Defending the Truth

Ahmadinejad Appearance Prompts Criticism of Columbia University Public-Speaking Decisions
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans



NEW YORK — Columbia University said it would welcome any notable figure visiting the United States — even Adolf Hitler himself — to speak to students and faculty at the Ivy League college.

But there are those who question what the New York college's standards are. They ask why a school that will not allow an ROTC program to be part of its curriculum would allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of America’s avowed enemies, onto its campus.

Critics wonder why the leader of a nation that exports terrorism is allowed to speak, but the leader of an American organization that seeks to secure U.S. borders was not.

Full story here:
FOXNews.com - Ahmadinejad Appearance Prompts Criticism of Columbia University Public-Speaking Decisions - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I don't understand this double standard either.

I support having Ahmadinejad speak ... I believe it's important to hear what the enemy has to say.

And I would support the ROTC speaking to the university population.

But that is a very different thing than allowing either to become part of the curriculum.

FoxNews has (again) slanted the news so that it sounds very different than the facts.

What makes Americans afraid of what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could say? Let us hear what the Iranian President has to say and then face hard questions from the American audience. If the man is a fool, then let him open his mouth and confirm it.

There is a big difference between allowing an unpopular leader speak to an American audience and having a ROTC program become part of that University's curriculum.

Here is a question. Why is the U.S. government letting him into the country? why are we coming down so hard on a university for allowing him to speak? when we should instead perhaps be wondering why our president is allowing a terrorist on our land?

He is allowed in the U.S. to speak at the U.N. General Assembly.

Yes, and why is he allowed to speak at the UN at all if he is such a clear and present danger to the world? either he is or he isn't. it's interesting to me that 6 years ago the Iranian people were supporting us and condemning the 9/11 actions. and now they are all 'terrorists'.

Oh, the Iranian regime, as a whole, has been considered as a terrorist supporter since way before 9/11.

They have been implicated in playing significant roles in numerous bombings and kidnappings since 1980, including the most deadliest terrorist attack on US citizens up until 9/11; the Beirut bombings of 1983.

They have even given safe haven for a number of Al Qaeda members since 9/11 when they opened their border to Al Qaeda members fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Besides this, Iran's proxy group Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have had ties for years...since at least from 1993. In effect, Iran's top killer, Imad Mughniyah, who is the operational chief of Hezbollah, was the FBI's Most Wanted man prior to Osama bin Laden's ascendancy to the top of that list. He actively trained Al Qaeda members in Lebanon, Iran, and Sudan in the mid-1990's. And it is likely quite accurate to say that Al Qaeda wouldn't be the force it is today if it weren't for Iran's support of it through this proxy connection.

Now, of course, the Iranian regime isn't going to publicly state that they support Al Qaeda. I mean, why would they want to destroy the illusion they have created of themselves?

What does not allowing an ROTC program on campus have to do with letting the Iranian president speak? I don't see any double standard.

What about the not allowing the Minutemen to speak? That's apples to apples isn't it?

Again, it is the U.S.A. allowing him to come and speak at the U.N. if he's such a terrorist why allow him on our soil at all? there is a double standard here. then again why are we surprised? after all, most of the 9/11 terrorists were saudis. and the president kisses and holds the saudis hands in public.