Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ahmadinethread
If you want to rap about the Iranian president's blockbuster speech—or are wondering what the hell he was talking about—you can do it here.
Some good liveblogging here.
Marcvs|9.24.07 @ 2:45PM|#
He said that if we convert to Islam, we'll only have to pay a 2.5% flat tax. And burqas! All the burqas we want!
Marcvs|9.24.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"In the teachings of the prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science: the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior," he said. "Knowledge and wisdom are pure and clear reality. Science is a light." He added that "only a pure researcher" free from "superstition, selfishness, material trappings" can discover that reality.
...
The Almighty is the ultimate "teacher of human beings, who taught human beings what they are ignorant of," he said, adding that the Prophet Muhammad was "appointed as their prophet to 'read for them the divine verses, and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination.'"
I guess it just depends on what your definitions of "superstition"
and "science" are.
What a douchebag.
|9.24.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Hey - it could been worse; I heard they almost that Larry
Summers guy speak at U of C.
Thank God that cancelled that one, eh? Close call there...
TLB|9.24.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Hopefully someone go to do something about her crush:
littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27176
As previously discussed, a student-led group disinvited someone else
who's (apparently) far, far more objectionable. Odd how that isn't
mentioned by too many of those discussing A's visit.
|9.24.07 @ 3:10PM|#
I just lost $50. I had bet that he'd announce the restoration of
Zoroastrianism and his desire for Iran to become the 51st
state.
Dang it.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Here's what I want to know: How much clout does Mrs. Ahmadinejad
have?
On the one hand, given that he's kind of a douchebag in an office
with very little power, he just sort of gives this vibe of a guy
who takes orders from Mrs. Ahmadinejad.
But then I look at that jacket that he wears to state events and I
realize that if Mrs. Ahmadinejad were in charge he wouldn't be
allowed to wear that.
I don't really care about their marriage, but I would like to know
who's actually in charge of his figurehead office, given all the
trouble being caused by the occupant of that figurehead office
right now.
|9.24.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Via CNN.com:
"Iran's president: 'We don't have homosexuals in Iran'"
Made me laugh out loud.
American Infidel|9.24.07 @ 3:24PM|#
The "no gay phenomenon" crack was a double entendre, wasn't
it...
Why did that POS get so much applause from those LPsOS? If those CU
children are our future, America will be FUBAR.
PBS Censor|9.24.07 @ 3:40PM|#
American Infidel | September 24, 2007, 3:24pm | #
The "no gay phenomenon" crack was a double entendre, wasn't it...
Why did that POS get so much applause from those LPsOS? If those CU children are our future, America will beFUBARgood christian, virginal, moral.
there ya go. fix't it fer yoo
Syloson of Samos|9.24.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Apparently there is a new movie coming out of Iran whose plot concerns an Iranian man saving a Jewish woman from the holocaust.
|9.24.07 @ 3:43PM|#
We need more research and discussion over the existence of the holocoust, something of which there is film and living witnesses to, but the existence of the legitimacy of the claims of Mahamad? No question there. What a douschbag. Glad to see Columbia has an Adoph Hitler memorial whackjob lecture.
|9.24.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Ok, I'm all for a nice little open thread hating this guy, but
where is the open thread about the real news: UAW strikes on
GM?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_talks
|9.24.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Syloson of Samos,
That's the beauty of Iran--there's about eighty different and
mutually exclusive viewpoints. And that's just the government!
Episiarch|9.24.07 @ 3:47PM|#
When he appears on Celebrity Big Brother we will know we have
won.
Won what, I have no idea.
|9.24.07 @ 3:50PM|#
When he appears on Celebrity Big Brother we will know we have won.
Won what, I have no idea.
The Power of Veto!
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 3:56PM|#
When he appears on Celebrity Big Brother we will know we
have won.
A lifetime supply of Shiraz?
|9.24.07 @ 4:00PM|#
I haven't even listened to a Presidential address since 9/11,
and I am supposed to care what this asshole says?
