Columbia University Professor is Pro Iraq

But all that talk about academia being a Leftist stronghold is just political rhetoric and liberal-bashing with not a shred of truth.

Of course it links to a conservative organization, but the words of the Left in academe shouldn't surprise anybody. Most of these professors live in a fantasy world where (as we've seen on these boards) socialism and global peace just need a second chance to take root, criminals are just people who haven't been healed yet, and the American voter has been somehow brainwashed (against all odds) to vote for Republicans at the national level and Democrats at the local level.

Wow. What can I say.

"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening. -- Ann Coulter"

Move over Nancy Pelosi... hte Democrats new leader has arrived.

Funny how people always talk about "free speach", and how America is such a "free country".


Keep tabs on this professor and see what happens. If history repeats itself, he will be jobless, and possibly in legal trouble under every tiny little thing they can possibly nab him on.

Free Spech:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

There is no law or is anyone saying there should be about what he said. I do believe there should be actions taken against a person who so stongly thinks this is so evil.. like say deportation or even death. I think we should switch over to a "like it or leave it" mentality. its just more logical.

Yes, make the US a totalitarian dictature.

Consider the source before you decide whether to string this guy up eh?

LINK

A bit dated and about terrorism and Afghanistan, not Iraq, but it fits this situation as well.

Better still, it puts down Ann Coulter too!

Free sheech protects you from having any legal consequences for what you say. It says nothing whatsoever of social consequences. It's quite possible that he'll be fired; that's a social consequence, not a legal one. There is no law that says he must be fired; indeed, such a law could never be enforced even on the slim chance that it could be passed. Same as with all the idiocy surrounding the infamous statements by the Dixie Chicks; it's stupid, but it's a legitimate social consequence of what they said.

Just because you're allowed to speak your mind doesn't mean that we all have to agree with you. Nor does it mean we have no right to get mad when you say you want "a million Mogadishus", as this guy did. And should we decide to terminate our social dealings with you, that's our prerogative, thanks to another right guaranteed by the First Amendment, namely, freedom of association.

That's something which I think is lost on many of the anti-war protesters nowadays. Our right to freedom of association does not trump your right to freedom of speech, but the reverse isn't true either.

CNN International

I didn't read anywhere that he was arrested, and I doubt he will be.

So true.

Ugh...all these conservative verbal masturbation threads are getting old.

We're so great...liberals suck....wah wah

Are you for real!?!?

CU is my alma mater. I think that what the professor said is indeed reprehensible. I think that calling for the death of ANYONE is reprehensible.

But please consider the bias of that news source....

[edit]

OK kitch. Here is a fun game for you:

Take any Ann Coulter quote that contains the words "liberal" or "democrat" and replace her name with them.

Liberals like this POS give the freedom of speech amendment a bad rap. Maybe he should start focusing on teaching his students things that will actually help them survive in this harsh world. Hopefully the POS will be fired and have to face some rough realities. Seriously I'm starting to re-think the purpose of Higher Education. They take all your rich mommy and daddy's money, let the poor and stupid in (murderers included) and then insult their bread and butter.

Read some of this for a welcome dose of reality:

http://www.aynrand.org/

Seriously, who needs college anyway when you can just learn how to fire a gun.



Does Jerry Fallwell give the 1st Amendment a good rap?

Are all murderers poor and stupid?

Do you have a monopoly on reality?

The ironic part of thiis is he said he wished for a "million mogadishus."

Just proves he really doesn't care about life at all, after all less then 80 us marines died, but over a 1000 Somalians were killed and wounded.

Everyone seems to think Mogadishu was a major miilitary failure for the US, in fact the accomplished their mission, and held their own against an armed 5000 strong crowd, including al-quaeda operatives.

The only failure was of the american media and the clinton administration for thinking they could go into a hsotile country without some casualties.

Accomplished the mission in the same way George Herbert Walker Bush accomplished the mission of the first Gulf War.

The Clinton Administration panicked when American peace keepers were killed in Somalia. The mission may have been completed, but I can think of well over a hundred countries I rather live in than Somalia.

