Columbia professors plan to visit Iran to apologize to AhmadinejadNEW YORK (MNA) – An academic delegation of Columbia University professors and deans of faculties plans to visit Tehran to officially apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.The delegation plans to express regret for the insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at Ahmadinejad on September 24 in his introductory speech, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in New York reported.

Since the incident, the deans and professors from the faculties of history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, philosophy, and Islamic studies have criticized Bollinger’s behavior toward Ahmadinejad.

A member of the delegation, who requested anonymity, said the main goal of the visit is to meet the Iranian president and officially apologize to him.

“The delegation has also prepared its itinerary,” he noted.

He went on to say that the delegation also plans to visit Iranian universities in various cities and to hold talks with professors and students, and may even sign memoranda of understanding with some universities. He also said the delegation is interested in visiting seminaries and the shrine city of Qom.

However, Bollinger has warned the delegation that their trip to Iran should be a private visit and should not be undertaken as an official visit endorsed by the university.

Bollinger has so far refused to meet the Mehr News Agency correspondent to explain his disrespectful behavior toward Ahmadinejad when introducing him to the students and professors at Columbia.


http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=618008

I wonder if it will get any media attention at all...

Well it doesn't get Ayonae Ro attention thats for sure... Man these guys going to Iran must be traitors... They will probably get hung by the evil Ahmadenijad Devil!!! RAWR!!! lol

Gee, I guess I am somehow at fault for not logging in every hour on the hour to check and see if there is something you require a response to. My bad!

As for the content of your post, I really don't see anything needing to be said about it, since I was not that interested in the original event to begin with, and I view the wringing hands apologists as being a bit too politically correct.
Whether the conduct of the dean was disrespectful or not is not something that this tour group has any business addressing, unless they are representing him and the school in a formal manner.

Your second post of the thread simply reinforces the position of some that you are definitely off the deep end with your Iran cheerleading.

/shrug

They shouldn't have invited him in the first place.


Was a bad move on their part, he has no reason to stand on our ground without cuffs......

Afterall wasn't he involved in the hostage situation? Should be under warrant imho.

I'm gonna have to agree with Bylimet here. I've got quite a few Persian friends and can sympathize with a lot that they say - but you just leave me stunned and confused.

However ...

They shouldn't have invited him in the first place.

Was a bad move on their part, he has no reason to stand on our ground without cuffs......

Afterall wasn't he involved in the hostage situation? Should be under warrant imho.

I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. If the government is gonna let him onto our soil, why not bring him in and see what you can learn from him. Columbia is an institute of higher learning and why wouldn't you want to sit in the same room as someone who has publicly stated what he has and find their reasons why, on an intellectual level. I'd hope students in our country look forward to the opportunity to question any leader, be them benevolent or malicious, if for nothing else to lead towards the betterment of our country as a whole. Never attempting to understand your "enemy" will never lead to peace.

The whole situtation is disappointing and embarassing. We seem to be on another social swing in this country where we're moving away from free speech again - it's okay to say what you like, as long as you don't offend me. The concept of having a leader from another country come and speak at a university is fantastic. Think of what could be learned if this were a regular event. No one had to go and buy into everything this guy said, it was simply an opportunity to hear him speak. Want to guess how many lectures I've heard that I don't agree with, and decided not to apply those ideas to my life?

Yet here, because he's so controversial, instead of having a conversation and then moving on with life (thinking for ourselves and evaluating everything he says along the way), we've made a massive political mire out of the entire thing. It seems silly that the university feels the need to go to this extreme to apologize, but at the same time I'm not sure where, in an educational setting, the president of the university should have made a political statement in any direction, for or against Iran.

Kanyli did a great job of succintly putting this entire thing into perspective. And I also agree with Kelraz that it was a learning experience with much potential for those attending. Being an old fart somewhat set in my ways, I still bristle at his being invited to speak at a college on U.S. soil without being absolutely certain that he was not involved with the Embassy attack and hostage situation. But, I leave that to those in positions to make those decisions.

That's my problem Byl, I can still recall those days of our folks being held with all too much clarity.

If he was involved he should've been blocked plain and simple.

I'm sorry if you think this is a free speach instance....it's not...

Ooo wait let's let Charles Manson out of jail to speak on his issues...talk to the young minds and spread his filth all in the name of free speach.

Don't confuse Free Speach with responsible speach, the two aren't mutually exclusive but you have to beware that line no?

If he was involved he should've been blocked plain and simple.



