Iran leader denied WTC wreath request

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Wezil win at what? Forget polotics for a moment. We're talking about showing respect for the dead and their surviving family not winning at anything.

Public opinion. All sides were working it the best they could for their constituencies. He was never allowed the opportunity to "show respect" so we never did get a measure as to his sincerity.

But sadly, b/c of the way it was spun in your media, If Mr. Denier had been allowed to the site and did so in a respectful way he would have 'won' by not being the devil everyone says and thinks he is.

It is awful playing politics with these issues but all sides are guilty I'm afraid.

[Shrapnel12]

Last post, I promise.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully.

The scenes at Monday's question-and-answer session at Columbia University and the outpouring of venom toward President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by protesters during his U.S. visit could bolster the hard-line leader at a time of high tensions with Washington.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger's statement - including telling Ahmadinejad that he resembles a ``petty and cruel dictator'' - offended Iranians on many levels, not least that of simple hospitality. In traditions of the region, a host should be polite to a guest, no matter what he thinks of him.

Ahmadinejad's popularity at home has been suffering, with many Iranians blaming him for failing to fix the faltering economy and for heightening the confrontation with the West with his inflammatory rhetoric.

But in the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's ``insults'' and ``unfriendly treatment'' but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion.

``Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite,'' said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state TV's recorded version of the event, including Bollinger's remarks. Iranian Farsi channels did not air the event live.

Another customer in the store, Rasoul Qaresi, said Bollinger showed that even Americans ``in a cultural position act like cowboys and nothing more.''

Others thought Bollinger's words were unseemly for an academic setting. Tehran nurse Mahmoud Rouhi said the president was treated ``like a suspect.''

``I don't know why he stayed there and didn't leave,'' Rouhi said.

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his ``insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with ... a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.''

They invited Bollinger to Iran, adding, ``You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.''

In the letter, they asked him to provide responses to 10 questions ranging from: ``Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein'' during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, to ``Why has the U.S. military failed to find al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, even with all its advanced equipment?''

Ahmadinejad, visiting New York to speak at the U.N. General Assembly, has been greeted by thousands of protesters, many of them from pro-Israeli groups angered by his previous comments calling for the end of Israel and casting doubt on the Holocaust.

At the Columbia speech, Ahmadinejad fell into the same sort of rhetoric, questioning the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks and defending the right to doubt the Holocaust.

Columbia University faced criticism for hosting Ahmadinejad, and Bollinger had sought to fend off calls for a cancellation of the event by promising to take a tough line with the Iranian president.

Iran's state-run radio said Bollinger's comments were ``full of insult, which was mostly Zionists' propaganda against Iran.''

Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a time of high tensions between Iran and the U.S. The Bush administration has painted Ahmadinejad as a top enemy of the United States, accusing Tehran of providing weapons that have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran denies the accusations and has stepped up warnings in recent weeks that it would retaliate against Israel and U.S. bases in the region if it comes under attack.

Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his falling political fortunes.

They make the point that under Iran's complex governing system, the presidency has far less power than the post of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds final say in state decisions. Ahmadinejad, they say, keeps influence through his image as standing up to the world's superpower.

The harsh words at Columbia ``worked in favor of Ahmadinejad, who in the eye of ordinary people was seen as wronged,'' said Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University.

``The protests by Israel supporters against Ahmadinejad outside the university also helped him to appear as a hero for people of the Middle East,'' he said.

Ahmadinejad's international allies have also taken his side. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is expecting a visit from Ahmadinejad this week, said he spoke by phone with the Iranian leader on Monday after what he called the ``ambush'' at Columbia.

``I congratulate him, in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the U.S. empire,'' Chavez said.

I like hearing what Iranians have to say. They sound pretty reasonable in this article, but I did shake my head about a few things. I had to scoff at the idea of Middle Eastern hospitality. I doubt Bolinger would survive a trip over there. The comment about Americans being cowboys made me laugh. What do Iranians know about cowboys? Also it appears for all their graciousness (according to apologists here), Iranians are not above making ignorant generalizations. I too would like to know why we haven't found Osama (I have my own theories), but I can't for the life of me understand why Iranians care. Finally beware the Zionist conspiracy! I'm sure Bolinger is a dirty Jew (hey Aggie could work for Iranian radio). Other then that their views were understandable and not much different from ours.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12

Yes schools, hospitals, community centers, cafes are all important military targets. Now your down to defending terrorist Aggie? As for the rest of your statement, there is no consensus there either, but if I go too deep into it, I might be threadjacking.

The point of those re-edited Wiglaf posts is to demonstrate that focusing on the jus in bello is a fallacious way of trying to avoid questions about the jus ad bellum. It's a typical tactic of the Israeli right, to focus attention away from issues they know are losing ones for them.

