PDA

View Full Version : Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia: "That is why American universities exist"


Volcana
Sep 27th, 2007, 01:28 AM
A final (and very well written) word on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia.
"It invited him not to endorse his views, but to enable them to be heard, tested, and challenged in free and open debate.
-- Geoffrey Stone
Of course, as we've seen, from the opposition to Ahmadinejad's speech, that a lot of Americans FEAR free and open debate. But while the cowards are loud, most Americans have more courage than to fear the mere words of an enemy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ahmadinejad-and-columbia_b_65982.html


Ahmadinejad and Columbia's Critics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ahmadinejad-and-columbia_b_65982.html)

Why all the fuss about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University? Critics of Columbia's decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak maintain that, because he is a "cruel and petty dictator," in the words of Columbia President Lee Bollinger, Columbia should not have invited him to speak. In their view, a great American university should not lend its name and prestige to a man who denies the Holocaust, threatens to destroy Israel, promotes terrorism, and routinely violates human rights. Columbia's critics argue that by providing Mr. Ahmadinejad a forum, Columbia implicitly dignified his views and betrayed its own values.

It would be difficult to be more wrong. A fundamental mission of a university is to educate. A university does this not by taking positions on political, social, moral, economic, medical, or international issues, but by creating an environment in which all perspectives on all issues are open to robust and lively debate. The central responsibility of a university is not to decide who is right about the war in Iraq or the moral legitimacy of terrorism or the meaning of human rights, but to create and nurture an intellectual environment in which faculty, students, staff, alumni and others have the complete freedom to explore such questions without constraint or intimidation.

When a university invites a speaker, it does not in any way "endorse" or "dignity" his views. It simply allows him to express his views to the university community so members of that community can evaluate them for themselves. When a university invites a speaker, it uses him as a resource. His ideas may be wise or foolish, admirable or odious. The issue is not whether the university agrees with the speaker, but whether his presence will further the educational mission of the institution.
Some speakers further that mission because they are brilliant, some further it because they are knowledgeable, some further it because they are provocative. But in no event is the university ratifying the merits of the speaker's views, other than to attest that having him speak promotes knowledge, understanding, curiosity, interest, and education.

Did Mr. Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia further the university's educational mission? You bet, it did. Anyone who saw the response of the audience to his statements about Iran, the Holocaust, terrorism, and homosexuality could not fail to note that the audience left with a sharper sense of who he is, why Iran is in the position it is in, and why this poses a serious challenge for the United States.
A university does not bring deadly microbes to campus because it is "dignifying" or "endorsing" the microbes. It brings them to campus in order to study and to understand them. Even if Mr. Ahmadinejad is in fact a "cruel and petty dictator," it was completely legitimate for Columbia to invite him to speak.

More troubling than Columbia's invitation are the attacks on Columbia, which profoundly misunderstand the inherent nature of a university. The critics seem to think that a university's function is to present only those ideas that a majority of trustees, or donors, or faculty, or students think are responsible, reasonable, and moral. Whatever such an institution would be, it would not be a university.
One of the great figures in the history of American higher education, Robert M. Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago from 1929 to 1950, personified the true spirit of a university. In 1932, a student organization at the university invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party's candidate for President of the United States, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from some alumni and local business leaders. Hutchins responded that "our students . . . should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself." He rejected the call for "censorship," arguing that the "cure" for bad ideas "lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition and taboo."

In 1935, the Hearst newspapers launched a nationwide attack on Communist propaganda in American universities, focusing on the University of Chicago. Hutchins responded: "The answer to such charges is not denial, nor evasion, nor apology." Rather, he explained, it is "the assertion that free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, that without it they cease to be universities, and that such inquiry and hence universities are more necessary now than ever."

