Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

[@_@ Artman]

Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US, Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses to 10 questions by Iranian academics and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter: (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070925&articleId=6888)

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.


1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?


Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

I would like to see what his answers are or even if he'd go to Iran anyway.

Actually, I would love it if these questions were posed to President Bush himself, or someone more evil and important like Cheney. And they would be forced to answer truthfully, in front of everyone who voted for them.

How about your answers Outsiders?

[sammi jo]

Nobody (of importance) in the U.S. is going to respond in an official capacity, on the grounds that the US and Iran have no formal diplomatic relationship. If pressed, a haughty and duplicitous comment like "we do not talk to governments that sponsor terrorism" will emerge.

Our media will not report, or analyze these 10 questions, on the grounds that (1) the questions are too rational and are not only based on factual reality, but also a number of them are leveled against the past conduct of this country re. Iran and other controversial issues in the Middle East (or attributed to Middle East causes), and (2) mutual understanding between the two countries on all levels decreases the justification for conflict.

[SpamSandwich]

None of those questions could possibly be answered by a university president, even though many of them are valid, if loaded, questions.

[sammi jo]

None of those questions could possibly be answered by a university president, even though many of them are valid, if loaded, questions.

To whom else in the US could they be addressed? If the university president who leveled all the hate-filled namecalling cannot answer them, then the largely unpublicized questions will go unaddressed and unanswered.

What a shame that this administration is doing its best to avoid dialog, because there are plenty of human rights issues in Iran which the U.S. could call Iran on, for example, the appalling treatment of Iran's womenfolk under Sharia law. Having said that, dialog tends to lower the chances of the conflict that the Neocons crave... and complaints by this administration about human rights issues will be crocodile tears in this case.

[@_@ Artman]

None of those questions could possibly be answered by a university president,

Did you read or listen to Lee Bollinger's introduction (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html)? He seems more than qualified to answer most, if not all of these questions.

even though many of them are valid, if loaded, questions.

Compared to the "softballs" that were lobbed at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

[SpamSandwich]

Did you read or listen to Lee Bollinger's introduction (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html)? He seems more than qualified to answer most, if not all of these questions.

He may have the intellect, but he is not a policy-maker. :p He has no political power.

[@_@ Artman]

He may have the intellect, but he is not a policy-maker. :p He has no political power.

I agree with sammi jo.

To whom else in the US could they be addressed? If the university president who leveled all the hate-filled namecalling cannot answer them, then the largely unpublicized questions will go unaddressed and unanswered.

What a shame that this administration is doing its best to avoid dialog, because there are plenty of human rights issues in Iran which the U.S. could call Iran on, for example, the appalling treatment of Iran's womenfolk under Sharia law. Having said that, dialog tends to lower the chances of the conflict that the Neocons crave... and complaints by this administration about human rights issues will be crocodile tears in this case.

[segovius]

Has anyone noticed the rank hypocrisy over Iran/Ahmedinejad in contrast with the developing situation in Burma?

Without a doubt Burma has long been a far worse human-rights abuser than Iran, almost now on a par with Saudi. As I write this I am hearing reports of two monks being shot by riot police.

My point is not to say 'this would not happen in Iran' (although it wouldn't - demonstrations against Ahmedinejad occur very often with no ill effect to participants) but to actually praise Bush's approach and wonder why he cannot apply the same methodology to the Middle east (rhetorical question; I know the answer - it's about War on Islam and the oil).

He wasn't exactly Statesmanlike (Bush) but he made all the right moves and actually did one great thing; he pledged public support to the democracy movement. No threats of bombing. No childish tantrums and name-calling. No 'evildoer' slogans - just (almost) old-fashioned political diplomatic statements.

Why can't he do this in the Middle East? Is it Israel working him with their foot? Is it blind hate and Islamophobia?

Whatever it is it is a shame - for us all...

[Jubelum]

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

The principle of Freedom of Speech, sure. Listen guys, you have a lot to learn about the US media and public discourse. Opportunities to respond to accusations are not part of the rights in our system. Unless you are in court. There are many that, knowing your country's support for Hazbollah, do not think it appropriate for him to speak in a city that lost 3000 people to terrorism. I personally don't think it is in the finest taste, but did provide an awesome opportunity to get an update on Iran's gay and lesbian population.

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

Because the Brits threw a party and we got invited. You guys wanted to nationalize your oil industry after millions in foreign investment. Just like Hugo wants to do now. The US support of the Shah, in retrospect, was an egregious affront to your self-determination. Those responsible have been sacked. Only kooks like Ron Paul and his supporters point out Operation Ajax, and the American public likes it that way. When a few of us talk about Op Ajax, we get called all sorts of hurtful names, and we don't like that.

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

Because these were the days of Cold War alignments. Oil makes you get in bed with very, very bad people. Surely we have paid a high price already for supporting, arming, and advising Saddam and his brutal regime. We're still paying the bill in the streets of Iraq today.

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?