Whether or not Israel or Hizbollah commit atrocities (and both do) is simply uninteresting. What is really important is who has right on their side, and it's pretty clear, once the evidence is examined, that the resistance forces have right on their side, not to mention international law, and common decency. Squabbling about the way they fight is just an attempt to avoid these larger questions, and you can usually tell from which side is doing it, who has the weakest overall justification for the conflict.

I personally deplored the tactics of the Irish Republican Army, but they were in the right and the government of the United Kingdom is, and has been for most of history in the wrong on the Irish question.

[Wezil]

Shrapnal - What the Iranian public thinks of their leader's treatment is very important. You keep making the mistake of thinking the only thing that matters is how we see him.

That article confirms what some of have been arguing. His treatment was simply rude. Not just to Iranians, but also some Canadians, Euros and Americans. Bollinger didn't do the US a favour by making Mr. Denier more popular at home for a stupid reason.

[Agathon]

I like hearing what Iranians have to say. They sound pretty reasonable in this article, but I did shake my head about a few things. I had to scoff at the idea of Middle Eastern hospitality.

Don't.

People from non-western countries take hospitality much more seriously than we do. In fact, we used to take it a lot more seriously than we do now. Inviting someone into your home is seen as an act rich in meaning, and is governed by all sorts of social norms. It's no surprise that our society, which has overthrown many social norms, doesn't see it quite the same way.

I knew as soon as I heard Bollinger speak, that it was a massive own goal with the Iranian audience.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


The point of those re-edited Wiglaf posts is to demonstrate that focusing on the jus in bello is a fallacious way of trying to avoid questions about the jus ad bellum. It's a typical tactic of the Israeli right, to focus attention away from issues they know are losing ones for them.
.

How do you define the Israeli right? Where does the Israeli center pick up?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Agathon
DO NOT YOU DARE. I am amazed you compare the United States (which sponsors a country devoted to bombing Palestinans in markets) to Iran supporting Hizbollah to fight Israeli occupation forces and invaders, or Islamic Jihad in defense of Israel's brazen attacks upon civilians, torture of prisoners, and illegal land grabbing, or Palestinians fighting a dictatorial regime that occupies their land and denies them civil rights. The rest is old history, and we are debating current state of affairs.

Your claims are laughable considering:

a) you have no idea of the history surrounding the set-up of Hizbullah and its goals

b) you have no idea of the history surrounding the set-up or Ideology of Islamic Jihad or Palestinian Islamic Jihad in particular

c) you have little idea of how the territories were run by the Israeli occupational government (hint: more democratically than by the PA, or Hamas).

Your comments smell of shallow knowledge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


The point of those re-edited Wiglaf posts is to demonstrate that focusing on the jus in bello is a fallacious way of trying to avoid questions about the jus ad bellum.

Unless youre going to go back to 1920 and before, you cant seperate them, since Israeli/Zionist actions have taken place in context of and often in response to arab tactics.

You can arbitrarily decide to dismiss that Israeli view, but you wont get a peace agreement that way, just as you wouldnt have gotten a deal in Ulster by dismissing the concerns of the loyalist community.

Of course if youre not interested in a deal, but like having the conflict, thats something else again.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Unless youre going to go back to 1920 and before, you cant seperate them, since Israeli/Zionist actions have taken place in context of and often in response to arab tactics.

Utter rubbish which demonstrates you don't understand the distinction.

You can arbitrarily decide to dismiss that Israeli view, but you wont get a peace agreement that way, just as you wouldnt have gotten a deal in Ulster by dismissing the concerns of the loyalist community.

So might is right, eh? Well, we'll see how that turns out.

I don't think a peace agreement is sustainable. The only endgame I can see is Israel ceasing to exist as a political entity. Whether that happens violently or not is up to the people concerned, and I would prefer it happened peacefully, but it isn't up to me.

Of course if youre not interested in a deal, but like having the conflict, thats something else again.

The two are not the only options in the long term.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Your claims are laughable considering

They aren't mine. They are just Wiglaf's bizarre claims turned on their heads. Please read the thread before spouting off.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon

So might is right, eh? Well, we'll see how that turns out.

Peace can only be reached by compromise. Spin it how you will.

I don't think a peace agreement is sustainable.

I disagree.

The only endgame I can see is Israel ceasing to exist as a political entity.

Keep on dreaming.

[Aeson]

Here's the introduction. (Some editing.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson
Here's the introduction. (Some editing.)

Lee Bollinger

Excellent questions, eloquently expressed.

Everyone should watch this.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Lee Bollinger

Yep. He runs a tight ship.

[GePap]

I would have expected the president of a University not to act like such an ass. But as LoTM shows, all the silly outrage at his invitation is now washed away with those words. Sad way of pacifying critics.