Shortly thereafter, Charles R. Walgreen, the drugstore magnate, wrote Hutchins that he was withdrawing his niece from the University of Chicago, explaining, "I am unwilling to have her absorb the Communistic influences to which she is assiduously exposed." Walgreen accused several professors, including the English professor Robert Morss Lovett, of being Communist sympathizers. Lovett, a member of the Chicago faculty since 1893, was a venerable teacher with a penchant for left-wing causes. An Illinois legislative committee, fired up by Walgreen's charges, demanded that the University fire Lovett. Hutchins refused. Indeed, when a faculty member confronted Hutchins with the threat, "If the trustees fire Lovett you'll receive the resignations of twenty full professors," Hutchins replied, "Oh no I won't. My successor will."

Columbia University did not need to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak. But in doing so, it was acting in accord with what President Bollinger described as the "norms of . . . the American university." It invited him not to endorse his views, but to enable them to be heard, tested, and challenged in free and open debate. That is why American universities exist.

Apoleb
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:36 AM
On point. This might be a little bit simplistic but I believe it holds true: anyone who was opposed to Ahmadinejad's appearance was afraid of some of the things he was going to say. I think that was especially true when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even Bush admitted that; he said he had no problem with it if the purpose is educational, but then said he was afraid that a leader of a "terror-sponsor" state like Ahmedinajad would fool some people.

FrchTwst
Sep 27th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Iran's President made a good point about how people get upset when ANYONE questions ANYTHING about the Holocaust. I don't think he is denying it happened, he probably feels it was exaggerated. Any why should the Arabs pay for something Germany did???

BUBI
Sep 27th, 2007, 09:03 AM
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-- Thomas Jefferson


Not that all opinions are equal and should be debated at university level, but anyway. It's important that Iran will be heard, because it will make it more difficult for neocons to push for a war.

Sam L
Sep 27th, 2007, 09:16 AM
Iran's President made a good point about how people get upset when ANYONE questions ANYTHING about the Holocaust. I don't think he is denying it happened, he probably feels it was exaggerated. Any why should the Arabs pay for something Germany did???

They're not paying for it. :confused: People talk as if they're really suffering and are the worst off people in the world - they're not - do you people realize there are places like Darfur? :rolleyes:

Philbo
Sep 27th, 2007, 10:45 AM
They're not paying for it. :confused: People talk as if they're really suffering and are the worst off people in the world - they're not - do you people realize there are places like Darfur? :rolleyes:

If you dont think the Palestinian people suffer, then you are a complete fool. You think just by bringin up Darfur that that doesnt make the palestinians who have grown up in refugee camps and have never known any kind of peace and prosperity 'well off' or not suffering?

YOure an absolute fool.

fufuqifuqishahah
Sep 27th, 2007, 03:55 PM
those are some closed-minded critics!

Sam L
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:05 PM
If you dont think the Palestinian people suffer, then you are a complete fool. You think just by bringin up Darfur that that doesnt make the palestinians who have grown up in refugee camps and have never known any kind of peace and prosperity 'well off' or not suffering?

YOure an absolute fool.

Typical bleeding heart liberal comeback. There are far worse off people in the world than Palestinians. In fact, if anything they bring it onto themselves by provoking Israel.

People around the world have sympathies for people in Darfur, Burma, Tibet and North Korea and so on... But not as many people do so with the Palestinians. I wonder why.

See, they're not victims. They're the perpetrators. That's the problem.

*JR*
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Typical bleeding heart liberal comeback. There are far worse off people in the world than Palestinians. In fact, if anything they bring it onto themselves by provoking Israel.

People around the world have sympathies for people in Darfur, Burma, Tibet and North Korea and so on... But not as many people do so with the Palestinians. I wonder why.

See, they're not victims. They're the perpetrators. That's the problem.
Why isn't the point. Nor is the "hierarchy of suffering". And of course Darfur has gotten enormous coverage, though regrettably later than it should have. And Burma certainly is now.

