It seems to me like all the outrage over President Ahmadinejad's visit to America is a complete overreaction. He was denied the right to visit Ground Zero. When he spoke at Columbia, people protested. Negative articles were published everywhere from the New York Times to the Daily Cal. It seems to me like this is completely unfounded, because Ahmadinejad has done nothing except give off the "right" signals. He wanted to place a wreath at Ground Zero as a message of peace and respect for American terror victims. He talks about Iran never attacking a country unless provoked. He has gone on television to clarify his remarks about the Holocaust and about Israel so that they can be interpreted correctly. In light of the reality of Ahmadinejad's actions, it is obvious that America's response borders on paranoid and warmongering.
It is especially interesting to compare President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. On September 20th, President Bush made a completely inane comment about how he "got a B in Econ 101" (which not only was delivered in his usual bumbling grammar, but was also a lie). Compare this to Ahmadinejad's responses in the interview on 60 Minutes. He cornered the interviewer on the issue of a visit to Ground Zero being "insulting to Americans," and his other interviews demonstrate acute intelligence and a serious understanding not only of international issues but also of Americans' hatred for him. His explanations of his notorious Holocaust denial, in which he says that Jewish victims should not be the emphasized above other victims of Hitler and that the Palestinians should not have to suffer for former Israeli persecution, are much more intelligent than anything that has ever come from President Bush. I don't even agree with Ahmadinejad's stance that persecution of Jews should not be emphasized, and yet I still recognize that he is at least making a cogent argument that is far more intelligent than anything our own President has EVER said.
I don't understand why most Americans are willing to accept Bush's anti-Iran, warmongering propaganda when it is clear that he is by far the bigger idiot.
"Well, I wouldn't say that what the American government says is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing."
Honestly, one of the most well played comments I have ever heard from a politician. This comment not only includes sympathy for the American people, he puts 9/11 is perspective as an international event rather than an American event which has been a point that many different NGOs have been trying to emphasize. The comment is intelligent and sympathizing. With comments like these abundant in the interview, Ahmadinejad is extremely convincing in defusing his role as the "major supporter of terrorism in the world."
The impact of his words has surprisingly had an interesting impact on the web community. Admittedly, the people that are discussing these kinds of issues heavily on the internet are again, only 5% or less of the population, but the discussions are still surprising.
An interesting discussion has been sparked on Reddit, a popular site with user-voted news stories. http://reddit.com/info/2t2x8/comments The title of the post, is interestingly, "Is it just me? or does the Iranian president seem like a pretty nice guy who the media keeps trying to paint as the next hitler?" There's a lot of discussion about the injustices of comparing current Iran to Nazi Germany as well as people who believe in that argument. The internet is sometimes considered a futile form of discussion, but I still believe that Ahmadinejad's recent interviews have sparked new discussion and new viewpoints.
While reading this interview and the introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, I was thinking: the reporters, the professors, the students want honesty from him and want to show him the "benefits" of a democratic society, but are they doing it well? What should be the best way to approach a person, and I could only say from personal experience that one learns best from example.
The first time I went to Canada I was treated with respect. It was I think the first time an immigration officer told me "welcome." This and other examples, and other positive attitudes made me learn, changed my life.
With that in mind I felt, the best way to reach this man would be to show him the human side of this country. Accept that there are failures here. Accept that the US too has a dirty history. Extend the microphone and say welcome, we welcome you and the people you represent, and we apologize for the damage we caused to them.
We cannot change someone, we cannot force a nation to think like we want them to think. We can however show respect, dignity, and humility.
When the president of Columbia said "I am just a professor," trying to pull some humbleness from his otherwise "arrogant" introduction I was disappointed. He is not "just" a professor. This is not "just" another invitation ...
I think in summary America is failing to show its human side .. its non elitist side, its suffering side. I would have asked him .. how can we improve .. we will listen.
I agree with Kristin in regards to the public's outcry over Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero. I think that visit would have shown Ahmadinejad's continuing efforts to make peace with the U.S. and clearly demonstrate to Americans that Iran does not wish to go to war with the U.S. I mean, he even mentions it himself in the interview, that the visit would have been a form of "paying respect" to the American people.
This is a quote by Ahmadinejad in the interview that I think is pretty powerful.
"The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb."
While I don't agree with the outrage over not allowing President Ahmadinejad visit to ground zero, i can't condemn it. America has been and will continue to be a beacon for the empowerment of civil society actors. People are allowed to organize and present their views in this country-irrespective of how baseless or profound they might be.
Instead of focusing on one side of the picture, I believe its instructive to allow forms of constructive debate. It is to easy to dismiss those in America as "paranoid or warmongers", and those in Iran as "terrorists or "Bin" sympathizers", but we must allow articulation of both side of the debate. Attacking the intelligence of our president or the "character of other leaders" hold very little intellectual purpose. Instead of resorting to fruitless arguments we should promote discussions built on foundations of empirical evidence.