Because unfortunately, some of those who have come to power are the same people who advocate people blowing up themselves and as many Zionists as might be nearby. All the way back to the Intifada and PLO days. And also, you cannot simply vote yourself territory, especially in such a contested part of the world.

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

Because OBL is living a 9th century lifestyle to match his 9th century beliefs. He lives off the grid. Do you want to pick the fight of "justifying friendships?" Let's start with terrorists in Palestine. We, the American people, are too blinded, too stupid, and too spun to ever get/accept any truth re: Bush and Bin Laden. And we don't have "real" investigations here, either. Again, you overestimate how well we run things.

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

Because we are using the old playbook where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It kept the world spinning through the Cold War, and how dare you claim that hegemony and alignments have changed, and tactics should adapt as well.

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

Um, "international institutions" mean very little. In fact, the collection of dictators and thugs at the UN would dry up and blow away without Western support. They dislike, and have always disliked US superpower status. Saddam defied one UN resolution after another... as if it matters. The real purpose is that Saddam was rumbling about trading oil in Euros, Yen, or goats, not greenbacks. He also tried to kill a former president, which made the current president madder than a Bush twin who has just been popped on Sixth Street in Austin.

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely
undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

Yea. Go ahead and get your own house in order regarding "undemocracy." Spare us. As far as the Saudis, yea, we know they suck. We know that their support of Wahabi Islam and oppression of opinion and dissent are contrary to all that we claim to represent. But they got the black stuff to trade for our green stuff. And we play golf with them. They're not bad, either.

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

Because absent nukular weapons, Israel would have already been driven into the sea by you and your friends at Hezbollah. We're talking about a *little* country that has already handed back a lot of territory it took in wars that people sounding a lot like you started in the first place. Besides, we'd have to trust you to not build them, and neither one of us trusts the other. Joining the "Plan" does not mean that you will abide by the "Plan."

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Because we do not trust (a) El Baradei or (b) that you have not hidden your program. It sucks, but we have some problems with what you say, and what you then end up doing. Maybe those firebrand speeches about all those centrifuges were great for the domestic populace, but they make the rest of the world a little edgy. In a country with huge proven reserves of petrol energy, WTF is the purpose of nukular tech... other than to make a bomb for the approved Enemies of Israel kegger that the 12th Imam is sure to throw?

[@_@ Artman]

Honestly, Myanmar (Burma) has assloads of natural gas, don't they?

Hah! But what am I thinking? Born-again Bush cares as much about heathen Buddhists as he does with Islam-o-fascists. Oh wait...

More on Myanmar's foreign relations and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar#Foreign_relations_and_military)...

The French oil company Total S.A. is able to operate the Yadana natural gas pipeline from Burma to Thailand despite the European Union’s sanctions on Myanmar. Total is currently the subject of a lawsuit in French and Belgian courts for the condoning and use of Burman civilian slavery to construct the named pipeline. Experts say that the human rights abuses along the gas pipeline are the direct responsibility of Total S.A. and its American partner Chevron with aid and implementation by the Tatmadaw. Prior to its acquisition by Chevron, Unocal settled a similar human rights lawsuit for a reported multi-million dollar amount.[47] There remains active debate as to the extent to which the American-led sanctions have had adverse effects on the civilian population or on the military rulers.[48][49]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__mrs_l.jpg

Second Old Woman:
Penguins don't come from next door,
they come from the Antarctic.

First Old Woman:
BURMA!
(sound of tea spoon being dropped into tea cup)

Second Old Woman:
Why did you say Burma?

First Old Woman:
I panicked.

[talksense101]

We're still paying the bill in the streets of Iraq today.

You might want to add that the US is paying those bills with the oil generated in Iraq.

US military raises a bill for the war, the taxpayers pay for it. The bill comes from the US corporates that manufacture these weapons using local resources available in the US. The US government then bleeds Iraq's oil to recover cash spent by it (it's tax payers). That money goes to the US corporates to make more weapons that the US military now plans to spend in Iran. Kinda funny, imo. To quote Mel Brook's "History of the World - Part 1" movie, "It's good to be the king".

[SpamSandwich]

Honestly, Myanmar (Burma) has assloads of natural gas, don't they?

Hah! But what am I thinking? Born-again Bush cares as much about heathen Buddhists as he does with Islam-o-fascists. Oh wait...

More on Myanmar's foreign relations and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar#Foreign_relations_and_military)...



http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__mrs_l.jpg

Second Old Woman:
Penguins don't come from next door,
they come from the Antarctic.

First Old Woman:
BURMA!
(sound of tea spoon being dropped into tea cup)

Second Old Woman:
Why did you say Burma?

First Old Woman:
I panicked.

"...You most likely know it as Myanmar, but it will always be Burma to me. Bonne chance, Elaine. You there on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!" -J. Peterman

[mydo]

It's a sad statement that the lefties on this board think that the "academics" in Iran speak from a position of freedom. I would bet that these talking points were handed over from the Iranian government or religious establishment.

