this whole Ahmadinejad thing is more about Columbia representing the ideology of their Islamic funders and a cry for attention, than it was about free-speech.
I guess I have become part of this conversation so I will jump in. If you read the extended follow up you will see that I admit that there are liberals who are supportive of terrorists causes. I contend that this is a small percentage of the left/liberal segment of the population (1-2%), Mr. President contends it is 25%.
Obviously, this is a factual disagreement. But even if Mr. President is right, Bollinger is more likely to not be a sympathizer.
I guess I’m not sure what everyone means when they say the “left” is sympathetic to terrorists. Is the “left” a small group of academic Marxists or the 25% to 30% of the population who would self-identify as liberal. If the former than this whole argument is a bit of a strawman, if the latter I think you guys need to go grabs some beers with a few more liberals. I think you would find you have greatly overestimated their terrorist leanings.
B
Brian, if that small group is responsible for the education of future generations of Americans then it is a bigger problem than you think.
100,000 at the ANSWER rallies, Osama citing Chomsky and talking about Kyoto, young liberals/leftist running around mindlessly denouncing Israel and the US…
I see these as problems.
As I mentioned I have worked at a University and most professors are not as liberal as you think. And even if they were I think they are having little effect. I worked at UC-Berkeley for two years and the student body was largely politically apathetic. 100,000 at ANSWER rallies, I can can almost guarantee that 95% of the people there had no idea are against the Iraq war but have no idea any what ANSWER is about. Again what if a conservative attended pro border enforcement rally organized by a group that he later learned was a front for white supremacists? Is he automatically a racist?
Again my point is the whole thing is mostly a silly strawman from my viewpoint. A small group whose out there views are used to characterizes an entire group.
Osama’s speech was a rambling triad reaching to tie his jihad to every conceivable political group he could. I would not be surprised if there was even something to appeal to conservatives in his speech.
Do you mean “politically apathetic” like this?
I was there for two years and I can tell you that giant rallies were not the norm, nor did the campus seem particularly active in other ways (high participation in student political groups, letters to the school newspaper, etc.) I should note that there is a major poll done every few years of student’s attitudes that also finds them less political than previous generations. I think that across the political spectrum there is a general apathy and ignorance across the political spectrum. And by ignorance I don’t mean a mis-eduction by the MSM, I mean they aren’t paying attention to any news source.
B
The way I see it, apathy is just the first step to “mis-education.” For it makes minds dull and uncritical.
Nietzsche wrote that liberalism leads to nihilism, I think he was correct.
I agree but I think it cuts both ways. There are many conservatives and liberals whose thought process behind their opinions is very feeble. I think true nihilists are fairly rare, more common are hedonists and those for who no concern but for themselves. And I think their are many pathways to that sort of stance.
I agree, however I think that more needs to be done when children first start forming their values and beliefs. Religion used to play a big part in this, but nowadays since Christianity is condemned in schools, it seems that the universal human values which are found therein are condemned as well.
Universal values like the Golden Rule apply to all societies.
Going along with our overall discussion, you might like to take a look at the cover of the newest “New Yorker.”
I’d be more interested in reading the articles. As the saying goes
Never judge a book by it’s cover… or for that matter The New Yorker!
There is not much of an article (just a brief tie in to an About the Town article if you are familiar with the magazine), but the cover is humorous if a bit odd.
B
I am not familiar with the magazine, however, it seems to me that the New Yorker is implying Ahmadinejad is similar to Larry Craig.
However, this is so far from the truth that I am inclined to believe that the cover is merely being used to as an attention getter. Ahmadinejad murders homosexuals, I can’t see a magazine arguing that he actually is one.
Actually, its implying that the Left is flirting with Ahmadinejad, note the Birkenstock covered foot initiating the contact.
b
I only saw a small on-line image of the cover, I haven’t been able to get a closer look.