If we had any proof at all that he was involved, he should have been snatched as soon as he set foot on our soil and turned over to the International Courts for proper handling. But, without proof it is just one more thing that folks like us will have to sit and gnash our teeth at.

/gnashgnash!!!

Don't confuse Free Speach with responsible speach, the two aren't mutually exclusive but you have to beware that line no?I don't disagree with the reasonable aspect at all, but the catch to believing in free speech is that you have to let everyone have their say. So while many of us (me too, actually) here aren't very happy with him and don't think he should be around to speak, others in this country didn't see a problem with it - and in a free speech environment it has to be allowed. It's like letting the Klan march. Filthy, yes, but necessary.

Hearing Manson speak could be a very interesting experience. We don't put enough emphasis on critical thinking, to hear him out and then discuss exactly why he's insane.

I wonder though - if we regard speech as a basic human right, does it apply to citizens of other countries, or is it limited to those in the US? In all seriousness. I know we've faced legal battles where certain laws (different from a right) only applied to US citizens and there was debate over our treatement of foriegners, but I'm not aware of this particular issue having come up. I know we've claimed free speech was a reason for some of our wars.

I guess it says something for the "Imperialistic United States" that he wasn't "detained" at any point during his trip, nor did he have an "Accident" in the bathroom of the hotel in which he was staying....
Wouldn't have been too hard for either scenario to have played out, but then again, the U.S. is responsible for so much "evil" in the world, they probably had a detail set up to make sure he didn't even catch the snifoos during his visit.

Extending to Ahmadenijad the same freedoms and liberties that he routinely denies his own people is simply appalling.

There are bloggers, scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, etc... good people that this world and his country so desperately needs right now locked in a cell for years on end because they wished for just a little more freedom than the political and religious leaders thought they deserved.

In many uncountable cases we'll never be able to hear their case. Why? Because they were stoned to death ro hung for being homosexual or wore just a little less head covering than they were allowed.

No, I don't want to hear what this asshole has to say. I want to hear what his victims have to say.

Extending to Ahmadenijad the same freedoms and liberties that he routinely denies his own people is simply appalling.

There are bloggers, scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, etc... good people that this world and his country so desperately needs right now locked in a cell for years on end because they wished for just a little more freedom than the political and religious leaders thought they deserved.

In many uncountable cases we'll never be able to hear their case. Why? Because they were stoned to death ro hung for being homosexual or wore just a little less head covering than they were allowed.

No, I don't want to hear what this asshole has to say. I want to hear what his victims have to say.

That Deserves a Positive rep....I'll get back around to you soon Akipt....I must spread some first.

Extending to Ahmadenijad the same freedoms and liberties that he routinely denies his own people is simply appalling.It's principled to extend those freedoms, despite his appalling words and policies. Let him speak, then point out how ludicrous and vile he is; he provides plenty of ammunition for that sort of thing. [quot]No, I don't want to hear what this asshole has to say. I want to hear what his victims have to say.[/quote]I like hearing what he has to say simply because it demonstrates what a fool/asshole/joke he is. Given an intimate setting to present his viewpoint, he became a laughingstock, which is as he deserved. Being a source of international ridicule only hampers him and those like him at home. Hopefully, next year the Iranians select a less ridiculous, less tyrannical leader -- oppression has a way of inspiring desirable change.

All that said, I have no idea why these Columbia folks feel a need to apologize to Ahmadinejad. Letting him talk his fool head off is one thing; being sorry for calling an asshole an asshole is something else entirely. I agree with the rest of your post; Iran's hardliners are paving an unfortunate, destructive path for their country.

Fandros, I believe he was cleared of participation in the hostage crisis -- a case of mistaken identity or somesuch.

-- oppression has a way of inspiring desirable change.



Yes, just look at the buzz word in this years political races.

I am afraid in Iran's politics, the military is most likely quite content with their renewed image of being a strong force in the region, and they would be more inclined to side with Ahmanutjob and the religious leaders than to risk what they have attained by siding with the disaffected youth and academics who may be calling for change.

It may be several generations before anyone sees any real change in the Islamic mid-eastern region regarding human rights, respecting the dignity of women, etc.

I guess it says something for the "Imperialistic United States" that he wasn't "detained" at any point during his trip, nor did he have an "Accident" in the bathroom of the hotel in which he was staying....
Wouldn't have been too hard for either scenario to have played out, but then again, the U.S. is responsible for so much "evil" in the world, they probably had a detail set up to make sure he didn't even catch the snifoos during his visit.

Any action against a visiting Foreign leader is considered an Act of War and would be the biggest shamefull act in United States History.It would also scare off many world leaders from ever attending United Nations meetings and events in the US thereby causing a major situation.