You people are gleefully ignorant when it server your purpose.:no:

[Northgate]

You obviously don't know shit about Iran.

[segovius]

I would bet that these talking points were handed over from the Iranian government or religious establishment

Would you though?

What would you bet? How much?

I would guess you are just spouting off and do not have the integrity to back up your words...

[SDW2001]

The principle of Freedom of Speech, sure. Listen guys, you have a lot to learn about the US media and public discourse. Opportunities to respond to accusations are not part of the rights in our system. Unless you are in court. There are many that, knowing your country's support for Hazbollah, do not think it appropriate for him to speak in a city that lost 3000 people to terrorism. I personally don't think it is in the finest taste, but did provide an awesome opportunity to get an update on Iran's gay and lesbian population.



Because the Brits threw a party and we got invited. You guys wanted to nationalize your oil industry after millions in foreign investment. Just like Hugo wants to do now. The US support of the Shah, in retrospect, was an egregious affront to your self-determination. Those responsible have been sacked. Only kooks like Ron Paul and his supporters point out Operation Ajax, and the American public likes it that way. When a few of us talk about Op Ajax, we get called all sorts of hurtful names, and we don't like that.



Because these were the days of Cold War alignments. Oil makes you get in bed with very, very bad people. Surely we have paid a high price already for supporting, arming, and advising Saddam and his brutal regime. We're still paying the bill in the streets of Iraq today.



Because unfortunately, some of those who have come to power are the same people who advocate people blowing up themselves and as many Zionists as might be nearby. All the way back to the Intifada and PLO days. And also, you cannot simply vote yourself territory, especially in such a contested part of the world.



Because OBL is living a 9th century lifestyle to match his 9th century beliefs. He lives off the grid. Do you want to pick the fight of "justifying friendships?" Let's start with terrorists in Palestine. We, the American people, are too blinded, too stupid, and too spun to ever get/accept any truth re: Bush and Bin Laden. And we don't have "real" investigations here, either. Again, you overestimate how well we run things.



Because we are using the old playbook where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It kept the world spinning through the Cold War, and how dare you claim that hegemony and alignments have changed, and tactics should adapt as well.

Also, because the MEK is making strides to be taken off our List of Terrorist Organizations™




Um, "international institutions" mean very little. In fact, the collection of dictators and thugs at the UN would dry up and blow away without Western support. They dislike, and have always disliked US superpower status. Saddam defied one UN resolution after another... as if it matters. The real purpose is that Saddam was rumbling about trading oil in Euros, Yen, or goats, not greenbacks. He also tried to kill a former president, which made the current president madder than a Bush twin who has just been popped on Sixth Street in Austin.


And/or because he fired on aircraft in the no-fly at will, violating the 1991 ceasefire. Oh, he openly praised 9/11 too. Oh, and we thought he had shitloads of WMD. Did we mention that?



Yea. Go ahead and get your own house in order regarding "undemocracy." Spare us. As far as the Saudis, yea, we know they suck. We know that their support of Wahabi Islam and oppression of opinion and dissent are contrary to all that we claim to represent. But they got the black stuff to trade for our green stuff. And we play golf with them. They're not bad, either.



Because absent nukular weapons, Israel would have already been driven into the sea by you and your friends at Hezbollah. We're talking about a *little* country that has already handed back a lot of territory it took in wars that people sounding a lot like you started in the first place. Besides, we'd have to trust you to not build them, and neither one of us trusts the other. Joining the "Plan" does not mean that you will abide by the "Plan."



Because we do not trust (a) El Baradei or (b) that you have not hidden your program. It sucks, but we have some problems with what you say, and what you then end up doing. Maybe those firebrand speeches about all those centrifuges were great for the domestic populace, but they make the rest of the world a little edgy. In a country with huge proven reserves of petrol energy, WTF is the purpose of nukular tech... other than to make a bomb for the approved Enemies of Israel kegger that the 12th Imam is sure to throw?

Awesome post. I don't agree with all of it, but still...great post. See above.

[mydo]

Would you though?

What would you bet? How much?

I would guess you are just spouting off and do not have the integrity to back up your words...

Like all of your posts?:???:

[segovius]

Like all of your posts?:???:

No. There is no common ground between our output whatsoever.

[mydo]

No. There is no common ground between our output whatsoever.

You're a great apologist and a useful idiot for these people, assuming you're on the side of liberal democracies. Your enemies enemy is not your friend. I work with someone who is from Iran and goes back one or two times a year. She's my boots on the ground. She tells me that people in Iran have no real freedom and when scholars are tossed in jail for speaking out it's no surprise. She also tells me that no one get a good job i Iran without being part of the system. So that means that these acidemics are the ones that were selected based on their allegiance to the government/theocracy. So when I hear of Iranian academics putting questions to Bollenger I know that they are not speaking from the same position of freedom of speech as a guaranteed right that Bollenger and his students did. It should be taken as fact that anything they say has heavy influence from the government/theocracy.


So don't bother taking your hands off the sides of your head and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA" as loud as you can.