In the immortal words of The Harv, piss on this fucking turd.
iih|9.24.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Who were those clapping for him every now and then, like when he said something about "free speech" in Iran?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|9.24.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Episiarch, we will have won the Culture War. This will upset Bill O'Reily greatly but both the Salafi Muslims and the Salafi Christians will have lost.
|9.24.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Celebrity Big Brother? No. With his quotations (and his
very bizarre assertion that "there are no absolutes", more like
Celebrity Paranormal Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Paranormal_Project
|9.24.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Correct quotation:
"There's nothing known as absolute," he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/
|9.24.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"There's nothing known as absolute," he said.
And that's where he's wrong! It's actually quite well-known, though
it's spelled "ABSOLUT".
|9.24.07 @ 4:13PM|#
its good to see he's just as crazy out of his country as in it. Gives us a better, less filtered idea of who we're dealing with. Let's just hope his version of crazy is more Bozo the Clown and less Ioesph Stalin.
|9.24.07 @ 4:17PM|#
I think we should keep in mind that the Ayatollahs still control government and while A-man maybe be a rabid beagle (I can't think of him as a more fierce breed, however, he's not coherent enough for that), he's a rabid beagle on a leash, a very short one. My only fear is that the military will ignore the Ayatollah, but that could have some profound effects on the stability of the nation internally, so its unlikely.
Guy Montag|9.24.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Ok, I'm all for a nice little open thread hating this guy,
but where is the open thread about the real news: UAW strikes on
GM?
It really does not matter since I drive MOPAR anyway ;)
Organic Hydrogen: the fuel of the future that came from the
past.
|9.24.07 @ 4:18PM|#
I will admit one thing this guy is no Hitler or even Stalin. Hitler and Stalin, in addition to being evil beyond belief, were by all comptemparary accounts mezmorizing to people. You read accounts of Stalin and his charm and power over people and you start to believe there really is such a thing as the Devil on earth. This guy is Charlie Manson with a better haircut and suit.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 4:19PM|#
I think he may be guest-blogging at Urkobold soon,
too.
Awesome!
He'll learn to hate physicists, and then he'll fire all of his
nuclear physicists, and then the problem will be solved.
|9.24.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"He'll learn to hate physicists, and then he'll fire all of his
nuclear physicists, and then the problem will be solved."
No, he loves physics and is a dedicated string theorist. Didn't you
know that the 12 Imam is coming to earth via 11 dimensional
hyperspace? The 12th Imam is right here Thoreau, he is just a few
millimeters from all of us.
bill|9.24.07 @ 4:24PM|#
To everyone beating up on Columbia for letting him speak, I wonder if you've ever heard the cliche, "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself".
|9.24.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Well, that explains a few things. String theory--ha! No wonder they don't have atomic weapons yet.
JBinMO|9.24.07 @ 4:30PM|#
He needed to dumb down his speetch. He had an American audience. We like black/white distictions, not serious discussions.
|9.24.07 @ 4:32PM|#
bill,
if that addage is true, I've got a temple he can speak at and I'll
supply the silk rope.
|9.24.07 @ 4:37PM|#
The 12th Imam is right here Thoreau, he is just a few millimeters from all of us.
Oh, how embarrassing. Sorry about eating all those burritos, Mr.
Imam.
|9.24.07 @ 4:41PM|#
JBinMO,
After all, his pronouncements have been so reasonable, rational,
and nuanced. I don't take the guy too seriously, understanding that
he wields little true power in Iran; however, I don't think the
problem is that he's talking over our heads.
|9.24.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"I don't take the guy too seriously, understanding that he
wields little true power in Iran; however, I don't think the
problem is that he's talking over our heads."
I am not so sure about that. I don't think we know who really
wields the power in Iran. The Mullahs are a little bit like pre
World War II Japan, complete chaos with no clear idea who really
had any power.
JBinMO|9.24.07 @ 4:50PM|#
" I don't think the problem is that he's talking over our
heads."
He is too short for that. I do wonder if that is typical for a
speetch in Iran.
Fluffy|9.24.07 @ 4:50PM|#
The only part of his speech that was relevant to US / Iran
relations was the bit about nuclear technology.
His assertion that Iran has the unequivocal right to enrich uranium
under existing non-proliferation treaties is 100% correct.
A lot of the other stuff was nonsense, but let's keep our eye on
the ball here.
|9.24.07 @ 4:56PM|#
"His assertion that Iran has the unequivocal right to enrich
uranium under existing non-proliferation treaties is 100%
correct."
