Outrage Over an Iranian Errand Boy
crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts
If there ever was topic for discussing freedom of speech or what is accepted as a proper response between opposing forces on this planet, the Iranian President’s attendance at Columbia University certainly fits. Polarizing opinions, outrage, indifference and a broad mixture of undefined responses fill the media this day. So what is one to make of all this?
An opinion column by Arthur Herman at the New York Post no doubt falls on the outrage side of the debate.
Who knows what Columbia University’s real motives were for inviting Iran’s President to speak. At least a couple of reports indicate the expressed reason was to allow differing points of view. It seems when the person speaking in public is extremely notorious for holding beliefs or values others find deplorable or equally disturbing, the standards or principles guiding the public view are withdrawn. That is to say people allow other people to speak or express themselves as long as that person does not exceed certain limits.
My first question would be why were those who are so enraged by this event not equally vocal in objecting to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her trip that included Syria and at least some discussion with heads of state there?
The next reference from various sources is a contrast to Herman’s opinion column at the NT Post. Carefully reviewing sound bites from the Iranian President and comparing them to related events in Iran, the author reminds the reader of the amateur attempt by this week’s headline grabbing foreign visitor to misinform the audience. But maybe the Iranian is getting exactly what he wants. What would be a larger problem with his visit is not what people appear to be angry about but if his plan is successful in his own mind. Perhaps all this angst and attention is exactly what he wanted. A person would have to be extremely ignorant to believe he could come here and not receive the reaction he did from the outrageous statements he expressed.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion and The Wall Street Journal is no exception. This being the third reference for this post is a reminder that as stated earlier the mixture of opinions is quite varied although most have an obvious negative reaction to that guy from Iran that everyone loves to hate.
Without previous knowledge of the article and its information below, the same thought had probably crossed many minds after hearing explanations from Columbia for their choice of speaker this week. Would you have acted the same if the potential speaker would have been Adolf Hitler? A better question might be asked about how the rest of the world responded to Hitler before he was completely in a position to do the things he did? The Iranian President or anyone else can be allowed to speak. Words are not the problem here. How the rest of the world responds to the actions of the Iranian President and people like him is the problem. As has been said many times, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Enough with the news around the planet about this situation with Iran. No one should be overly concerned about what transpired at Columbia University this week or the UN, etc. How the world leaders will handle their responsibilities as leaders and getting a grip on war and terrorism as well as the other critical matters facing us is the real concern. The visit by and actions of the Iranian President during his visit pales in comparison to other risks.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
September 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
But Stanford, propaganda is part of the ploy Iran uses to protect it from much of the criticism that could be heaped on it by thoughful proponents of democracy and freedom. The same devious tactic was employed over and over by the Soviets during the Cold War, and Iran is demonstrating many of the same characteristics. More than ever, it is the message of the messenger (whether true or not) that deserves the most serious consideration. Propaganda, especially that which is considered extremely vile, absurd, or nutty, is especially useful in disarming the determination of any enemies. If consistent with action and the message is bent on genocide, destruction, or world domination, then the message portends the future and is an accurate estimation of policy. If inconsistent with action (the lies of Ahmadinejad) then the situation is even worse, for you then know he’s trying to dissuade some, spoof others, and offer false justifications when he knows his statements belie his country’s actions.
Ahmadinejad is the antithesis of the hegemony that should, by all rights, sweep the earth, and that is freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and self determination. Anything less that these is an affront to modern civilization. And while your point is valid that what the leaders of nations do is of primary import, what nations do is a function of public support, and if that is eroded or comfused, action becomes inaction. That is the purpose of propaganda.