From then until Afghanistan, nation building was a dirty word.

"Treasonous" "Anti war - anti America"

I hear the jackboots in the distance. "Cheered by the audience" appears to be an outright lie. And this by the people who give Al Jazeera a hard time about flawed reporting. Hysterical languange, bent facts, blanket condemnation. What a great publication http://www.conservativefrontline.com is, what credibility. fxbezak, rather than just regurgitating this tripe you might have gone through the trouble of actually reading what really happened.




From the NYT:

The president of Columbia University said yesterday that he was horrified by the remarks of an anthropology professor who said at a campus antiwar teach-in Wednesday night that he hoped to see "a million Mogadishus" ? referring to the city in Somalia where American soldiers were ambushed in a lethal firefight in 1993.

The professor, Nicholas De Genova, also called for the defeat of United States forces in Iraq, and said the only true heroes are those who help defeat the American military. He said Americans who call themselves patriots are imperialist white supremacists.

"Under well-established principles of the First Amendment, this is within a person's right to free speech," Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia, said in an interview. "Not for a second, however, does that insulate it from criticism. I am shocked that someone would make such statements. I am especially saddened for the families of those whose lives are now at risk."

Those who attended the teach-in said most of the audience stayed silent at Professor De Genova's reference to the Mogadishu ambush, an event portrayed in the movie "Black Hawk Down." The raid, on Oct. 3, 1993, in which 18 Americans were killed and 75 injured ? and the subsequent broadcast of images of a dead American being dragged through Mogadishu ? prompted President Bill Clinton to order a withdrawal of troops from Somalia, where they had been sent to help relieve a famine.

"Professor De Genova's speech did not represent the views of the organizers," said Eric Foner, a history professor who was one of the teach-in's organizers."I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot. I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country."

Professor De Genova's voice mail was not accepting messages yesterday. The anthropology department referred all calls concerning him to the public affairs office, where a spokesman said he had no further information on Professor De Genova, who is untenured and teaches anthropology and Latino studies.

The teach-in at Columbia, which went from 6 p.m. to midnight Wednesday and drew an audience of about 3,000, was organized by seven faculty members, who were joined by about two dozen other faculty members speaking on subjects like Middle East relations, civil liberties, pre-emptive war, the Geneva Conventions and Iraqi archaeological sites endangered by the war.

Ok I will...
I am the source... its my webpage and I did the research to find the info. I even called the college. Its quite accurate.

You cant tell me that all of these liberals at that school are not happy the small guy said what they cant and took the hit for what he said rather than anyone else getting their tenured reputations blemished. Ok... you have appx 3000 students cheering this guy on.. you mean to tell me that the setiment of the school is not exactly that??? I mean you dont go to a concert because you hate the singer... These students, adults, believe the same things this guy said and you can bet your life the faculty does as well...

If thats not anti american I dont know what is

Thats All I have to say....
From the NY times indeed.

Are you some kind of a wierdo?

The NY times is one of THE most prominant liberal news sources out there....

The NYT quoted and interviewed people who were actually there.
That has nothing to do with being liberal or not, it is just establishing the facts. It has a lot more of a reputation for professional journalism than you do by the looks of it. Their description of events also tallies with other sources, none of which agree with your hysterical description of 3000 students cheering an extremely tasteless anti war speech. So unless you can deliver actual proof that this event happened I am calling BS on that statement.



Before you attack an established newspaper's reputation I'd build one myself first - preferably one that isn't built on blanket condemnation and paranoia.

The NY times is a widely known "spin on ink" publication
As for the 3000 students... ok how about an auditorium full of them. does that sound a little better and make you less upset?

Establishing the facts is great, but as we see by the NYT and CNN you can really do whatever you want with the facts. Like posting headlines about how "US marines opend fire on civilians"

for you liberals out there who are crying about the war:

Fact remains: You've made stuff up, they didn't. Case closed.


As for the "opening fire on civilians" article, consider the source. The Times, one of the more conservative and pro war papers. Also, one of the finest articles about the reality of warfare I've evr read.

What have I made up?