To offer a bit on Ahmadinejad as a politician, and the greater implications of these visits - He understands the public perception campaigns used by leaders to draw attention to their causes. His use of salient issues - holocausts, 9/11, Iraq, Israel - grab massive headlines, which are very effective (irrespective of any normative arguments of if this is "good or bad"). His ability to play on these events has increased the importance of his image and standing as an international actor. Through these new platforms he creates for himself, he has become an increasingly relevant player in foreign policy circles in Washington and around the world. The question know is whether he has purchased enough clout to sit down in the same room with an American post-2008 president. If he has, these sympathizing/ image building tactics he has employed will be considered an outstanding success.
Personally, I think there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger's opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” He raised many questions and following them stated that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, I believe it worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage in the end.
I think that in order to understand why some Americans became outraged over President Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. we need to first understand the foundation for their perception of him. I seems fairly obvious that some significant media sources portray Ahmadinejad as a terrorist sympathizer and a general threat to world peace. It is also fairly obvious that certain media outlets simply mimic "American officials." I believe Ahmadinejad notices this in the interview when he asks Pelley whether he should look at him as a politican or as a reporter. So in order to understand why Americans would be outraged over Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. I think we need to look at the media they consume. Media that functions as a representation of personal bias and political interest might form people's perception in an unfair manner and I think that is what happened in this case.
I think that we should give Ahmadinejad the benefit of any doubts. We should not assume things that are on T.V. are necessarily true. We should also take what Ahmadinejad says about Iran being against terrorism to be true until fact dictates otherwise.
To me one of the most interesting parts of this interview was Ahmadinejad's discussion on Iranian arms in Iraq. He would not give a clear "yes" or "no" and seemed to be slighting interviewer Pelley for asking him to do so. "Well I think you have been charged with a mission to repeat a sentence over and over again." I think this was one of Ahmadinejad's most obvious point in the whoel interview-that he won't be answering the questions with a "yes" or "no" response.
When Pelley asked directly for a clear answer, Ahmadinejad's reply "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity in Iraq." seems very much like a "no," but at the same time it makes me wonder whether or not Ahmadinejad views giving weapons to the Iraqui troops as a means to stop the insecurity in Iraq..?
He is a very clever politician and amazing speaker, that much is certain. However his motives in regard to the possible Iranian arms in Iraq are not.
And in regard to his visit to NY, I can understand why people might be opposed because they are not sure whether Ahmadinejad can be trusted, as evidenced from his rhetoric. However, I do believe that because we are a country in support of freedom and freedom of speech it would be wrong to restrict his visit.
10 comments:
It seems to me like all the outrage over President Ahmadinejad's visit to America is a complete overreaction. He was denied the right to visit Ground Zero. When he spoke at Columbia, people protested. Negative articles were published everywhere from the New York Times to the Daily Cal. It seems to me like this is completely unfounded, because Ahmadinejad has done nothing except give off the "right" signals. He wanted to place a wreath at Ground Zero as a message of peace and respect for American terror victims. He talks about Iran never attacking a country unless provoked. He has gone on television to clarify his remarks about the Holocaust and about Israel so that they can be interpreted correctly. In light of the reality of Ahmadinejad's actions, it is obvious that America's response borders on paranoid and warmongering.
It is especially interesting to compare President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. On September 20th, President Bush made a completely inane comment about how he "got a B in Econ 101" (which not only was delivered in his usual bumbling grammar, but was also a lie). Compare this to Ahmadinejad's responses in the interview on 60 Minutes. He cornered the interviewer on the issue of a visit to Ground Zero being "insulting to Americans," and his other interviews demonstrate acute intelligence and a serious understanding not only of international issues but also of Americans' hatred for him. His explanations of his notorious Holocaust denial, in which he says that Jewish victims should not be the emphasized above other victims of Hitler and that the Palestinians should not have to suffer for former Israeli persecution, are much more intelligent than anything that has ever come from President Bush. I don't even agree with Ahmadinejad's stance that persecution of Jews should not be emphasized, and yet I still recognize that he is at least making a cogent argument that is far more intelligent than anything our own President has EVER said.
I don't understand why most Americans are willing to accept Bush's anti-Iran, warmongering propaganda when it is clear that he is by far the bigger idiot.
"Well, I wouldn't say that what the American government says is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing."
Honestly, one of the most well played comments I have ever heard from a politician. This comment not only includes sympathy for the American people, he puts 9/11 is perspective as an international event rather than an American event which has been a point that many different NGOs have been trying to emphasize. The comment is intelligent and sympathizing. With comments like these abundant in the interview, Ahmadinejad is extremely convincing in defusing his role as the "major supporter of terrorism in the world."
The impact of his words has surprisingly had an interesting impact on the web community. Admittedly, the people that are discussing these kinds of issues heavily on the internet are again, only 5% or less of the population, but the discussions are still surprising.