I am afraid in Iran's politics, the military is most likely quite content with their renewed image of being a strong force in the region, and they would be more inclined to side with Ahmanutjob and the religious leaders than to risk what they have attained by siding with the disaffected youth and academics who may be calling for change.I think military disconent has driven a lot of their questionable activity over the past year or two, from the taking of British sailors to the most recent encounter. The military wants to demonstrate how much danger the West is to Iran in order to bolster support for their prominence. Along the same lines, Ahmadinejad has rattled the sabre hoping to provoke response and thus spur Iranian nationalism in support of their "great defender." The military and Ahmad have worked hand-in-hand in this regard, to little avail. Won't stop them from trying though.
It may be several generations before anyone sees any real change in the Islamic mid-eastern region regarding human rights, respecting the dignity of women, etc.It's really a country by country issue that's ever so slowly bubbling toward reform (slowly enough that your "generations" estimate is likely on target). Incentivizing those reforms through our own foreign policy would be a step forward, but that kind of social change requires time and bravery on the part of reformers within the countries themselves.

Update---

Columbia Univ.: No prof. to visit Iran
Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:12:04
President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University
Columbia University dismisses reports that a group of its professors and deans have been planning to visit the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mehr News Agency reported on Tuesday that an academic delegation from the New York educational institution would visit Iran to apologize to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the behavior of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger.

In response to the article, the New York Times reported that Columbia University officials have no knowledge of a planned visit by its professors or deans to Iran.

Ahmadinejad made a speech at Columbia University in September while he was in the US to address the UN General Assembly.

The university president strongly criticized Ahmadinejad, calling him a 'petty dictator'.

Bollinger was widely criticized by academics. Some professors and students on the university campus said that his remarks amounted to a set of 'schoolyard taunts'.

Whether seen as further offense against human rights or just "tough on crime," executions are up (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) in Iran.

According to a count by Agence France-Presse based on reports in local newspapers Iran hanged 298 people in 2007, compared with 177 hangings in 2006. If continued at the present rate, the number of executions this year would surpass 400.

Earlier this week, human rights groups in Iran expressed shock after judicial authorities disclosed they had amputated the left feet and right hands of five criminals convicted of armed robbery in the southern province of Sistan-Baluchistan.

Whether seen as further offense against human rights or just "tough on crime," executions are up (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) in Iran.

lol you can bet they will never steal again...

So your stance on robbery is amputation of hands and feet?

Or

Ha ha, those funny Iranians, always cutting off hands and feet!

So your stance on robbery is amputation of hands and feet?

Or

Ha ha, those funny Iranians, always cutting off hands and feet!

My stance is... Barbaric, but it works... crime rate in Iran is so much lower then just Los Angeles alone...

Thanks. I'll just mark up "cruel and unusual" punishement as something you approve of and hate the US government for.

As long as I'm at this derail, how do you feel about torture? Specifically as it pertains to prisoners of war?

Thanks. I'll just mark up "cruel and unusual" punishement as something you approve of and hate the US government for.

As long as I'm at this derail, how do you feel about torture? Specifically as it pertains to prisoners of war?

I do not hate the US government for the lack of "Cruel and unusual punishment" There you go, putting words in my mouth.

I simply said it is barbaric, but it has results. Would you not shoot and kill an armed robber if they entered your house? What is the folley in a cruel punishment below the finality of Death? Bottom line... They will never do it again.

The possibility of finding information to stop a future attack is too important to pass up on... However torturing an innocent person is also too big of a deal to let slide.

I think that if it is found that the person being tortured is 100% guilty of actions against the US, that we should be able to torture them for information in order to stop an attack.

This being said, I think that this should only be allowed as long as we stop condemnng other nations for similar actions in order to demonize them.

You don't kill an armed robber in your house to punish him. You do it because he is a threat to you or your family's immediate well being.

You don't kill an armed robber in your house to punish him. You do it because he is a threat to you or your family's immediate well being.

The end result is the same, besides what keeps an Armed Robber from breaking the laws and violating others in the future? Parole in 3-5?

Jedd, this line of argumentation is really, really bad. You're in effect saying, "Everybody dies, the route doesn't matter." But it does matter, and akipt's point is dead on, so to speak.

Jedd, this line of argumentation is really, really bad. You're in effect saying, "Everybody dies, the route doesn't matter." But it does matter, and akipt's point is dead on, so to speak.

I am not accepting of their form of punishment, however I understand why it is used. If i come off as sound like i would be fine with this sort of punishment here in the US, it is not intended.