Then there is the unmade assertion of the US right to bomb his
miserable ass into the stone age if he ever does anything with said
Uranium or with proper UN authorization, for the whatever the hell
reason why can talk the rest of the world into supporting.
|9.24.07 @ 5:01PM|#
"Then there is the unmade assertion of the US right to bomb his
miserable ass into the stone age if he ever does anything with said
Uranium"
The Iranian Muslims want nukes to preserve their rule. They don't
believe the US will attack them if they have nukes. Afterall, we
didn't attack North Korea.
|9.24.07 @ 5:08PM|#
"The Iranian Muslims want nukes to preserve their rule. They
don't believe the US will attack them if they have nukes. Afterall,
we didn't attack North Korea."
Its more than that. Once they have nukes they can pretty much do
whatever they want can't they? What if rather than Afghanistan a
nuclear armed Iran had been behind 9-11? We would have been pretty
much screwed at that point. Whether they would have the desire and
ability to pull off another 9-11 I don't know. But the point is
that if they could get away with that, which I think they could if
they had nukes, they couls get away with about anything short of
actually using the nukes. Note also that China and Russia killed
millions of their people with no real reprecussions from the world
because they were nuclear powers and no one wanted to confront
them. Once they have nukes, the Mullas can stop bothering with
imprisoning thier political enemies and just shoot them.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 5:17PM|#
What if rather than Afghanistan a nuclear armed Iran had
been behind 9-11? We would have been pretty much screwed at that
point. Whether they would have the desire and ability to pull off
another 9-11 I don't know. But the point is that if they could get
away with that, which I think they could if they had nukes, they
couls get away with about anything short of actually using the
nukes.
True, but consider the Soviets. They were ruled by an insane and
murderous ideology, yet they didn't sponsor a 9/11 or anything
similar. They sponsored client states who attacked other client
states.
The Taliban were a bunch of second tier crazies. They were never
the sort of serious players who could build the infrastructure for
a nuclear bomb. And once you've got the resources to get that
infrastructure, you have something that you don't want to
lose.
I'm quite willing to believe that cave-dwelling crazies who pretend
to have meaningful control of a unified country (when in truth they
are simply the warlords who hold the rubble of the capitol, while
out in the hinterlands other warlords do as they please while
paying nominal tribute) would do all sorts of things. Indeed, 9/11
proved that they will do all sorts of things. But people
with real power and resources are a bit more rational than
that.
|9.24.07 @ 5:27PM|#
"Iran's president: 'We don't have homosexuals in Iran'"
Maybe he just mean they don't have known homosexuals who
live long once found.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Iran may not have homosexuals, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few politicians have to "adopt a wide stance" in the bathroom, yah know?
Episiarch|9.24.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Hey, cool, Bollinger ripped A-mad a new one. Good for him. This can now be referred to as a "Columbia Smackdown".
Fluffy|9.24.07 @ 5:39PM|#
The problem with theorizing about a nuclear-armed Iran
sponsoring a 9/11 type attack and then hiding behind their arsenal
is that deterrence theory doesn't work that way.
If a non-nuclear Iran sponsors such an attack, there is a range of
responses they can reasonably expect: bombing, full-scale invasion,
no response at all because their fingerprints aren't detected on
the attack, etc.
A nuclear-armed Iran that doesn't have an arsenal the size of the
former Soviet Union's has to anticipate that the most likely
response would be a massive nuclear first strike by the United
States. They have to anticipate that because it's what deterrence
theory would call for. We can't safely launch a conventional attack
against a nuclear power. We can't launch a limited nuclear strike
because of the chance they could get off a counterstrike. All we
can rationally do is attempt a strike that's so massive that it
eliminates all doubt.
Why do you think the Soviet Union and US never attacked each other
directly in even the slightest way? And in that instance, we were
balanced. In a situation where one power outclasses the other in
capability, a first strike is so logical an option that the powers
involved would have to be even more careful.
|9.24.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Yeah, Bollinger's grilling is really going to take the wind out of a bunch of right-wing pundits' sails.
|9.24.07 @ 7:13PM|#
John-
Then why was it, when a moderate was in power conservatives siad he
was just a powerless figurehead? Now that a hardliner is the
president, all of a sudden hes The Next Hitler.
|9.24.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Personally, I would not have a problem with this if it were an
issue of freedom of speech applied uniformly to all. That is not
the case. They have denied a forum on many occasions to
others.