An interesting discussion has been sparked on Reddit, a popular site with user-voted news stories. http://reddit.com/info/2t2x8/comments The title of the post, is interestingly, "Is it just me? or does the Iranian president seem like a pretty nice guy who the media keeps trying to paint as the next hitler?" There's a lot of discussion about the injustices of comparing current Iran to Nazi Germany as well as people who believe in that argument. The internet is sometimes considered a futile form of discussion, but I still believe that Ahmadinejad's recent interviews have sparked new discussion and new viewpoints.
While reading this interview and the introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, I was thinking: the reporters, the professors, the students want honesty from him and want to show him the "benefits" of a democratic society, but are they doing it well? What should be the best way to approach a person, and I could only say from personal experience that one learns best from example.
The first time I went to Canada I was treated with respect. It was I think the first time an immigration officer told me "welcome." This and other examples, and other positive attitudes made me learn, changed my life.
With that in mind I felt, the best way to reach this man would be to show him the human side of this country. Accept that there are failures here. Accept that the US too has a dirty history. Extend the microphone and say welcome, we welcome you and the people you represent, and we apologize for the damage we caused to them.
We cannot change someone, we cannot force a nation to think like we want them to think. We can however show respect, dignity, and humility.
When the president of Columbia said "I am just a professor," trying to pull some humbleness from his otherwise "arrogant" introduction I was disappointed. He is not "just" a professor. This is not "just" another invitation ...
I think in summary America is failing to show its human side .. its non elitist side, its suffering side. I would have asked him .. how can we improve .. we will listen.
I agree with Kristin in regards to the public's outcry over Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero. I think that visit would have shown Ahmadinejad's continuing efforts to make peace with the U.S. and clearly demonstrate to Americans that Iran does not wish to go to war with the U.S. I mean, he even mentions it himself in the interview, that the visit would have been a form of "paying respect" to the American people.
This is a quote by Ahmadinejad in the interview that I think is pretty powerful.
"The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb."
While I don't agree with the outrage over not allowing President Ahmadinejad visit to ground zero, i can't condemn it. America has been and will continue to be a beacon for the empowerment of civil society actors. People are allowed to organize and present their views in this country-irrespective of how baseless or profound they might be.
Instead of focusing on one side of the picture, I believe its instructive to allow forms of constructive debate. It is to easy to dismiss those in America as "paranoid or warmongers", and those in Iran as "terrorists or "Bin" sympathizers", but we must allow articulation of both side of the debate. Attacking the intelligence of our president or the "character of other leaders" hold very little intellectual purpose. Instead of resorting to fruitless arguments we should promote discussions built on foundations of empirical evidence.
To offer a bit on Ahmadinejad as a politician, and the greater implications of these visits - He understands the public perception campaigns used by leaders to draw attention to their causes. His use of salient issues - holocausts, 9/11, Iraq, Israel - grab massive headlines, which are very effective (irrespective of any normative arguments of if this is "good or bad"). His ability to play on these events has increased the importance of his image and standing as an international actor. Through these new platforms he creates for himself, he has become an increasingly relevant player in foreign policy circles in Washington and around the world. The question know is whether he has purchased enough clout to sit down in the same room with an American post-2008 president. If he has, these sympathizing/ image building tactics he has employed will be considered an outstanding success.
Personally, I think there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger's opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” He raised many questions and following them stated that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, I believe it worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage in the end.
I think that in order to understand why some Americans became outraged over President Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. we need to first understand the foundation for their perception of him. I seems fairly obvious that some significant media sources portray Ahmadinejad as a terrorist sympathizer and a general threat to world peace. It is also fairly obvious that certain media outlets simply mimic "American officials." I believe Ahmadinejad notices this in the interview when he asks Pelley whether he should look at him as a politican or as a reporter. So in order to understand why Americans would be outraged over Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. I think we need to look at the media they consume. Media that functions as a representation of personal bias and political interest might form people's perception in an unfair manner and I think that is what happened in this case.
I think that we should give Ahmadinejad the benefit of any doubts. We should not assume things that are on T.V. are necessarily true. We should also take what Ahmadinejad says about Iran being against terrorism to be true until fact dictates otherwise.
To me one of the most interesting parts of this interview was Ahmadinejad's discussion on Iranian arms in Iraq. He would not give a clear "yes" or "no" and seemed to be slighting interviewer Pelley for asking him to do so. "Well I think you have been charged with a mission to repeat a sentence over and over again." I think this was one of Ahmadinejad's most obvious point in the whoel interview-that he won't be answering the questions with a "yes" or "no" response.
When Pelley asked directly for a clear answer, Ahmadinejad's reply "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity in Iraq." seems very much like a "no," but at the same time it makes me wonder whether or not Ahmadinejad views giving weapons to the Iraqui troops as a means to stop the insecurity in Iraq..?
He is a very clever politician and amazing speaker, that much is certain. However his motives in regard to the possible Iranian arms in Iraq are not.
And in regard to his visit to NY, I can understand why people might be opposed because they are not sure whether Ahmadinejad can be trusted, as evidenced from his rhetoric. However, I do believe that because we are a country in support of freedom and freedom of speech it would be wrong to restrict his visit.
Post a Comment