Jameel asks a good question (sort of)
from DovBear et al by DovBear
Jameel:
The year is 1944. World War II rages in Europe. The atrocities of Nazi Germany's genocide against the Jews is becoming apparent. Columbia University invites Germany's elected leader Adolph Hitler to speak. The Hindenburg II Zeppelin arrives in NJ...What do you do?There are important and obvious differences between Jameel's scenario, and the events of earlier this week. For instance: The US is not at war with Iran, Iran hasn't conquered Europe, and by 1944(!) the death camps were in full operation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may wish to carry out a campaign of genocide against the Jews, but he hasn't yet.So let's change things a little. Say it's January 1933. The Nazi party has 230 seats in the Reichstag, but not an outright majority. Hitler is Chancellor, and on the record as an anti-Semite of the first order, but we're still a long way from Aushwitz. Even the Night of the Long Knives is almost two years down the road. Now, what do you do if Columbia allows Hitler to visit, (and subjects him to a public tounge-lashing?)Additional note: Jameel says that Hitler was "Germany's elected leader." Not true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed to visit Columbia University only diminished his chances at whatever kind of genocide he is supposedly planning. The fact that Ahmadinejad's words are now being ridiculed throughout the Western world on talk shows and other various media sources have done nothing but decrease fear in him. Society can now view the ignorant, biased side of Ahmadinejad. Sure, some people can argue that this lack of fear could create the false sense of safety that Ahmadinejad will eventually use to his advantage in the occasion of an upcoming war – say to use the element of surprise- but in reality, despite his insanity, not even Ahmadinejad will start a third World War. Even if he would consider himself a martyr for freeing the world of Americans or Jews, his stupidity does not include the misconception that Iran will survive a war with the US. He is campaigning fear as an attempt to gain respect and visiting Columbia was his first major error. If the same circumstance occurred with Hitler, it could be easily argued that the events of The Holocaust could have greatly differed. Not to mention that if Hitler came to the states to speak, they would have known much earlier of the well planned genocide of the Jews.
If the general population had known the full extent of the atrocities occurring in the 1940s in Europe, then it is possible that the war would not have gone on as long as it did, or have had the same end results. However, since it is painfully clear that although many world leaders knew, many citizens in the Western world were not fully aware of what was occurring in Europe, and thus would not have known how terrible Hitler was, or what he was doing to Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, gays, etc. Therefore, if Hitler had been invited, hypothetically, to speak at Columbia University during the height of the war, there might not have been a huge public outcry over his speech. However, if the situation were changed as DovBear dictates, it would be a very similar situation. If any of the public knew about what Hitler was planning, they would obviously raise some issues with Columbia University over inviting a known anti-Semite to speak, and not go so as not to support Hitler. However, the majority of Americans who did not know about the brutal empire Hitler was planning to build would be indifferent to the notion of having him speak at an established American University.
It's true that the world media has done quite well in marginalizing Ahaminejad, but does this diminish his internal power within Iran? Does he even have much power in Iran or is that in the hand of the Supreem Leader Ayatola Khumeni?
In truth, I think the main question is what is the limit of freedom of speach? Especially in 'the academy' - a university which is devoted to learning should anyone be able to teach, even if we disagree with them? Are there differnet rules in a university than in other places?
This is a very interesting argument, but there is a very clear distiction between Hitler and Ahmadinejad. Hitler was Chancellor of Germany. He ran the country. Ahmadinejad HAS NO REAL POWER! He is a figurehead. He represents the Ayatollah. Ahmadinejad could not authorize a war even if he tried. Its the real government of Iran and the Islamist regime that has to be watched very carefully, with the Ayatollah at the help. Ahmadinejad is a puppet. A puppet with alot of crazy ideas and a big mouth.
I'd like to add to this long list of Ahmadinejad bashing. To respond to what Held said about public speech, I believe that anyone and everyone is intitled to say what they want. In no way am I defending anything this lunatic says, but he does have the right to speak at this renonwed institution no matter how obtuse his statements are. On another note, Lipworth is correct in saying in an exagerated way that his power is limited. He is not the supreme ruler of Iran, and it's silly to compare him to Hitler.
I am sure that most people will share the belief that what his statements are empty threats and he is a cowardous tyrant. As I'm sure most of you know he danced around the questions he was presented with and targeted his answers to western society. Either way, if he answered the questions truthfully or beat around the bush like he did, his answers satisfied the American public, as they knew he would do so.
Sure, Ahmadinejad may not have the power to sign a document stating that Iran is going to war but you have to acknowledge two things:
1. That's not how war is conducted in today's day and age. If Iran wages war it will most likely be unannounced.
2. Though on record Ahmadinejad does not have the political power to declare war, there is enough hatred for the Western World, Jews, etc. in Iran that if he announced publicly that Iran is going to war with the U.S. enough people would agree to make it factual.
You can say he is a figurehead of Iran all you want, the truth is that in the absence of an Iranian leader, he is the closest thing the country has to one.
Post a Comment