Some opinions state that: "Once a leader reaches a certain level of
power, then moral considerations must be set aside." This statement
too does not appear to reflect the reality. Other liberal
institutions such as UC Berkeley in California have without any
problems and with great sense of moral superiority rejected
speakers such as then Prime Minister of Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu
who was considered too objectionable. They had large demonstrations
both loud and effective, against giving him a forum.
Freedom of speech and many other values of classical liberalism are
not important to the modern left. If it were, you would see greater
variety of controversial speakers represented. Slogans such as
freedom of speech or tolerance are used as tools when ideas
pre-approved by liberal orthodoxy are challenged.
It is not that they decide to set aside moral considerations. To
the contrary they feel that they have common enemies. Attacking
common enemies is a lot more important to them. Just look how much
cheering Ahmed received in his reception each time he attached
liberal's favorite targets.
They share visceral hatred of Christian right, of Bush, of Israel,
and Conservatives. Of course, if they examined Ahmadinejad's ,or
other Islamists', philosophy more carefully they would see that he
is against a lot of things that they find important such as gay and
women's rights, separation of church and state. I don't know if he
is pro or against medicinal marijuana. However, since American
college campus style liberalism is a system based mostly on emotion
not observation, such examination is not necessary. Differences
could be overlooked as long as they hate pre-approved groups or
people.
Modern opposition to freedom of speech and to tolerance of ideas
that they consider especially unacceptable resides primarily (not
exclusively) on the left in present day America.
|9.24.07 @ 7:21PM|#
Dear Fluffy:
Abeziad, one of our high ranking ex-generals actually said that a
nuclear armed Iran would not be such a big deal. They'd just have
to sit on them, or risk a massive attack from the U.S. and Israel.
When all three bullies, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have brass
knuckles, it forces them to stop being bullies and get along.
Winston Churchill said, "As war itself becomes bent upon mutual
extermination, it seems likely that it will become increasingly
postponed."
We are naive if we think we can control proliferation for ever.
Pakistan has the bomb and who knows what the future holds there?
Some anti-western guy gets elected, maybe he'll give out nukes to
his neighbors.
|9.24.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Abeziad, one of our high ranking ex-generals actually said
that a nuclear armed Iran would not be such a big deal. They'd just
have to sit on them, or risk a massive attack from the U.S. and
Israel. When all three bullies, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have
brass knuckles, it forces them to stop being bullies and get
along.
Thats been my view all along. If Iran was interested in regional
hegemony, they would be building up their conventional forces. But
their conventional forces are, and remain, a complete joke. A
nuclear deterrent is purely defensive.
|9.24.07 @ 7:47PM|#
" consider the Soviets. They were ruled by an insane and
murderous ideology, "
Not exactly. After Stalin, hey were ruled by a kleptocratic
gerontocracy who paid lip service to an insane and murderous
ideology. Basically, the politburo was a mob family, and they were
greedy, not suicidal.
-jcr
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 7:50PM|#
I also concur that a nuclear-armed Iran could be deterred, just
like a nuclear-armed China or Russia.
And yet....I'm not 100% on that. No, I'm not a bed-wetter, but I'm
not 100%, because nothing is 100% in life. If I could think of some
way to head it off, some way to prevent them from getting a nuke, a
way that wasn't a complete fricking disaster, I would endorse it.
Because if we're wrong on this, if that tiny, tiny chance happens,
then it's serious shit.
But I realize that any attempt to prevent this by force is likely
to create its own disaster. It might even convince other countries
that we cannot be deterred without nukes, and so they might seek
nukes ASAP, buying from any willing mercenary scientist from
Russia, Pakistan, or North Korea. That would be one hell of an
unintended consequence.
So I'm stuck on this. I can't think of anything better than
deterrence, but deterrence comes with the possibility that some day
it won't work. Which sucks.
Damn you, Robert Oppenheimer!
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Regarding the Soviets, you write:
After Stalin, hey were ruled by a kleptocratic gerontocracy who
paid lip service to an insane and murderous ideology. Basically,
the politburo was a mob family, and they were greedy, not
suicidal.
