This speech is either brazenly hypocritical or astonishingly one sided. The criticisms levelled against Iran must apply equally to Israel backed by US military support. It is no doubt largely true that Israel is more democratic and tolerant, but do they permit UN atomic weapons inspectors? Whether or not Iran has assisted the Iraq insurgency may be proven one day. After all they are the country next door not the other side of the world. However there is no denying Israel has used disproportionate retaliation against minor attacks. They have now spent half a century bemoaning their treatment under the Holocaust while making life a misery for the Palestinians. When the US is no longer powerful Israel will wonder whether it has taken the right path.

Well I can assure you I won't be attending Columbia University.

Is this guy just having us on?

Iran certainly has many faults and political life there may be brutal. There are many grounds for critisicm. But the speech by Columbia University's president must go down as one of the most insulting ever delivered to the face of a head of state! Let's put his accusations in contrast to the approx. 1 million dead after the US invasion of Iraq and the fact that Iraq's children are now in greater distress than they were under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

I loved the line, "Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?" Talk about paranoid hyperbole!

Read the article below for another view on what is happending between the US and Iran:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/index_np.html

The lesson here is...

who are our friends and allies...?

and

who are our ENEMIES..............?

Do we live on the basis of particular treaties... which guarantee our safey.....or do we not ?

If we do... (and we indeed DO).. then let us think twice before harping on about every 'speck' in our alliance partners 'eye' when we have enough PLANKS in our own.

Every person who has thus far (including me) offered a post here.. is doing so on the land 'we' (through our forefathers) took from a weak and technologically inferior people group. Those who have migrated.. are also benefiting from this and thus share any guilt based on those events.

THAT IS CALLED A PLANK.. or a beam.. and its in OUR eye.....

While it might give critics of the USA a sense of high moral ground to point out those specks.... and speak about how many people have died in Iraq WITHOUT pointing out that most of them have been killed by their own sectarian squabbles.... it does not change the level of moral hypocrisy which...like the BOOMERANG comes back and whacks us fair and square in the face.

Jesus once said "Without me you can do nothing"... and this applies to our alliance with the USA.. without them... we ARE nothing.

If you cannot bring yourselves to commend them.. at LEAST have the honesty to make balanced complete statements.

Odd sentiments.

I for one, thought Bollinger's speech was fantastic. I grant you, it was a little insulting and I'd have preferred a structured debate, but even so - Mahmoudinejad deserves it.

I guess I have some reservations that this will hamper academic speeches in future... but even so... it was a great speech.

A classic example of an American's inability to view official actions of their own administrations, State and Federal in a global context.
I oppose the death penalty but in comparison, how many executions have there been in the United States ? according to stats on the Death Penalty Information Centre, there have been 40 so far this year.

Arrests of American citizen academics in Iran are no more outrageous than American kidnappings of Iranian diplomats in Iraq to establish their embassy.

As for the toll in Iraq, over a million since the US led invasion which is a damn sight more than Saddam Hussein managed and I include those killed by IED's because the US presence is the cause.

With Israel having Nuclear Weapons not subject to international scrutiny on Iran's doorstep, who can point the finger and assert that Iran should not seek to maintain a retaliatory capacity or should they be relegated to the status of Palestinians and have to resort to throwing stones and home made rockets.

Whereas this academics greeting to the Iranian president may have made him feel self gratification, I don't think he has struck a blow for reconciliation and on balance a very spiteful, one sided slap in the face to the visitor.

I saw part of this speech on the news the other day.

It came across as impertinent, ungracious and thoroughly ill-tempered, as well as being incredibly bad-mannered.

There is nothing wrong at all with Bollinger holding the views that he does, but to use a forum at which President Ahmadinejad was an invited guest, for such an intemperate and vituperative expression of those views, is frankly inexcusable.

But that's America for you. It's our way or the highway, buster.

They really cannot see that in the eyes of non-Americans, the million or so souls murdered since the US invaded Iraq are real people. To Americans, they are just another bunch of towelheads who happened to get in the way of democracy's unstoppable march.

One of the defences against the reality of these casualties is that they "have been killed by their own sectarian squabbles" (squabbles, Boaz?), as if this excuses the US intervention in the first place. This blithely assumes that the chaos created by the American invasion had nothing to do with the faction-fighting - of course it did. They saw opportunities to use the presence of the serial invader as a cover for their own vendettas and power struggles.

But apart from all that, Bollinger very conveniently chooses to forget, not just the destabilizing influence of the US in its most recent invasion of Iraq, but the abject failure of every US policy for the Middle East in the past sixty years.

Motes and beams, Boaz?

I am unsurprised at the virulence of some of the comments so far. In essence the comments effectively supporting the Islamic Republic President give all the usual signs of being motivated solely by a loathing of the U.S.
It is my opinion that everything that was said by the academic were statements of fact. It seems more than passing strange that he should be criticised for speaking the truth.
It speaks volumes for the US - and Australia - that we can get 'stuck into' Bush or anyone else, whereas in Iran such comments are simply not allowed.
I do not see the US as perfect, far from it, but in comparison to theocratic Iran it is a haven of democracy and freedom.
It is hard to see what there is to be gained from a de facto defence of the Iranian theocrats. In particular I fail to see that to criticise the academic because he has not helped reconciliation is downright weird. In the context of the Iranian President the word 'reconciliation' is simply the modern equivalent of pre WW 2 'appeasement'. All we need now is someone important to get off a plane waving a piece of paper squeeking 'peace in our time'.
Sadly it has to be said that some OLO Forum writers have a very tenuous grasp of reality

great speech, though the idea of an american sermonising on iran's lack of human rights is a bit rich.