The point is that the issue of the Palestinians is a legitimate one for debate. I disagree with those who support a one-state solution, as the Jews and Arabs would quickly be killing eachother to avenge various grievances.

But I'm not afraid 2C that debated. WTF are those who do want to censor that viewpoint afraid of? :rolleyes:

Sam L
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:43 PM
WTF are those who do want to censor that viewpoint afraid of? :rolleyes:

Well yes, this I agree with. After all, it was a forum where people could ask him questions and he had to answer. It's not like he was just able to make a speech without answering to anyone and where he could just spread his propaganda.

But I can see why people are angry. Because his speech was more like a religious sermon than anything. The same liberals who are angered by discussions on intelligent design and people promoting intelligent design are the ones who are praising and applauding this person right now. Because it fits their interests.

Sam L
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Of course, as we've seen, from the opposition to Ahmadinejad's speech, that a lot of Americans FEAR free and open debate.

Most Americans fear HATE speech. When you go up and say things like "there are no homosexuals in my country", people are right to fear the mouth that uttered those words. Why? Because you know it's filled with hate and lies. :rolleyes:

You seem to be having a field day trying to spin this occasion to your own interests. :rolleyes:

BUBI
Sep 27th, 2007, 05:27 PM
Most Americans fear HATE speech. When you go up and say things like "there are no homosexuals in my country", people are right to fear the mouth that uttered those words. Why? Because you know it's filled with hate and lies. :rolleyes:

Different country, different people, different culture and beliefs of what is acceptable behaviour in society. What we need is mutual respect and dialogue, not censorship and lies. I think Bollinger's introduction was way out of line and factually incorrect. When you invite someone to speak you don't attack him like that. He called Ahmadinejad a dictator which is far from the truth. And everybody know by now that "Israel should be wiped of the map" was a wrong translation by news agenciens and sensationalist press.

samsung101
Sep 27th, 2007, 05:46 PM
The 'fuss' is that the man is an outspoken supporter of terrorism
around the world. He is supplying ammunition, funds, and manpower
to the insurgent movement in Iraq and elsewhere. He is helping to
kill coaltion forces, unarmed innocent Iraqi civilians, as we sit here.
He supports the demolition of Israel. He approves of and allows the
killing of gays in Iran, as well as Christians, and Christian converts.
Other than that, he's a nice guy.

Where was GLADD and GLSEN and LAMBDA about the comments he made about gays
in Iran? Or the known treatment of gays in Iran (hanging)? Generally, silence.

Really, don't worry about what a Republican President can do or would do about
pushing anti-gay marriage amendments....worry about what the fastest growing
religion in the world will do to gay people...rights, you won't have any.
That fast growing population is also growing in elected political power as well,
in Europe, Canada, etc.



Columbia was used by him. Not the other way around. The State Dept. should
have denied him the ability to venture away from the UN in the first place.
Typically, it did not.



Columbia should apply the same 'free speech' principle to inviting
The Minutemen, conservatives, pro-Iraq War, pro-Afghanistan war,
anti-Taliban, anti-Al Queda, pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc., figures
to campus - and give them the first class treatment old Ahmad- got.....
even if that includes a scathing introduction from the pressured
university president.

At least they would get a student audience that was respectful.


My concern was liberal Columbia just gave a terrorist supporter and
backer of tools to kill Americans, a forum from which he was shown as
a world leader applauded by wealthy American education elites.




Really, who has ever censored what old Amad- says? He gets a free pass from
our press here....they care more about the 'i's and 't's that come from Bush
and the GOP, than they do dissecting the trash this guy puts out daily. Free
speech is fine. Why promote his nonsense...and that's just what he accomplished -
treated like a legitimate power broker by CBS, National Press Club, and the Columbia
University family.

Censorship is in Iran, not here. That's the way they like it, and that's what they
wish to spread around the world. Uh, yeah, that kind of concerns me.

samsung101
Sep 27th, 2007, 05:49 PM
American universities are liberal for the most part.

