<p>Agreed! (though I wish they could have benefited from their President acting like the scholar he claims to be. He is not a good example for Columbia students to emulate.)</p>
<p>Mini, thank you for your words of wisdom. Since you appear to have intimate knowledge of MAs thinking and reasoning, perhaps you could kindly elaborate upon how MA proposes to peacefully (i.e without a war) change Zionist regime in Israel without destroying its people. The three examples of collapsed regimes have only concerned the leaders. However, Zionism by definition assumes the Land of Israel as a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And in the meantime, [several</a> American universities were outraged by invitations of distinguished public figures with controversial political views]( <a href=“欧美老妇人与黑人XXXX,大鸡巴操死我视频,欧美人禽69交,激情图片激情小说快播电影”>欧美老妇人与黑人XXXX,大鸡巴操死我视频,欧美人禽69交,激情图片激情小说快播电影). Any ideas why only terrorists are welcomed at American college campuses?</p>
<p>btm: Let’s have more people speaking, not fewer.</p>
<p>agreed, why don’t we start with [Chemerinsky, Summers and Rumsfeld](<a href=“欧美老妇人与黑人XXXX,大鸡巴操死我视频,欧美人禽69交,激情图片激情小说快播电影”>欧美老妇人与黑人XXXX,大鸡巴操死我视频,欧美人禽69交,激情图片激情小说快播电影) without giving them such a hard time</p>
<p>um It seems to me they already have quite a forum.</p>
<p>could it be because… they actually have something meaningful and rationale to say, albeit the colleges refused to listen to them? These three comprise a good example because they represent a broad range of political spectrum, although there are no terrorists in this group. I am just trying to figure out how do colleges decide which controversial speakers are worth inviting?</p>
<p>“Any ideas why only terrorists are welcomed at American college campuses?”</p>
<p>Beats me. I have no idea why Bill Clinton who committed genocide, with a million people killed, half of them children, is allowed on a college campus, or anywhere really but a prison cell, or his spokesperson Madeleine Albright, but I know the way the world works.</p>
<p>I’m no fan of Ahmadinejad. There’s more than enough that he says that I find extremely offensive, without having to make stuff up. As for Bollinger, he could have turned to any second-rate scholar with a basic knowledge of Farsi, or heck, he could have consulted Wikipedia for that matter, to save himself from what can be best described as an unscholarly brain fart, unbecoming the leader of a great university. </p>
<p>"“perhaps you could kindly elaborate upon how MA proposes to peacefully (i.e without a war) change Zionist regime in Israel without destroying its people.”</p>
<p>IF you bothered to read what Ahmadinejad actually DID say (as opposed to his quoting a leader who’d been dead for 17 years, and who said absolutely zero about wiping (never used the term) Israel (never used the term) off the map (never said it), he actually provided an example. Because it happened in his own country - an totally unarmed people overthrow the fifth largest military power in the world, backed by the largest military power in the history of the world, complete with torturers trained in Georgia and torture equipment supplied. Now I happen to think he’s wrong, and it wouldn’t happen.</p>
<p>But at least I can read what he said, and come to my own conclusions.</p>
<p>Yeah, the distinction between a terrorist and a wager of war can be a hard one to parse. I suppose it has something to do with whether we’re the aggressor or the victim.</p>
<p>He actually provided a second example in the same speech: the transformation of the Soviet Union. Changed virtually without violence, as the people simply grew tired of the old way of doing things, and found some hope in looking down another path. </p>
<p>Again, I can’t see that happening in Israel; but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t, and he said as much.</p>
<p>The third example was the United States overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who had once been his best friend (and blessed the use of chemical weapons against Iran.) Now I find it hard to fathom the U.S. deciding to forcefully overthrow the regime in Israel, but if went back to 1985, it would be hard to imagine the U.S. overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime either. And that was his point: unexpected things DO happen, and he gave three rather vivid examples of them happening.</p>
<p>(Don’t worry: I doubt Bollinger ever bothered to read the speech that he condemned either.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mini, I am afraid that you are the one who did not read my post, and although I am not MA, Id appreciate if you do read what I said before answering. I did not use the words wiping or map and I did refer to MAs three examples youve quoted, so I have no idea what are you talking about. To reiterate my question, overthrowing the government or any particular leader in Israel (peacefully or violently) wont automatically change Zionist regime. In order to change it, you need to remove Jews from the land of Israel. </p>
<p>Mythmom, I did not realize that you also consider Bill Clinton to be a terrorist.</p>
<p>I simply said that terrorists and non-terrorists are only a matter of designation. I made no overt remark about Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>I don’t tend to make normative judgements about individuals, Bill Clinton, George Bush, anyone. A weakness of mine I know.</p>
<p>My brain is wired to focus on policy, not people. I was extremely upset about the embargo policy in Iraq that cost the lives of many Iraqis, most notably children, while Clinton was still president.</p>
<p>I throroughly opposed the invasion of Iraq before one bomb was dropped.</p>
<p>My daughter, who is seriously studying poli-sci, Human Rights, etc. has explained to me why the two cases differ, but I can’t quite grasp it. I hope she doesn’t read this because an hour lecture will be coming my way if she does.</p>
<p>I tend to hold more positions in common with democrats, especially about domestic agendas, but that does not blind me to errors in their policies.</p>
<p>I lived through Lyndon Johnson’s support of the Vietnam War, or Kennedy’s too, for that matter.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call any of these people terrorists, but again, that’s not my style.</p>
<p>I do feel the current administration is hysterical, misguided, allowing economic and religious issues to cloud political and humane considerations. I think it has tunnel vision, and especially so with regard to domestic rights. I would not call its members terrorists, and again, for some reason I am made in such a way that I don’t attach acrimony to individuals. Everyone, even when misguided, thinks he’s right.</p>