A great speech, and not before time.

Of course those who seem to side with the obnoxious little moron have completely forgotten that the same could not have taken place in Teheran.

For all it faults and double standards the USA, and its allies, including Israel are a more powerful force for good, than anything coming out of any of the Islamic realms.

I am certainly no fan of the Iranian leader but he was a guest. And a guest, no matter how unpopular ,should be shown levels of etiquette.
If your loathing of such a person is so great, do not invite him. Simple.
But to invite then in front of a crowd ,hold that person up to ridicule and critisism is very bad manners.
The American could have shown a natural sense of courtesy, as it is he let down his university, himself and his country.
The Iranian can now say,"Look! This is typical of the ignorant way the Americans treat their guests".

Bob Brown was branded as a lunatic for daring to question Bush in our parliament about David Hicks and the abuses in Gitmo Bay yet Bollinger is allowed to demonise the president of Iran by telling porky pies and forgetting all about the slaughter house of Iraq? Give me a break hypocrites one and all.

Now let's focus on the story of H. H is a homosexual man from Iran who spent 6 years in one of our lovely holiday camps in the desert because our own government said he would not be persecuted if he was sent back to Iran. On one occasion he was shackled to his bed for medical care, he was beaten, locked in isolation cells and driven insane. Our government have finally had to grant him residence after nearly 8 years of torment. H is not the only one.

1 million Iraqis are dead, it was the US who once supported Iraq to murder 1 million Persians and you clowns want Iran to bow to the US?

Give me a break and name one country that Iran has invaded, threatened,bombed or destroyed. And puleeeese don't give me the bull about wanting to wipe Israel off the map because he has never said such a thing. Like many millions of Jews and Israeli's he wants an end to the zionist rule that wants to steal all the land.

You know Bollinger... That *would* have been a brave and forthright speech.

If you weren't such a gormless, fawning hypocrite.

http://www.distantocean.com/2007/09/lee-bollinger-f.html

Bollinger would have done better not to invite the Iranian President at all. It gave the President publicity that he did not deserve.
It was also a breach of diplomacy - which will merely reinforce the Iranian view of the US and the west in general.
Nobody can take pride in this event.

Marilyn,

http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

According to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on 26/10/2005, and its own news and translation services, thats exactly what he did say.

Other are more unsure as to the what the exact translation could have meant, but you think their own news service would have no doubts about the intent and the accuracy of the message when translated.

We are with you, Marylin even though oldies like us are being lined up among the Left Wing Loonies.

It is true that Iran, unlike the US and its Middle East allies, including Saddam at one time, has never in the last 500 years attacked a Middle East neighbour - only in defence against Iraq, and valiantly winning after eight years of war.

Certainly not many of us like the present leader of Iraq, if only looks make a difference, but the Iranians, former Persians, are a proud people who could be destroyed simply by the actions of Bush and Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice who also as a former oil executive, must fit well in with Cheney who under the lap is an active oil man hoping like hell that the US will stay in occupation in Iraq till Kingdom come.

Maybe Iran is doing the safe thing to allow China to take over much of its oilfields - India too is very interested.

Also to save the Middle East getting pulverised with Israeli atomic rockets, maybe it would be the best thing for the future?

Thank you for that link bigmal. Having just read the IRIB News report of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to 4000 students in October 2005, it would appear quite ridiculous to suggest - as Marilyn does - that Ahmadinejad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Exactly what part of a direct quote that states, "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," don't you understand Marilyn?

As for Bollinger's 'porky pies', what exactly are they? Or do you take issue issue with Amnesty International reports on Iran as well?

Methinks there are some disingenous critics of Bollinger commenting here.

If Bollinger hadn't repudiated that maniac's views, you would've all been baying for Bollinger's head on a stake and whining about how liberal academics are a grave threat to Western civilisation.

Bushbred,

I am very curious to know who you think are the real left wing loonies?

Do you contend that Iran’s current theocratic leadership is typical of Iran over the last 500 years?

Do you deny that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are directly involved in fighting the war in Iraq? Do you deny that Iran arms and funds Shia insurgents in Iraq. What about the fact that Iran was a founding member of Hezbollah and also supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The region is awash in Iranian made weapons.

Ahmedinejhad has said a number of times that Israel should be wiped off the map. Do you also pretend that he is being misquoted?

I also have much respect for the average Iranian, but I have none for their leadership. They brutally suppress any political opposition in Iran. The language you use is totally lacking in any academic rigour. “Proud people could be easily destroyed’ what kind of nonsense is this? The Israelis are proud people, we are proud people too, so what?

Iran is fully aware they are playing a very dangerous game. They are not babes in the woods. They are seeking a total reversal of geopolitical and strategic advantage in the region through their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Iran is indirectly attacking Israel and the US every day yet you think they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves. This is insane. Iran is engaging in brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind for their own gain. This puts a total lie to your claim that they are harmless victims of US and Israeli policy.

Iran’s threat from Israel stems directly from their constant proxy attacks against Israel. If they desisted in attacking Israel and seeking nuclear weapons they would be safe.

You said “save the Middle East getting pulverised with Israeli atomic rockets”

This is blatant propaganda of the most appalling kind. Israel has never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. You should declare the fact that you hope that Israel will be destroyed whenever you discuss this subject and hence let people know you cannot be objective.

Paul L, you say iran is attacking the U.S. every day. using your standard of "attacking", how many countries is the U.S. attacking every day? what would you consider to be legitimate responses to these attacks?