A strong argument could be made that the Iranian regime is more
interested in oil money than ideology.
Underzog|9.24.07 @ 8:00PM|#
COLUMBIA HOSTS AHMADINEJAD -- CAN YOU SAY "TREASON"?
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
09-24-07
Patriots need to learn to say two words -- "treason" and "traitor."
The American people need to hear the truth -- that the left has
gone far beyond dissent. It betrays America at every turn.
Its hatred of our nation -- our history and underlying ethos -- is
visible in word and deed. It slanders the republic, lies about our
past, undercuts our warriors, revels in American deaths and
consorts with the enemy in time of war (aid and comfort, and all
that).
These reflections are prompted by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University, in the course of his
visit to consult with his follow fascist thugs at the United
Nations.
Iran's "president" (a term that ill-suits the ruler of a
totalitarian state) is quite possibly the world's most dangerous
man -- easily its most loathsome.
Back in 1979, Ahmadinejad was an intelligence operative who
participated in the 444-day hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in
Tehran. In 2000, he hosted a Holocaust-denial conference in the
same city, attended by such arch anti-Semites as David Duke.
This Hitler-with-a-three-day-growth threatens to "wipe Israel off
the map" and promises the eventual destruction of America. He has
ties to Al Qaeda. His regime commands its own terrorist army,
Hezbollah, which came close to plunging Lebanon into another civil
war and attacks targets around the world.
Iran provides the guns and bombs terrorists use to kill U.S. forces
in Iraq. It is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons to use
against America and Israel.
And Columbia is giving Ahmadinejad a forum, Why not? If treason has
a home address, it's America's college campuses.
Don't be fooled by Columbia President Lee Bollinger's attempt to
dress the university's betrayal of America in the robes of academic
inquiry. "It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas
we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or
the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naivete
about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas," Bollinger
proclaims.
Nearly as fatuous are the comments of John Coatsworth, interim dean
of Columbia's School of International Public Affairs, who claims
students need "opportunities to hear, challenge and learn from
controversial speakers of different views." Why it's essential to
their learning experience.
What can Columbia's students learn from Ahmadinejad -- how to hate
Jews, how to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, how to plot
nuclear genocide, how to murder Americans, how to threaten to kill
those who "insult" Islam?
This is such contemptible stuff, which plumbs the depths of
intellectual dishonesty, that it hardly merits much of a response.
However, we would briefly note the following:
1. Columbia "resists" the ideas of Islamo-fascism -- which receive
widespread support from faculty and students alike -- the way a
cheerleader with a reputation resists the advances of a star
quarterback. While World War III rages beyond its ivy-covered
walls, nearly the only ideas heard on campus are those of the
anti-war, anti-American left. Consider how many history or
government courses at Columbia assign Bill Bennett's "America: The
Last Best Hope", compared to Howard Zinn's "A People's History of
the United States."
2. Columbia is such a bastion of let-every-voice-be-heard, that it
recently revoked an invitation to Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist.
(The last time Gilchrist appeared on campus, he was assaulted by
radicals, due to the administration's refusal to provide adequate
security.) The founder of a group protecting America's borders is
persona non-grata at Columbia, while the leader of a gang dedicated
to our destruction -- well, students need to listen to his views
and have an opportunity to "challenge him."
3. Columbia kicked the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) off
campus in 1969. It will provide a propaganda forum to a regime
committed to our annihilation, but won't give students the
opportunity to serve their country.
4. Did Columbia invite the late Augusto Pinochet to speak on
campus, when he was president of Chile? How about P.W. Botha, when
he headed South Africa's apartheid regime? That invitation to
former Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic must have been lost in
the mail. But I thought Columbia was open to all points of
view.
Am I questioning Columbia's patriotism? Not at all. It's
un-patriotic, no question about it.
I know how treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the
Constitution ("Treason against the United States shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort.")
But liberals are always telling us that the words of the
Constitution can't be interpreted too narrowly -- that we have an
"evolving Constitution" which must change with the times. Well,
perhaps it's time for the definition of treason to evolve beyond
the artificial constraints of 18th century thinking.
Let's be clear about what is and isn't treason.