<p>“Mythmom, I did not realize that you also consider Bill Clinton to be a terrorist.”</p>
<p>Well I for one don’t consider Bill Clinton a terrorist. A genocidal murderer, who killed more children than Pol Pot and about 8 times as many as Idi Amin, but not a terrorist. </p>
<p>“To reiterate my question, overthrowing the government or any particular leader in Israel (peacefully or violently) won’t automatically change Zionist regime. In order to change it, you need to remove Jews from the land of Israel.”</p>
<p>Ahmadinejad quite clearly suggests that this isn’t true. Whether you or I happen to agree or disagree with him is another question entirely. If Bollinger had bothered to read the speech for which he dissed Ahmadinejad, the students at Columbia might have benefitted from a more serious discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, or, more precisely, a matter of who makes that designation. Of course, this is also the case for other generic terms such as fascist, liberal, conservative or a genocidal murderer. Creative and frivolous usage of these terms makes many posts really entertaining (please refer to minis posts above - not that I like Bill too much to care about his “designation”). However, most people do not find it particularly difficult to define a terrorist and usually they get it right (of course, with the exception of many progressive journalists who favor the term militant another example of creative term designation)</p>
<p>Interestingly, I also consider myself quite liberal on many domestic policies (pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, non-religious etc) and conservative on foreign policy issues, however our views seem to be quite different I wonder if this is also a matter of designation. </p>
<p>Regarding Iraq, I was extremely upset about a cessation of combat operations in Iraq during the Gulf War. If the Bush the Elder proceeded to overthrow Saddam in 1991, then Saddam would become history.</p>
<p>I am so sorry that this happened. Somehow, we, as a “civilized society” are placing our interpretation of free speech, and our way of life to be the barometer by which we view what happens in other parts of the world. What we should use is not how we would view this, but how this will be used and viewed in his homeland. This is nothing but a propaganda opportunity for the man. Somehow, people think that the Iranians and others will see how poorly he presented himself, and that will make him weaker. (That may happen here, but not there!) Well, the only thing they will see is the many times the audience applauded him, especially when he said he was misunderstood and unfairly treated by the US. We have just given the man MORE power than he already has, and shown ourselves to be weak (in that part of the world) and this cannot help the Middle East situation. And what I don’t like is the hypcrisy of the administrationss which won’t allow certain people in, and allow criminals like this one in to speak. Do they really want discourse? Do they really want conversation? If, so, then present both sides. But they don’t. They just want their point of view represented. Poor, poor, repressed, misunderstood dictator and terrorist, and bug, mean bully USA. BTW - I had heard that Hitler had been invited to speak (in 1936???.) earlier in his regime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo. More broadly, we believe that our perceptions and values are shared in the other parts of the world, whereas some cultures, in particular in the Middle East, interpret our motivation completely differently: they view respect as a hoax, tenderness as fear, compromise as a defeat, negotiation as a weakness and open debate as a provocation. Thats why its irresponsible letting their autocratic leaders to develop and control WMD. Thats why its not only inane, but also dangerous to carry a polemic with their leaders and even more so to draw lessons from this exchange of ideas.</p>
<p>“We have no gay people LIKE YOU DO HERE.” - M. Ahmadinejad</p>
<p>Maybe that explains why he come stateside - hoping Senator Craig would show him around. “Macho macho man I want be an Ahmadinejad”</p>
<p>Did he stay at the YMCA by any chance?</p>
<p>
What is unusual about Iran and other Muslim cultures is that being a homosexual is forbidden, but engaging in homosexual acts among men is a common occurance. Homo-erotic themes are common throughout the middle east. Straight Muslim males often engage in homosexual acts, but since they don’t consider themselves homosexual (like we have here in the US), it is ok. It’s a pretty strange distinction; but what else is new?</p>
<p>Here is another example of the distorted views of sexuality among Muslims. </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070929135010.mq9qi0rx&show_article=1[/url]”>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070929135010.mq9qi0rx&show_article=1</a></p>
<p>Despite what Mini says, it does not matter whether they are Persian or Arab.</p>
<p>“What is unusual about Iran and other Muslim cultures is that being a homosexual is forbidden, but engaging in homosexual acts among men is a common occurance. Homo-erotic themes are common throughout the middle east. Straight Muslim males often engage in homosexual acts, but since they don’t consider themselves homosexual (like we have here in the US), it is ok. It’s a pretty strange distinction; but what else is new?”</p>
<p>Actually, what you are describing is Abraham Lincoln, who shared a bed with a man (and wrote love letters back and forth with him) for 12 years. But if you had called him “gay”, he wouldn’t know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, a university in Iran has invited Bush to speak:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101462.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101462.html</a></p>
<p>I just hope their university president will actually read what Bush has actually said before attacking him as global fear-mongering tyrant. ;)</p>
<p>Mini–apparently the gay men in Iran don’t read A’s words the same as you do, but what do they know?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/world/middleeast/30gays.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/world/middleeast/30gays.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>I imagine your understanding of the speech and situation is much more nuanced than theirs.</p>