Marilyn is it possible that this time, as on so many occasions in the past, you are mistaken? Do you speak Arabic?
The Iranian President's views on Israel have been widely reported by many respectable news services, including Arabic speaking news services.
I am sure that many people would like to believe that the translations are mistaken. Unfortunately native Arabic speaking colleagues who keep a close eye on all that is going on assure me that the reports are correct. I have no reason to disbelieve them.

Another win for Islam delivered on a silver platter this time not by simple minded Bush but by a supposedly intelligent academic.

Now read Ahmadinejad's reply delivery. Note how he made full use of the platform to give his version of hitory, issue an invitation to Islam, enhance the victim state of Arabs, accuse US for all terroe and NOT answer any hard question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html

Um Communicat, the speech given by Fruitcake Ahmadinejad would have been made in Farsi (Persian) not Arabic. The Iranian people are not Arabs and don't speak that language. Their native tongue - like English actually - is an Indo-European language.

True Snappy Tom but it was widely reported on the Arabic news services (including the big one Al-Jazeera) and my informants trust those translations before the English translations...as they say the Iranians have support there that they certainly do not have in the west. My friend Asha also understands enough Farsi to be certain that the translation to Arabic was as accurate as any translation can be.
I think my point is still correct...Marilyn Shepherd is mistaken in her belief that the Iranian President is not calling for the destruction of Israel. He is and so, I understand, are a number of influential mullahs inside Iran.
The situation is very dangerous and the university's actions did nothing to cool it.

Give you a break. Marilyn you must have your head stuck in the sand if you think that George Bush hasn’t been confronted with all sorts of ill-tempered and vile slander from the loony left.

George Bush is the president of the United States, our closest ally. Bob Browns statements were not broadly accepted by the Australian public as reasonable and he was written off as a KOOK, which is what he is.

Ahmedinejhad is the President of a dictatorship. He suppresses his opposition by torturing them and jailing them.

Iran is attacking both the US and Israel every day. Revolutionary guards are fighting in Iraq. Funds and weapons are also being provided to terrorists in Iraq. Hezbollah was formed by Iran to fight Israel and they are showered with Katushas which have the range to attack Israeli cities.

Iran persecutes minority groups such as the Bahai and Homosexuals, including murder, torture and imprisonment. You even provided evidence of it yourself

Iran is attempting to gain nuclear weapons and has said many times they are working towards the end of Jews living in the Middle East. Whatever you want to pretend about what Ahmedinejhad really meant when he said he wanted Israel wiped out, you cannot deny he wants an end to the Jewish state.

It’s funny how you will happily support a savage theocratic regime, who would put you in prison for daring to voice your opinion, yet you cannot stomach a Jewish state. That is called hypocrisy, Madame.

Everything Bollinger said was the truth, How do you have the stomach to deny it

To say that Ahmadinajad does not want to exterminate Jews and Christians would be the same as saying the pope is not Catholic.

Islam's sole purpose is to destroy anything 'not-Islamic' - that has been their mandate since Mohammad’s started leading his mob in Madinah, killing, torturing, raping, and stealing from Jews and non-muslims.

Islam is believed to be the only true way of life - the Qur'an is the manual for all times - it contains all the answers to humanity’s past, present and future problems.

The Qur’an repeatedly instructs all believers (Muslims) that anything else not mentioned in their texts (other religion or ideology) is not from Allah or his prophet Mohammad therefore MUST be purified by the sword (Jihad).

People (non-believers in Islam) of course can opt for a peaceful choice by simply converting to Islam, or choose to live under subjugation, or be brave and resist the cordial invitation and be killed and burn in eternal fire that Allah prepared for ALL non-Muslims.

The tragedy is that the followers of this supremacist terrorist cult either have not a clue what (it) stands for, or are too scared to question anything, or are blatantly and knowingly deceiving themselves and us to attain their devilish aims.

If nothing drastic is done to expose and stop this dangerous global regime; expect the inevitable Islamic world domination under several Caliphates within a decade or so...unless Christ Jesus returns before!

Paull, at times I have agreed with your logic, but to have both Iraq and Iran converted to the American Way, with Iran very likely pulverised with US and Israeli atomic rockets, scares hell out of me, making me glad that going on 87 I could soon be leaving this world.

I have mentioned in another thread how great it would be to have thinker leaders like Bismarck and Maynard Keynes again in this world.

Please remember it was Bismarck who in 1875 had active German artillery drawn all the way to the gates of Paris, telling the formerly arrogant French leaders, now ready to surrender, that he would leave them be because he did want to set the whole of Europe aflame.

Later it was Maynard Keynes who spoke before he died near the end of WW2, that if Bismarck had been alive in 1914, WW1 would never have come to be, and without WW1, very likely only a harmless Hitler would have come to be, who arose because France and allies had treated the German people so harshly during the Treaty of Versailles, thus truly bringing on WW2.

Finally, also remember that it was Keynes who before he died near the end of WW2, gave voice to take a lesson from Versailles and to treat the German and Japanese people decently after WW2 - which was decently done, as we all know.

As a historian one wonders why our present leaders have not learnt a few lessons from the above?

coach, should i cherry-pick from the bible, to "prove" how evil christianity is? grow up.

Paul L, i share your revulsion of Ahmadinajad. what i don't understand is how you have no revulsion left for bush. you say "George Bush is the president of the United States, our closest ally", as if somehow this demands our respect for bush. damned if i know why.

i don't get it. you're not dumb. but you don't seem to see how divisive, destructive, and just plain nasty the bush administration has been.

bushbasher,

>>coach, should i cherry-pick from the bible, to "prove" how evil christianity is? grow up.<<

Be my guest!

here you go, coach.

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.


Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


Leviticus 20:10

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Genesis 19:4-8

Bushbasher,

I have very little support for George Bush. I accept that he has been divisive. But he has not been on his own in that respect. The Left has embraced and broken new ground in this divisiveness through their constant virulent attacks on the Bush, Blair and Howard gov’ts.

George Bush may not be a great man, but he is no Ahmedinejhad, Hussein or Jong il. What most disgusts me is people who compare Howard and Bush with dictators and warlords, thereby giving legitimacy to these people.

The ordinary people of the left have fallen under the spell of the far left/anti capitalists who are unsurpassed in their attempts to damage the West. But I never thought I would see the day when the left, which I once belonged to, would support dictators and tyrants over democratically elected leaders.

The anti American feeling in the left is so strong it is blinding all of you to any responsible or realistic analysis of geopolitics amid the war on terror.

George Bush is a poor leader by the standards of the Western liberal democracies. However he is an unimpeachable figure when held up against the dictators and tyrants of the rest of the world.

And yet the left still want to paint him as the American Pol Pot. It would be funny were it not so serious.

Bushbred,

I replied to your ideas about Bismarck and Keynes on the "Give Iran the Bomb??" thread.

I have little time for Bush but I too am tired of people bashing Western leaders and thereby legitimising the real tyrants.
John Howard is not perfect but I would far rather Howard than the Iranian President.
I would also far prefer Howard to Rudd. Rudd is far more dishonest. He knows he cannot and will not remove troops. He knows he cannot and will not choose his team. He knows he cannot and will not meet the climate targets set by the ALP. He knows he cannot and will not be able to reduce union influence on the ALP. He knows he cannot and will not do most of what he is promising. It does not bother him in the least but he is still painting himself as the honest alternative which is about as dishonest as you can get - and this is the way the left operates. Get a media which dare not criticise the left or satirise them and we are in deep trouble.

Some people have complained about the Ahmadinejad's support for the 'destruction of Israel'. They obviously believe Israeli hysteria. The facts would be much closer to:

- Israel has the most powerful military in the region. No one is going to 'wipe [it] off the face of the Earth'
- Israel has nuclear weapons and will 'wipe off the face of the Earth' anyone who attacks it
- Israel is backed by the US. The US will 'wipe off the face of the Earth' anyone who attacks Israel
- Sadaam supported the Palestinians. Sadaam was hanged. Iraq has been 'wiped off the face of the Earth'
- Israel sees Iran as a threat. Unfortunately, Iran will probably be 'wiped off the face of the Earth' at some point. Again, it will be young American who do the dying and American taxpayers who foot the bill

If the Israelis are safer who cares about the consequences, right? 25 million Iraqis living in a country in turmoil. What's another 60 million in turmoil next door. Perhaps then, Israel would be able to advance to the long cherished Euphrates and claim its 'greater Israel'. All in the name of 'regional stability' of course - keeping the stupid Arabs from killing themselves. Would also be a good time to expel Arabs from Israel and the Occupied Territories too. Make sure Israel is racially 'pure'.

If you think this is far fetched then do a google on 'greater isral' and see what you come up with.

The alternative is simple. Just hope and pray the Iranians do get the bomb. Then when the Israelis finally have a real opponent, they'll suddenly become a lot more reasonable and we'll see peace.

bushbred, please don't leave us yet. i enjoy your posts.

Paul L, there's no point in responding to your remarks about the "left". Such generalisations are meaningless, and to talk of "virulent attacks" is contentless. If you make specific complaints about specific attacks by specific people then there is something to discuss.
Further, to associate me with this "left", whatever you mean by that, is rude and groundless.

Communicat, I think you've hit upon an important issue. I just don't see the "bashing" of Western leaders as in any way legitimising the real tyrants. It's simply that our leaders are under more scrutiny because they are our leaders. We get to vote them in or out.

I think there is a further problem with what both Paul L and Communicat say, or rather fail to say. If America is not the "real tyrant", they have nonetheless had a long and proud history of propping up and ignoring tyrants. As we all know, this included Saddam Hussein, but he was far from unique. And still today there is selectivity in the tyrants and the tyranny we focus upon.

dane, if your post is not entirely anti-semitic, it's nonetheless a bloody good try.

coach... do you think before you write these posts?

You said "Islam's sole purpose is to destroy anything not islamic"

Lets just stop for a minute shall we?

Even if I could agree that Islam in its entirety was out to destroy other world religions, I couldn't be stupid enough to believe it was the "sole purpose."

If you're right coach, then lets consider the following.

Q: Are muslims interesting in honouring Mohammed and Allah?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

Q: Do devout muslims feel the need to fast during Ramadan?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

Q: Are muslims interested in expanding their knowledge of the Qu'ran?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

See where I'm going with this? Yes - there are extremists out there. But the billion or so Muslims aren't robots, they are actual human beings.

Honestly, sometimes these anti-muslim posts really do head for the realm of utter stupidity.

Its funny but that ahmadinejad transcript starts making sense when one opens their spiritual eye and also sees god in our every moment of our lives and events around us...

and its hard to reason bollinger, when he should know that by not including all relevant material issues in consideration he is opening himself to being called 'biased' which immediately invalidates what he has said...

Also when one looks at history and how events transpired...one would think that majority of force would be behind a balanced outcome...meaning majority of involved people would naturally favour this...so should override the bush's and khomeni's and corporation's wants and intentions on 'others' if outside scope of reasonable outcome...