They do not welcome conservative or moderate viewpoints much at all.
That's just a proven trend for years and years. So, free speech is
great, as long as it generally supports what the liberal faculty,
liberal administration, and liberal young students want to hear.

There are many sides to issues, and if the USA colleges did promote
open and free and respectful dialog from those many sides, I'd agree
with the thread statement. However, they don't.

griffin
Sep 27th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Where was GLADD and GLSEN and LAMBDA about the comments he made about gays
in Iran? Or the known treatment of gays in Iran (hanging)? Generally, silence.

Probably because GLAAD deals with the media issues (e.g. how LGBT people are portrayed on TV), GLSEN deals with primary and secondary schools, and LAMBDA is sort-of a queer ACLU, and non of them work on politics in general or international issues in specific.

I think HRC was busy selling t-shirts and ball caps in Provincetown or putting on fancy awards dinners.

IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) among others DID issue press releases condemning his statements - perhaps you missed the memo - just as they've worked for years to address the abuses suffered by LGBT people across the globe.

But to know that, you'd have to give a shit about LGBT people beyond their usefulness as a propaganda point.

Apoleb
Sep 27th, 2007, 06:45 PM
But to know that, you'd have to give a shit about LGBT people beyond their usefulness as a propaganda point.

Let me pull a mykarma: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Pureracket
Sep 27th, 2007, 07:07 PM
But to know that, you'd have to give a shit about LGBT people beyond their usefulness as a propaganda point.Pwned. :tape: DAYUM!!!!!

HippityHop
Sep 28th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Different country, different people, different culture and beliefs of what is acceptable behaviour in society. What we need is mutual respect and dialogue, not censorship and lies. I think Bollinger's introduction was way out of line and factually incorrect. When you invite someone to speak you don't attack him like that. He called Ahmadinejad a dictator which is far from the truth. And everybody know by now that "Israel should be wiped of the map" was a wrong translation by news agenciens and sensationalist press.

Are you arguing that all cultures and beliefs are worthy of respect and dialogue? I disagree.

I'm simply not willing to respect and dialogue with a culture that believes that women should be stoned to death for any independence of thought/action or that homosexuals should be killed for being who they are. That type of culture is not worthy of respect and dialogue in my opinion. Obviously others disagree with me.

ys
Sep 28th, 2007, 03:13 AM
American universities are liberal for the most part.


The "liberal" word is totally distorted in American politics and economy. Adam Smith was liberal. Milton Friedman was liberal. Friedrich Hayek was liberal. Ronald Reagan was liberal. What they call "liberal" now in American politics is in fact stands for "socialist".

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2007, 03:26 AM
The "liberal" word is totally distorted in American politics and economy. Adam Smith was liberal. Milton Friedman was liberal. Friedrich Hayek was liberal. Ronald Reagan was liberal. What they call "liberal" now in American politics is in fact stands for "socialist".

Well you're talking about classical liberalism. I agree but there's also liberal as in not conservative. And then there's bleeding heart liberalism which is fools' liberalism.

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2007, 03:29 AM
Different country, different people, different culture and beliefs of what is acceptable behaviour in society. What we need is mutual respect and dialogue, not censorship and lies. I think Bollinger's introduction was way out of line and factually incorrect. When you invite someone to speak you don't attack him like that. He called Ahmadinejad a dictator which is far from the truth. And everybody know by now that "Israel should be wiped of the map" was a wrong translation by news agenciens and sensationalist press.

No need to respect a country that hangs homosexuals. No need to respect a culture that doesn't let its women have equal rights.

Bollinger's introduction was fine. It's not like he lied. We all know the truth and he spoke it. If he was telling lies like "there aren't any homosexuals in my country," we'd be calling him a liar and a fool but we're not.

BUBI
Sep 28th, 2007, 08:30 AM
No need to respect a country that hangs homosexuals. No need to respect a culture that doesn't let its women have equal rights.