It's not treasonous to disagree with the president, even to say
dumb things about our government. We pledge allegiance to a flag
(which the left has a penchant to burn, by the way) and the
republic for which it stands, not to a particular president or
party.
It's not treason to openly voice disagreement with U.S. policies,
including a decision to deploy our military abroad. Americans have
been doing this since the founding of our republic.
But, to always think the worst of your country, that's treason. To
distort our history to cast America in the worst possible light,
that's treason. To slander our soldiers by calling them war
criminals, that's treason. To celebrate the killers of Americans,
that's treason. To hope for an enemy victory, that's treason. To
provide a forum for a leader pledged to our destruction, who's
financing the murder of Americans, that most assuredly is
treason.
Since the Vietnam anti-war movement, treason has been rampant. It's
even chic. You'll find it in Hollywood, academia, the news media,
public education and Congress.
Treason is so commonplace that it's an almost daily occurrence.
Patriots are so intimidated -- so afraid to appear extremist or
Birchy -- that we soft-pedal the truth. All of which begets more
treason.
Treason has become part of the fabric of our culture, so ubiquitous
that it hardly raises eyebrows any more. No longer is the traitor a
fifth columnist plotting with fellow conspirators. Today, treason
is open and unabashed. Treason has gone big-screen, digital,
cable.
. Michael Moore (traitors waddle among us) has made $50 million
selling treason. In "Bowling for Columbine," the family-size Axis
Sally portrayed America as a nation of violence-prone, gun-loving
psychos. In a 2002 CNN interview, Moore opined that: "Capitalism is
a sin. This is an evil system." Wouldn't that make the most
capitalistic nation on earth the epitome of evil? Needless to say,
Moore thinks the killers of Americans in Iraq are heroes: "The
Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation (that would be the
U.S. armed forces) are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The
Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers
will grow -- and they will win."
. Cindy Sheehan (Gold Star collaborator) doesn't blame the
terrorists who actually put a bullet in him for her son Casey's
death. She blames W. (who she calls "the biggest terrorist").
That's not treasonous, merely moronic. What marks Sheehan as a
traitor is comments like, "America has been killing people on this
continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying
for." Then Sheehan should find a country worth dying for -- from
her warped perspective -- perhaps Cuba or North Korea, and live
there.
. Ward Churchill (an ersatz native American and authentic traitor)
is best known for an essay in which he compared the office workers
who died on September 11, 2001 to "little Eichmanns." (Get it,
tools of a genocidal regime?) But the professor of Ethnic Studies
at the University of Colorado, Boulder has made a career of
shouting "Nazi" at America. The settling of America, beginning in
1492 "unleashed a process of conquest and colonization unparalleled
in the history of humanity." (But Churchill does find parallels.
Take the title of his 1994 book, "Colonization and Genocide in
Native North America.") Ward grooves on the mass murder of his
countrymen. ("One of the things I've suggested is that it may be
that more 9/11s are necessary" to achieve an "actual transformation
of consciousness.") In a 2004 speech, Churchill explained that in
his student days it was "U.S. Out of Vietnam" Now it's " U.S. out
of the Persian Gulf." But these slogans don't go far enough .
What's necessary, Churchill told his audience, is "U.S. out of
North America. U.S. off the planet." You're going to tell me calls
for America to disappear don't constitute treason?
. Nicholas De Genova is one of the many voices heard at Columbia
(all speaking in unison), where he's an assistant professor of
anthropology. At a 2003 anti-war teach-in at Columbia, De Genova
called for "a million Mogadishus" (in reference to the 1993 ambush
in Somalia, in which 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and their bodies
dragged through the streets). Warming to his point, De Genova told
3,000 Columbia students: "U.S. flags are the emblem of the invading
war machine in Iraq today... . The only true heroes are those who
find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." Ahmadinejad will
feel right at home on the Morningside Heights campus.
. Bill Maher is an amalgamation of the Marx Brothers -- Groucho and
Karl. Within hours of the 9/11 attack (the tears were hardly dry),
Maher declared that Americans "have been the cowards, lobbing
Cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in
the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it,
it's not cowardly." When several sponsors pulled their ads, ABC
cancelled Maher's show "Politically Incorrect." Within a year, he
was back on HBO with "Real Time With Bill Maher." The entertainment
industry finds ways to reward treason.