But what actually happens is one group, usually most powerful, aggressively seeks and takes full power and authority...to do exactly what they want...meaning unbalanced self interest...using force...and becomes even more worrying when deceit is widely used on common person to justify act...(which complicated by fact that the government eg usa which acting to effect the force is separate from common people of the same country who are increasingly opposing the use of their force...if you see what I mean)

So on reasoning this it seems that those of us whom want an balanced outcome now have to use a form of force as well to prevent an unbalanced outcome, and to force through a balanced outcome ie weaken the negative and strengthen the positive...now reason this out for a moment to see the madness in it...and so what is the form of this new 'counter-force' that has to be attentive and aware, powerful, lithe and adaptable while ensuring the 'courupting-force' using power or deceit does not infiltrate...hmmm again...

and its becoming important to ensure this, as we can see this world is truly a small place and harder to see people as 'us' and 'them' anymore...and these events of destruction for benefit 'over-there' is increasingly affecting more of us 'over-here' and find we have to carry some of the burden of the destructive act, even simply because we did not see, think and act...

Sam

Bushbasher,

There're hundreds of gruesome verses in the Old/New Testaments. To be fair there are many loving ones also.

Without going into full Biblical exposition you need to know that the God of the Bible (Yahweh) is a just God who gave us free will.

To put things into context, God has always cherrished Israel. The biblical atrocities were to protect his people, to cleanse the land He has given them, and to punish debauchery and there will be even more indescribable horrors for those who continue to ignore his warnings.

God revealed Himself through prophets and ultimately in the Son: Jesus.(Mohammad has no place in the Bible).

At this point you may think that this sounds like Allah the god of Islam. On the surface yes – but when we compare the nature and character of the two gods, we quickly discover that there is no free will in Islam and that Allah commends his slaves to obey without questioning. One of those commands – NOT determined by time or place - is to destroy all non-muslims.

It was predicted in the Bible that the descended of Ishmael will always war against their neighbours and between themselves. So no surprises there.

Nowlet’sTurnRightThenLeft,

There are two kinds of muslims:

1. True Muslims – those who apply the teachings of Islam and act upon it. The Jihadists (terrorists).
2. Those who follow a cultural form of Islam – we call nominal Muslims – they are the mislead majority unaware of the true teachings – they range from the pious to the non-practicing…

The difference is therefore of degrees of awareness of the religion and NOT political extremism.

Our concern is with the potential destructive teachings of Islam and the atrocities caused by the "committed".

No one has the courage to expose Islam for what it is. They prefer to give it undeserved religious credibility when in fact it is nothing but an open manifesto for global terror.

Have you read the Qur’an?

"I have very little support for George Bush. I accept that he has been divisive. But he has not been on his own in that respect. The Left has embraced and broken new ground in this divisiveness through their constant virulent attacks on the Bush, Blair and Howard gov’ts." (Quote: Paully).

Well now; hypocrisy and double standard abound!

You, Bollinger are an unbelievable hypocrite! I would give more credibility to many statements in your diatribe if you were not so blind to the STRIKING inadequacies of your own Administration.

From where you stand, you have ample opportunity to criticise those on 'your side' who have caused such global mayhem. But no. No; you have the gall to lecture a guest in your country..; who was allowed to enter that country (I have to wonder why..); on human rights and democracy!! Really? You mean American style democracy?

Ye God's and little fishes; you people are unbelievable!

Neither you NOR your 'guest' would know what HR. and D. was!

Paully; now for your astonishing assertion.

Irrespective of your unhealthy obsession with the 'Left' (soft or otherwise); you level divisiveness at the so-called Left! Excuse me?!

Those THREE Right-Wing clowns have been past masters at divisiveness. They may as well have invented it!

Under their stewardship they have splintered their populace into the openly xenophobic and Islamaphobic (yes! those words again!), and those who are doing their damnedest to stop this getting out of all control. This latter group of course HAVE to be "Loony Lefties/Islam Apologists".

That disgraceful trio are so obviously Masters of Division; yet you gutlessly blame the Left!

What is it with you Right-Wing lapdogs? Can't you think for yourselves? Are you so doggedly obedient that you cannot see what's right in front of your faces?

thanks, coach. it's good to know there's a "context" for the "biblical atrocities", for your god's barbarism. otherwise i would simply have written him off as a murderous psychopath. talk about special pleading!

coach, your arrogance and cluelessness and christian bigotry knows no bounds. you should justify your hateful characterisation of a "true muslim" or shut the hell up. and what would your justification amount to? if it's not cherry-picking, i'll eat my hat.

coach, the danger isn't islam and it isn't christianity. the danger is fundamentalism. the danger is people taking "sacred" texts and feeling religiously bound to defend whatever nonsense these texts contain, to defend this nonsense as the word of god.

yes, there are many loving verses in the bible as there are in the qu'ran. but exactly by saying that you make it clear that you are imposing an external standard on the human value of the writings. you are choosing the parts of the bible which you feel are valuable to you and to humanity. you are cherry-picking, as you should.

i don't care about your god, i don't care about the islamic god. i care what people do. and there are many loving people who happen to regard themselves as muslims. and they have as much right to pick their cherries as you do yours. lay down your bigotry and accept it.

Ginx,

Honestly are you old enough to be on the internet without supervision? Your pathetic resort to distorting the names of those you dislike is infantile. Grow up.

If you can point out any inaccuracies’ in Bollinger’s speech, then do so but I'm sure you don’t want to debate the facts. However this is online opinion, not online RANT. Try providing some evidence for your assertions.

Ahmedinejhad is the president of a dictatorship which tortures, imprison or murders anybody who doesn’t follow the program. In his country women are treated as second class citizens. Homosexuals, activists and opposition politicians are brutally suppressed as are the non-Islamic minority groups like the Baha’i. Iran routinely spouts its hatred of Israel and its wish to destroy it.