Bollinger's introduction was fine. It's not like he lied. We all know the truth and he spoke it. If he was telling lies like "there aren't any homosexuals in my country," we'd be calling him a liar and a fool but we're not.
I don't think name calling is appropriate and he said "Israel should be wiped off the map" as a direct quote from Ahmadinejad although he must know he never said it. I think he also said some things about nuclear program that are not true. I think there are true things to criticize about Iran and we should stick to the facts. When you lie even once you lose your credibility.

BUBI
Sep 28th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Are you arguing that all cultures and beliefs are worthy of respect and dialogue? I disagree.

I'm simply not willing to respect and dialogue with a culture that believes that women should be stoned to death for any independence of thought/action or that homosexuals should be killed for being who they are. That type of culture is not worthy of respect and dialogue in my opinion. Obviously others disagree with me.

What are the options if there is no respect and dialogue? War and cultural imperialism? I guess we disagree.

Philbo
Sep 28th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Typical bleeding heart liberal comeback. There are far worse off people in the world than Palestinians. In fact, if anything they bring it onto themselves by provoking Israel.

People around the world have sympathies for people in Darfur, Burma, Tibet and North Korea and so on... But not as many people do so with the Palestinians. I wonder why.

See, they're not victims. They're the perpetrators. That's the problem.

Typical right wing Zionist Fundamentalist comeback...

You seen the recent book The Israel Lobby? People are waking up to the corruption that dictates america's 100% support of Israel.... Israel is nothing more than a bullyish thug of a nation.

I was wrong - Fool is way above your intelligence level.

HippityHop
Sep 28th, 2007, 03:28 PM
What are the options if there is no respect and dialogue? War and cultural imperialism? I guess we disagree.

Are these the only options?

If you mean by cultural imperialism espousing that women and homosexuals are full human beings and should be treated as such, then count me in.

griffin
Sep 28th, 2007, 04:51 PM
If you mean by cultural imperialism espousing that women and homosexuals are full human beings and should be treated as such, then count me in.

Speaking as someone who is both: much as I'd love it if women and homosexuals were treated fairly everywhere, if we cut off dialog with every nation that didn't, we wouldn't have that many nations to talk to.

I find Iran's treatment of LGBT people and women abhorrent, but I'm also painfully aware that Iran is not unique here.

Apoleb
Sep 28th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Iran's treatment of women is still miles ahead of many, many countries including staunch US allies, most notably Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, Iran has one of the largest educated female populations in the thrid world.

Anyone who thinks Iran is on the "axis of evil" because of the repression of freedom in their country and how they treat homosexuals and women needs a reality check. It just happens that they don't fall with US interests and policies, especially when it comes to Israel. (I mean do you really believe the US administration gives a shit about homos in Iran?)

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2007, 05:14 PM
Typical right wing Zionist Fundamentalist comeback...

You seen the recent book The Israel Lobby? People are waking up to the corruption that dictates america's 100% support of Israel.... Israel is nothing more than a bullyish thug of a nation.


Oh what, something along the lines of evil jews running all the western media and bullshit conspiracy theories to the like? You're a joke. :rolleyes:

It's unfortunate that you've taken on an anti-Israel stance because that's the position you've been taught. America = evil. Israel = evil. Capitalism = evil.

You're not a liberal. You're a sheep.

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2007, 05:16 PM
What are the options if there is no respect and dialogue? War and cultural imperialism? I guess we disagree.

Cultural imperialism is not a bad thing. No one wants war but sometimes it is the only solution.

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Iran's treatment of women is still miles ahead of many, many countries including staunch US allies, most notably Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, Iran has one of the largest educated female populations in the thrid world.

Anyone who thinks Iran is on the "axis of evil" because of the repression of freedom in their country and how they treat homosexuals and women needs a reality check. It just happens that they don't fall with US interests and policies, especially when it comes to Israel. (I mean do you really believe the US administration gives a shit about homos in Iran?)