I am simply pointing out that the punishment however cruel does lower the crime rate as people are afraid to commit a crime.

Following the line of thought that if we know someone is 100% guilty, we are okay in the use of torture, maybe we should try those techniques on the man arrested in Georgia who is suspected in several murders. He has confessed to the murder of the young hiker, and led authorities to the body. There are three or four other unsolved crimes with similar characteristics in that area, so it should be acceptable to use torture to find out if he is responsible, right?

Maybe we can become more like Iran yet.

Following the line of thought that if we know someone is 100% guilty, we are okay in the use of torture, maybe we should try those techniques on the man arrested in Georgia who is suspected in several murders. He has confessed to the murder of the young hiker, and led authorities to the body. There are three or four other unsolved crimes with similar characteristics in that area, so it should be acceptable to use torture to find out if he is responsible, right?

Maybe we can become more like Iran yet.

Wrong...

Finding out where 3 other dead people are is in no way as important as finding out where a bomb might go off that kills a thousand people.

I am not accepting of their form of punishment, however I understand why it is used. If i come off as sound like i would be fine with this sort of punishment here in the US, it is not intended.

I am simply pointing out that the punishment however cruel does lower the crime rate as people are afraid to commit a crime.

The increase in hangings from year to year does not support the theory that the hangings are a deterrent to any but the hanged.

The increase in hangings from year to year does not support the theory that the hangings are a deterrent to any but the hanged.

The increase of hangings can mean either an increase in crime, or an increase in the strict punishment of previously non death penalty crimes.

Still... let us discuss one thing... There are far less hangings in Iran then there are murder crimes in the United States. The crime rate in Iran is very low compared to even just a city like Los Angeles, or New York. Reason being the punishment is very severe.

We have more cases of Solved Murder cases in California, New York, and Florida combined then Iran has punished via Hanging. With such a barbaric system, one would assume anyone accused of Murder is killed in Iran. Thus supporting the point of Iran's criminal punishment being harsh enough that it reduced crime.

If hanging spreads down to the more trivial crimes as you believe then it supports that fact even more because it would show that violent crime is also very low.

Like everywhere else in the world there is Crime, however one thinks a lot harder in Iran before commiting a crime then in countries with our form of punishment. As in America it almost seems as if the courts help out criminals in cases such as a man who falls through a skylight while attemping to break in to a house and hurts his back. Or a man who breaks into a house and is mauled by a dog. Both are typical of people that end up getting away.

In Iran they would spend years in prison without question due to their own stupidity.

Wrong...

Finding out where 3 other dead people are is in no way as important as finding out where a bomb might go off that kills a thousand people.You watch too much 24.
The crime rate in Iran is very low compared to even just a city like Los Angeles, or New York. Reason being the punishment is very severe.You're confusing correlation with causation.

You watch too much 24.
You're confusing correlation with causation.

Even the ex CIA agent that brought up the controversy about the tape and claimed the CIA used waterboarding, said that he despised the torture but it did end up stopping an attack that saved lives. So 24 doesn't have much to do with this.

First, the two situations are completely different -- again, a really, really bad argument. You're conflating information acquisition to stop a crime with use of execution to stop a crime. Second, the FBI disputes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151_pf.html) Kirakou's claim that torture revealed anything of use (and at this point, I can see why the CIA is trying to defend itself).

But even if Kirakou and the CIA are correct, your argument fails.

First, the two situations are completely different -- again, a really, really bad argument. You're conflating information acquisition to stop a crime with use of execution to stop a crime. Second, the FBI disputes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151_pf.html) Kirakou's claim that torture revealed anything of use (and at this point, I can see why the CIA is trying to defend itself).

But even if Kirakou and the CIA are correct, your argument fails.

Wait what are you talking about? I nowhere nohow compared torture to hanging for crimes or whatnot...

If you scroll up, you will see that I was responding to a question about Torture...

Thanks. I'll just mark up "cruel and unusual" punishement as something you approve of and hate the US government for.

As long as I'm at this derail, how do you feel about torture? Specifically as it pertains to prisoners of war?

Ah, you combined my two responses into one then responded to the first part ("too much 24") while I saw you as responding to the second part (correlation and causation).

I think the reason there are fewer crimes in Iran is the definition.

Being able to stone a gal for apparently looking at a man is somewhat legal so that's not a crime!

Killing your daughter for not marrying the man you lined her up with is legal so that raises the bar somewhat....

Crimes by the state or by religion still make it a very very very ugly place to live.