So while you continue your childish obsession with the EVIL Bush etc, maybe you might like to GET SOME PERSPECTIVE.

Bush will be gone in less than a year, replaced by someone the American public voted for. Iran’s dictatorship will stand until it is torn down, hopefully by its own people.

Iran is focused on the destruction of Israel, whether that means wiping them out with nukes, or just driving its people to flee. Iran and other terrorist groups do not want ANY Jews in the Middle East. Ahmedinejhad etc are true racists.

What is it with you loony-left apologists? Can’t you think for yourself? Are you so ignorant that you are blinded by your hate for the US? Do you honestly believe you know better than our national newspaper?

BTW it is clear from the quote that you so kindly reproduced that I didn’t single the left out for blame. I merely said that they were equally to blame, which is a fact that is easily supported when you look at the hate-filled diatribes coming from you lot. I am not surprised you are astonished by my statement; your black and white view of the world is typical of the naïve or small minded. I'm amazed you managed to pay attention long enough to put down more than your usual 40 words or less

As I said elsewhere Paully; nothing if not predictable, even down to your '40 words or less mantra'. Silly of me ; I forgot that!

"Do you honestly believe you know better than our national newspaper?" (Quote: Paully)

YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I DO!!

(See that? Predictable. 'If it's in the newspaper, it must be true').

Right-Wing lapdog....( You no like? That from a poster who repeatedly slams 'the Left'!)

I find it amusing that you feel the need to tell others who do not follow your narrow doctrine what their faults are!!

Emmmmm...? You seem perpetually in a bad mood. Go out and pick some flowers, it'll do you a power of good.

Try to remember Paully; if you dish it out; you take it. Fair's fair.

bushbasher,

It is a shame that being out of touch with your creator God is making you oblivious to His plan for life and events around you.

You summed it : “i don't care about your god, i don't care about the islamic god. i care what people do.”

At least you made one careless admission that the two gods are NOT one and the same. Most “loving muslims” would not agree with that idea as they are deluded in believing that Allah is also Jehovah.

This is more than you need to know right now and never confuse the two revelations (Bible versus Qur’an) as from the same god-source. Logic dictates that the two faiths cannot be both true.

People who are interrested in the truth, study evidence, and compare ideologies the make a decision.

Islam is opposed to every moral, human and civil construct. It is based on distorted and disjointed recounts of 'other religions' plus some inventions to suit the megalomaniac ambitions of their alleged prophet Mohammad.

Christians are commanded to love all people even our enemies… our battle is not of flesh and blood but spiritual, Our kingdom is in heaven and not in Israel.

My interest in islam is one of compassion for the one and half billion lost souls who are headind for hell unless they discover God's plan of salvation through His Son Jesus.

One last word on ‘violence and atrocities” – in the Bible it is part and parcel of God’s justice, God judges the wicked – in the Qur’an it is Allah’s agenda for his slaves (followers) he orders them to take matters into their own hands (Jihad) dealing with all non-muslims on his behalf.

Jesus died for his people, Mohammad wants people to die for him. One tought love the other brutality.

If you really care for what people DO, you should be very alarmed at the thought that there is an increasing number of citizens who want nothing else but to destroy your way of life and replace it with theirs.

coach wrote " for hell unless they discover God's plan of salvation through His Son Jesus."

though addressed to bushbasher I hope you dont mind if I make a comment...the above is the usual teaching of most churches, anglican, born-again, methodist etc...

be careful of what you believe...particularly when it comes to your soul for almost every religious text on earth says the same thing...your 'acts' on earth while your soul had a physical body is what god will judge you on in the afterlife...so the soul is responsible for its own acts and inactions...someone else told me so just does not seem to cut it...

now what you wrote is an 'escape clause' to usual...but the black book in your hand is not the original text and been revisions over time, and used by many authoritian powers for centuries for benefit...bit of reasoning should make you cautious...and most troubling of all is how 'book of thomas' was excluded from bible and suppressed in all current texts...and which unique in that its not third person writting as current bible new testament is but from the mouth of christ...hope you see the fundamental value of this to understanding teaching of jesus and keep in context the rest of the bible...

the book of thomas, or the 'twin of christ'...was written by thomas one of the desciples under instruction from jesus to write exactly what he said, not add or remove or single thing ie seems jesus oversaw this book...some 114 verses...and not one says what you wrote above...and when one reasons this in that the most important mission of jesus was to save your soul, so book of thomas should have had clear teaching about it...so possibility that its not what jesus meant and it was interpreted into this by church leaders over time to help add followers to their following should exist in your mind...so seek the truth...start by searching for the original translation of the book of thomas...unless you already dont believe what you wrote but just support the current religious power and authority who say this...

Sam

ah, coach, isn't life easy with god on your side? no doubts, no need to reason, no need to provide argument or evidence. you can simply wallow in your smug, sanctimonious swamp.

coach, there's nothing to gain by arguing with a religious bigot. and i won't. i'll just suggest that you read "memorial service" by h. l. mencken. it won't make any difference, i know, but you should read it nonetheless.

I have visited this forum just a few times and noted that some writers condemn Columbia University’s President Lee Bollinger for being “impolite” and “rude” to a guest, Iran’s President Ahmedinejhad.

The issue that Bollinger raised about Iranian students was completely justified; as was his entire speech.

Bollinger could have made an extremely emotive and damning speech, which would have indeed painted Ahmedinejhad in his rightful hues, but Bollinger didn’t. His speech was in accordance with scholarly debate.

The imperatives of modern scholarship:

Unrestricted freedom and autonomy.

Secular ideals of intellectual inquiry

Scholasticism preserving freedom of debate.