They're not on the "axis of evil" because of that. They're on it because they have weapons or wants weapons and will most likely use them to disrupt world peace.

Volcana
Sep 28th, 2007, 10:56 PM
They're not paying for it.They ARE paying for it. However, they were not completely uninvolved in WWII. the Palestinian leadership, such as it was at the time, chose to repair to Hitler's 'court' during WWII. This did not make the British particularly sympathetic to Palestinians post-WWII, and the British controlled Palestine.

Volcana
Sep 28th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Most Americans fear HATE speech.You don't live in the USA, do you? Put bluntly, you're wrong. Some by no means all, American companies, fear LAWSUITS over hate speech. But American citizens fearing hate speech?!?! way. We do indulge our ability to call hate speech bullshit, and its purveyors bullshit artists. But that's a result of the ABSENCE of fear. No more being lynched for calling out haters. Some, if not equal, protection under the law. Now, when the Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reillys engage in their know-nothing diatribes, they are challenged, loudly. But I would never oppose their right to speak.

I wouldn't oppose the right of the Nazis or the KKK or Fred Phelps to speak.

I wouldn't even be in the crowd trying to shout them down. I wouldn't oppose shouting them down either. Their opponents have a right to speak too.

Remember, all 'Freedom of Speech' means is that the government won't stop you. The guy next to you has as much right to speak as you. He doesn't have to be polite, or give you time, or be civil. As far as the government is concerned

You seem to be having a field day trying to spin this occasion to your own interests.Wrong twice.
a) Not close to a 'field day', being far to easy.
b) Who needs spin? All I gotta do is state the actual facts of the occasion, over and over.

Volcana
Sep 28th, 2007, 11:23 PM
They're not on the "axis of evil" because of that. They're on it because they have weapons or wants weapons and will most likely use them to disrupt world peace.
Look at your own words

"They're on it because they have weapons or wants weapons and will most likely use them to disrupt world peace."

'have weapons or wants weapons' - That's 99% of the countries in the world.

'will most likely use them to disrupt world peace' - Change the words from "will most likely use" to "are using" and you just described the United States.

There may well be reasons to oppose Iran, even militarily. I don't know of any, but new information continually emerges. However, after all the lies told during the run-up to the War Against Iraq, I am VERY skeptical about hearing that Iran is a threat to the USA. The source of most of the information I see in the media that Iran is a threat to this country comes from one extremely discredited source. The Bush adminstration. I'm just not willing to take their word that Iran is a threat to the USA.

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Look at your own words

"They're on it because they have weapons or wants weapons and will most likely use them to disrupt world peace."

'have weapons or wants weapons' - That's 99% of the countries in the world.

'will most likely use them to disrupt world peace' - Change the words from "will most likely use" to "are using" and you just described the United States.

There may well be reasons to oppose Iran, even militarily. I don't know of any, but new information continually emerges. However, after all the lies told during the run-up to the War Against Iraq, I am VERY skeptical about hearing that Iran is a threat to the USA. The source of most of the information I see in the media that Iran is a threat to this country comes from one extremely discredited source. The Bush adminstration. I'm just not willing to take their word that Iran is a threat to the USA.

not that it means anything, but strange enough, the very same countries that strongly opposed the US war on Iraq are being aggressive towards Iran, the president of one of them (France) saying openly that they should embrace for war, Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of Iran, times do change.

Philbo
Oct 1st, 2007, 08:21 AM
Sam - Volcana absolutley OWNS you in this thread..

Not surprising really, you only possess enough intelligence to be able to swallow what youre told by the mainstream media.. Keep swalling the BS fed to you mate, you make a good drone..

Sam L
Oct 1st, 2007, 02:55 PM
They ARE paying for it. However, they were not completely uninvolved in WWII. the Palestinian leadership, such as it was at the time, chose to repair to Hitler's 'court' during WWII. This did not make the British particularly sympathetic to Palestinians post-WWII, and the British controlled Palestine.