. Jane Fonda is the queen of planet Benedict Arnold. By letting
Hanoi Jane get away with her treason, we encouraged her ideological
soul mates to slither out from under the rocks where they reside.
During her July-August 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Fonda made
propaganda broadcasts for the communists (asking American soldiers
to "examine the reasons given to justify the murder you are being
paid to commit"), praised the guerrillas ("We thank you for your
brave and heroic fight"), visited the Hanoi Hilton and lied about
the POWs ("The POWs appear healthy and fit"). During the Cambodian
genocide, Fonda refused to sign an ad by erstwhile allies like Joan
Baez condemning the Pol Pot regime. Today, she's dusted off her
moral indignation and is active in the new anti-war movement.
Shortly after 9/11, Fonda insisted that instead of retaliation we
should try to understand the "underlying reasons" fo r burying
3,000 men, women and children under tons of rubble (those who
weren't burned alive). Think Ahmadinejad needs a date while he's in
town?
Shortly after the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin
confided to The Wall Street Journal, "Visits to Hanoi by people
like Jane Fonda... gave us confidence that we should hold on in the
face of battlefield reverses."
From caves in Afghanistan and cells in Baghdad to training camps in
Gaza and missile batteries in Syria, the terrorists and their state
sponsors can take comfort in Columbia's act of treason.
The war on terrorism requires a domestic counterpart. We need to
start calling treason, treason and traitors, traitors. Only then
will the American people begin to understand the festering evil in
our midst.
With all the fuss, you'd think Ann Coulter killed somebody.
No wait, that was Ted Kennedy.
thoreau|9.24.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Yes, God forbid that the students at Columbia get a chance to "Know your enemy." What good could possibly come from learning something about the enemy?
|9.24.07 @ 8:29PM|#
I had heard on NPR that the introductory speaker, like the head
of Columbia or whatever, gave some 14-minute introduction that
pointed out every bad thing about Iran (prosecution of women,
homesexuals, non-muslims, holocaust denial, etc...)
In addition, I heard it was at a Cicero's-Phillipic level of
eloquence and vitriol.
If I can find the text, I'll post it...
|9.24.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Instead of engaging, criticizing, debating, or attempting to
understand our enemies, we ought to just scream about them in blogs
and talk radio.
Otherwise, it's treason. Get it?
iih|9.24.07 @ 8:38PM|#
I really wish no one showed up at that asshats
speech.
Not only did they show up, there was in fact applause every now and
then. I am still wondering, who was applauding?
|9.24.07 @ 8:43PM|#
Not only did they show up, there was in fact applause every
now and then. I am still wondering, who was applauding?
They told the deaf students that it was an Americans with
Disabilities Act rally...
iih|9.24.07 @ 8:43PM|#
Chris S.
Otherwise, it's treason. Get it?
I really thought you would say, and actually read it as,
Otherwise, it's reason. Get it?
I thought it was a smart move by Columbia. On one hand it
embarrasses Bush by showing that dictators like the Iranian
president do actually debate Americans, while GWB does not. At the
same time, get a chance to confront the Iranian president.
As Bollinger said, it also gives an opportunity for tomorrow's
leadership (Columbia's students) to see face to face the kind of
challenges that they will face in the future. I know of Bollinger
when he was Michigan's president. Good and smart guy.
|9.24.07 @ 8:46PM|#
If the Iranian leadership was halfway intelligent, they'd ally with Israeli against the Sunni Arabs. It makes complete sense rationally--"Checkerboard" alliances are the natural pattern. Too bad their ideology prevents it. It would be a very effective partnership.
iih|9.24.07 @ 8:50PM|#
Cesar:
It is often alleged, I think even outside the Arab streets and
media, that Iran did in fact collaborate with Israel during the
Iraq-Iran war. It might have just been propaganda allowed to
propagate by Arab leaders to cast Iran in the worst possible light
in its fight with Iraq.
|9.25.07 @ 1:41AM|#
Underzog:
This Hitler-with-a-three-day-growth threatens to "wipe Israel off
the map"
Actually, he believes the world is flat, so he actually said, he
wanted to "push Israel off the edge of the Earth."
Iran provides the guns and bombs terrorists use to kill U.S. forces
in Iraq.