The scholarly community calling individuals, whoever they may be, to account.

Bollinger did this well. He ensured that Ahmedinejhad had right of reply. I believe Ahmedinejhad responded that in Iran such forthright language would cause a person to be gaoled; by his own words confirming that freedom of thought and speech is not permitted in his country. Ahmedinejhad failed to mention that such actions would not only attract gaol, but also torture and possible execution.

Others OLO tried to divert the argument to Bush, the US, and Israel. This is unintelligent. I have no time for Bush, and certainly consider him one of the bluntest knives in the drawer - indeed one of several ... But neither the US nor Israel's actions can be compared with Ahmedinejhad’s regime and aims. Anyone who tries to draw parallels between Iran, the US and Israel, is either parlously uninformed, or has a profound problem with comprehension, or is unquestionably “dotty”.

There are many online sites by Iranian intellectuals and dissidents - so there is no excuse for lack of information about the current Iranian regime. Here is just one site.

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinehad by Amil Imani
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/who_is_mahmoud_ahmadinejad.htm

Bushbasher,

Thanks for the ride, I love you all the same.

Is life easy with God on my side? Yes and no. On the one hand I feel so privileged to know who I am in God’s terms; and when I die that incomparable assurance of “salvation” gives me peace.

On the other hand it is a daily grind to be human. Contrary to what you imagine a Christian's mind is continuously questioning and dealing with doubts. Faith is based on evidence.

If believing in the one true faith makes me a bigot so be it. There is nothing to gain in being hypocritically tolerant of falsehoods.

Sam,

There is nothing in the Gospel of Thomas that add or take away from what is already mentioned in the canonical Gospels.

Jesus’ Gospel is about the Kingdom of heaven. The entire bible is a manual or a passport to that place.

The only entry visa we need is the stamp of Jesus on our life. We cannot enter unless we are brought back to our initial state of citizentry – that is how Adam and Eve were before their fall.

Sin entered the world. We all live in a fallen world separated from God. The only way back is not how good we learn to live or how clever or religious we become to try to please God – but what God has DONE for us on the cross.

Christianity is not a religion per se; it is a restored relationship with The Father.

God is Holy – he hates Sin. We are all helpless sinners that cannot cleanse ourselves however we may try. That is why all religions fail.

Thank God for His intervention to rescuing us. Without a loving God we will all still be condemned and without hope.

coach, i like jesus. i like him because i never hear from him the kind of hate speech in which you indulge.

danielle, i agree with almost everything you say. certainly, the attacks on bollinger's speech are absurd, for the reasons you cite. Ahmadinehad is disgusting, and no one should pretend otherwise.

what concerns me, however, is the selective focus upon Ahmadinehad. as i wrote before, the american government has a long history of ignoring and supporting tyrants, and continues to do so today. so, why Ahmadinehad?

It seems that the Bush government is on a very big propaganda drive, to prepare us for another war, this time with iran. why? perhaps their reasons are honorable, but there is good reason to doubt this. but even if honorable, it would be naive to expect bush and his backers to be any more honest about this war than the iraq one, and it would be naive to expect it to be any more successful. it is simply not a given that the best way to deal with tyrants is to start a war.

one of the difficulties is getting reliable information. of course, expecting either Ahmadinehad or Bush to tell the truth is sheer lunacy. but relying upon newspapers is little better: their role in disseminating propaganda before the iraq war was disgraceful. i honestly don't know a good source of information. i do trust seymour hersh's reports as reflecting american government thinking, but that is not the whole story. but danielle, i'm sorry, but the website you linked to is useless in this regard.

Bushbasher,

I do not know if Columbia University has given a platform to any other person of Ahmadinehad’s ilk... if they had, I am sure that confronting issues would have been raised. We know of this particular debate because of the publicity surrounding it.

Many have condemned Bollinger for giving Ahmadinejhad a public forum.

His response:

"It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."

Undoubtedly, whilst Ahmedinejhad may not have had a copy of the Bollinger’s speech beforehand, he would have been aware that it was a debate. It is the measure of the man that Ahmadinejad responded in the way he did.

Bollinger’s thesis was basic freedoms and integrity of research must be the be the benchmark in academia - for academics and students alike ... not arrested for stating truths, or disputing actions of their regime. He further denounces any prohibition of freedom of speech for public intellectuals et al.

He condemns gross intellectual dishonesty: we must learn from the past.

“The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. ... your absurd comments ... both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defence. Will you cease this outrage?“

Columbia University has never shied away from contentious issues within the US.

“We, at this university, have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values.”

Some protest the language used by Bollinger. Those who have witnessed academic debate, or have experienced university, know that debate, indeed disputation of any kind, can be very “rough” ... Academe is not the place for the faint hearted.

Bushbasher, a good site for Iranian issues, including worldwide reports, commentary by scientists and intellectuals (such as the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy), open discussion/question/debate pages, petitions, more sites.
FREE IRAN
http://www.activistchat.com/

Danielle, I agree entirely with you in supporting Columbia's and Bollinger's stance. It is much better that people such as Ahmedinejhad be heard clearly, if only the better to condemn them. But I think one can support Bollinger and simultaneously be suspicious of the american government's current focus upon iran.

i have taken a quick look at the new website you linked. i did not need any further proof of the nastiness of the iranian leadership. what i am interested in is informed and balanced discussion of the current american-iranian tensions. in this regard, i very much doubt that either side is blameless. and, i'm not sure i'll find such a balanced discussion on that website.

Bushbasher,

The Free Iran site obviously wants a regime change; they certainly do not want a war. They have made excellent arguments that Iran be expelled from the United Nations until such time as a secular democracy replaces the present regime.