The British controlled Palestine not Arabs. The British. Thank you. And Israel was created as country recognized by the UN and the world. Thank you. And Palestinians are terrorists who should shut up and put up or leave and live in one of their Arab brothers' countries. Thank you.

Look at your own words

"They're on it because they have weapons or wants weapons and will most likely use them to disrupt world peace."

'have weapons or wants weapons' - That's 99% of the countries in the world.

'will most likely use them to disrupt world peace' - Change the words from "will most likely use" to "are using" and you just described the United States.

There may well be reasons to oppose Iran, even militarily. I don't know of any, but new information continually emerges. However, after all the lies told during the run-up to the War Against Iraq, I am VERY skeptical about hearing that Iran is a threat to the USA. The source of most of the information I see in the media that Iran is a threat to this country comes from one extremely discredited source. The Bush adminstration. I'm just not willing to take their word that Iran is a threat to the USA.

Well maybe you can listen to the French and Germans then like Fingon said. You are an idiot if you think America is disrupting world peace. :rolleyes:

not that it means anything, but strange enough, the very same countries that strongly opposed the US war on Iraq are being aggressive towards Iran, the president of one of them (France) saying openly that they should embrace for war, Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of Iran, times do change.

Sam L
Oct 1st, 2007, 02:58 PM
Sam - Volcana absolutley OWNS you in this thread..

Not surprising really, you only possess enough intelligence to be able to swallow what youre told by the mainstream media.. Keep swalling the BS fed to you mate, you make a good drone..

That's your opinion and your opinion means very little to me. In fact, it's a compliment. You probably idolize people like Cindy Sheehan who knows shit about what's really happening in the world and is only a hippie retard who wants to stop all wars without knowing what they're not stopping. I'm glad during WWII we didn't have that many people like you otherwise the world will be ruled by Nazis.

I'm swallowing things being told by the mainstream media? :lol: My opinions are anything BUT the mainstream media.

Philbo
Oct 1st, 2007, 03:03 PM
That's your opinion and your opinion means very little to me. In fact, it's a compliment. You probably idolize people like Cindy Sheehan who knows shit about what's really happening in the world and is only a hippie retard who wants to stop all wars without knowing what they're not stopping. I'm glad during WWII we didn't have that many people like you otherwise the world will be ruled by Nazis.

I'm swallowing things being told by the mainstream media? :lol: My opinions are anything BUT the mainstream media.

In fact you talk just like someone who works for the Israel Lobby on Capitol Hill would speak.

You are a wonderful example of someone who will believe anything they read, so long as it fits into their pre-conveived idea of what is so.

Yep, all the palestinians are terrorists, all the jews are poor, picked on victims with no role whatsoever in the terrorism they experience.. Just poor victims with nothing to do with the cause of it at all....

Spoken like a true Fox news devotee....

Sam L
Oct 1st, 2007, 03:11 PM
In fact you talk just like someone who works for the Israel Lobby on Capitol Hill would speak.

You are a wonderful example of someone who will believe anything they read, so long as it fits into their pre-conveived idea of what is so.

Yep, all the palestinians are terrorists, all the jews are poor, picked on victims with no role whatsoever in the terrorism they experience.. Just poor victims with nothing to do with the cause of it at all....

Spoken like a true Fox news devotee....

I don't watch Fox News. :rolleyes:

Of course, it's not like there aren't enough anti-war rubbish on the internet. If anyone's been doing some reading and getting some brainwashing on themselves it's you. :help:

Philbo
Oct 1st, 2007, 03:16 PM
I don't watch Fox News. :rolleyes:

Of course, it's not like there aren't enough anti-war rubbish on the internet. If anyone's been doing some reading and getting some brainwashing on themselves it's you. :help:

blah blah blah, yada yada yada.. *yawn*