Sunni insurgents was shooting at and killing American soldiers a
few months ago. Now, the US military is cuddling up to those same
Sunni insurgents. What's your point?
Underzog|9.25.07 @ 6:00AM|#
As the pro Islamic terrorist appeasers are out in force, I have
to give my time honored links.
Read and enjoy (snicker):Proposed
constitutional amendment to ban Islam
Throwing the Arabs out of all of Israel
"And thou shalt call him Ishmael and he will be a wildman. His hand
against everyman and everyman's hand against his."
Genesis 16:12
"They're savages. They stole our oil and try to kill us with
it."
Ayn Rand commenting on the Mullahs on her last television
appearance.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
(apologies to Wally Cox -- but not you Ernst Rhoem wannabes)
Underzog|9.25.07 @ 6:41AM|#
"Underzog:
This Hitler-with-a-three-day-growth threatens to "wipe Israel off
the map"
Actually, he believes the world is flat, so he actually said, he
wanted to "push Israel off the edge of the Earth.""""""
This little joke over the destruction of Israel, including the
murders of several of my family, proves what I've been saying about
most Libertarians all along that they're eliminationist
anti-Semites like Achmadinejad and Ernst Rhoem.
I may make comments here, but there is no point in debating right
wing drugged up hippies who are a parody of the earlier hippies
(who were themselves parodies). If the Libertarian party is so
immoral as to be The
Child Molesters party and mind destroying drugs, via what
avenue can appeal to you people? By your remark, you've already
pointed out how funny you think a second Jewish holocaust is.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|9.25.07 @ 8:56AM|#
Underzog, maybe we should throw the Israelis out of Arabia rather than the other way around.
|9.25.07 @ 9:14AM|#
Remember the South Park where Cartman dressed up as Hitler for
Halloween, and the principle showed him that anti-Hitler
movie?
"Adolf Hitler was a very bad man."
That's what Bollinger sounded like. Careful, children. Uh, violent
religious fundamentalism is bad, mm-kay?
|9.25.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Oh my gosh, Ahmadinijad wants to wipe Israel off the map!!
Wait......what does that mean? No seriously, what does it
mean?
Bonus question: what is the
#1 television show in Iran right now?
kid charlemagne|9.25.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Oh my gosh, Ahmadinijad wants to wipe Israel off the map!!
Wait......what does that mean?
It means he wants to destroy Israel - to end its existence. Any
other questions?
Perhaps you saw the Q&A session yesterday where he said Iran is
ready to speak with any nation in the world except one (guess which
one).
So, really, the Israelis and anyone who cares at all about Israel
(not many of those here, I know) have nothing to be concerned
about.
|9.25.07 @ 12:12PM|#
kid, do you think Iran would really attack Israel with their nuclear superiority? I think people put too much stock in Ahmadinejad's bluster.
|9.25.07 @ 12:15PM|#
"It means he wants to destroy Israel - to end its existence.
Any other questions?"
Yes. What the fuck does it mean to "end its existence"? Seriously,
what does that entail? Invasion? Is that your claim? Nukes? Huffing
and puffing and blowing the house down? Do you think before you
type?
Thanks Rattlesnake, you're absolutely right. I think Ahmadenijad is
a douche, but making him out to be anything other than a blabber
mouth is irresponsible.
Underzog|9.25.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I think Achmadinejad's goal of destroying Israel and murdering
its 5.5 million Jews is the same as theirs.
But Achmadinejad is a douche bag because he is such a
blabbermouth about it and is tipping those miserables joos
off to their shared desires.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
p.s. Since the Jews founded the city of Medina (Yathrib) in Saudi
Arabia and Muhammed drove them out in terroristic fashion, I think
the Jews be able to return to Medina and have contigous territory
to make it secure. The Arabs should leave Medina (Yathrib) too in
addition to the land of Eretz Yisrael, of course.
No justice no peace!
|9.27.07 @ 10:28AM|#
"I think Achmadinejad's goal of destroying Israel and
murdering its 5.5 million Jews is the same as theirs."
No need to advertise that you think stupid shit. Really, really
stupid shit. Incredibly stupid. Remarkably stupid. I can't imagine
anything you post on VainTube is worth watching.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245