They are extremely worried about the nuclear programs being undertaken by their regime - not only for obvious issues, but also the risks to their people due to sites on fault-lines (Iran is subject to frequent earthquakes). This makes for compelling scientific reading.

For a balanced debate about Iran and the US, I would suggest:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy - Insight and Analysis on U.S. Middle East Policy
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateI01.php

See particularly:

Policy Focus #72 (a download)
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=280

Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran
Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt (Eds.)
With contributions by Lewis Dunn, Gregory Giles,Mehdi Khalaji, Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Payne, Karim Sadjadpour, and Bruno Tertrais

“In this Policy Focus -- the first paper in The Washington Institute series "Agenda: Iran" -- editors Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt have assembled a distinguished group of experts to pose questions about the use of deterrence in countering the Iranian nuclear problem. The paper takes a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach to this problem, with chapters discussing the strategic and ideological mindset of the Iranian regime, the balance of interests between Washington and Tehran, the prospects for cooperation from Europe, the Iranian military's ability to safeguard a potential nuclear arsenal, the regime's calculus concerning domestic pressures, and numerous other key issues related to both the Iranian nuclear dilemma and deterrence in general. Without exhaustive contingency planning and a concerted push for diplomatic solutions, the editors argue, the United States risks making miscalculations that could have far-reaching consequences.”

Just thought it was a little odd that no-one's mentioned the lengthy analysis of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech which has been, somewhat erroneously, translated as "wiping Israel off the map".

Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Imagine if Bollinger invited the Israeli PM, Olmert and started a tirade with the following:

Mr President you preside over a country that has illegally occupied your neighbours’ lands for over 40 years.
You actively participate in the stealing and auctioning of parcels of your neighbours’ lands ensuring settlement of them.
You engage in an illegal occupation where your armed forces arrest people and detain them without trial for years on end.
You’ve overseen the building of a fence around parts of your neighbours’ lands and forced them to move.
You engage in military adventurism and your armed forces attack your neighbours without provocation or following manufactured incidents.
You meddle in the political affairs of your neighbours and refuse to accept their democratically elected governments and invade and destabilise their territory to show your displeasure.
You allow the launching of air attacks to assassinate your neighbours’ leadership and you kill innocents during those attacks.

Then you moan when your neighbours throw bombs at you and when they and their friends threaten to get square by wiping your country off the face of the earth.

You seek our support to ensure the suppression of your neighbours and to deter their friends from attacking you.

On the one hand you are nuclear armed and while you would never admit it, I suspect you would have no hesitation in launching your weapons of mass destruction against your neighbours. And on the other hand you grizzle and exhort the world to attack, when one of your neighbour’s friends starts to develop nuclear arms.

And so on … and finished with:

‘I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for.’

I have no truck with the Iranian government, its suppression, its support for terrorism, nor do I think they should develop nuclear weapons.

But we’d do better to give all a fair go and suggest we should assess countries in the region, and especially Israel, in exactly the same manner

Keith

Imagine if.

When Bollinger said “Mr President you preside over a country that has illegally occupied your neighbours’ lands for over 40 years.”

Olmert replied that these neighbours were doing their level best to kill every Israeli they could get their hands on. That every time they were given concessions, they abused them to more effectively attack Israel. That they were offered their land back in return for renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist but spurned this offer in the belief that one day there will only be one Palestine which will include all of Israel but no Israelis

When Bollinger said “ You engage in an illegal occupation where your armed forces arrest people and detain them without trial”

Olmert replied that the those Palestinians who were arrested were part of a war against Israel and as such were considered prisoners of war.

Bollinger said “You actively participate in the stealing and auctioning of parcels of your neighbours’ lands ensuring settlement of them”

Olmert replied that all gov’ts subsume privately owned land. Try owning undeveloped land in Spain. All those who had land confiscated were given reparations for their loss.

Bollinger said “ You engage in military adventurism and your armed forces attack your neighbours without provocation or following manufactured incidents.”

Olmert replied that it is not military adventurism to atempt to protect your citizens from attack by foreign nationals. The provocation is clear and obvious to everyone who has command of their faculties. I don’t know what manufactured incidents you are talking about.

Bollinger says “On the one hand you are nuclear armed .. and.. I suspect you would have no hesitation in launching your weapons ... against your neighbours."

Olmert replied that his country had NEVER threatened to destroy another. Nor had they denied genocide or preached about an apocalyptic event where a legendary religious figure returns to save the world. Many nations are highly concerned about Irans nuclear ambitions including the US, France and many of Iran's neighbours.

And finished with” Could you actually provide evidence for any of these preposterous accusations.”

Paul,

"Olmert replied that these neighbours were doing their level best...."

Well usually when people are invaded they fight back. Sometimes even for generations. How long has Ireland been occupied territory?

"[R]ecognizing Israel’s right to exist"

Why should they do that?

"which will include all of Israel but no Israelis"

The irony is rich. It is impossible to be an Israeli in Israel. The state denies there is any such nationality as 'Israeli', see Moshe Gorali (Ha'aretz) Dec. 29, 2003 also at: http://middleeastinfo.org/article3804.html

"Olmert replied that the those Palestinians who were arrested were part of a war against Israel and as such were considered prisoners of war."

Er, no. They are arrest non-combatants and are considered as prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. The are often tried in military courts "whose procedures fell short of international standards."

"Olmert replied that his country had NEVER threatened to destroy another."

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai." (Ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, 1948)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol.II, Page 711, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish homeland stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates". Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

PaulL

In response to Olmerts answer the audience would do as they did to the Iranian President...

Laugh at him.