Tehran Students Protest Ahmadinejad Speech
Demonstrators Call Iranian President "Dictator," Clash With Hardliners
-
Photo
An Iranian student kicks a gate of Tehran University during a protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as anti-riot police officers stand behind the gate, in Tehran, Iran, Monday, Oct. 8, 2007 (AP)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
War Of Rhetoric At The U.N.
When President Bush addressed the U.N., he largely avoided Iran. But when President Ahmadinejad spoke, he targeted the U.S. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Video
Ahmadinejad's Global Fallout
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inflammatory remarks in New York have been heard throughout the West, while fueling anti-Americanism in other parts of the world. Mark Phillips reports.
-
Video
Ahmadinejad Speaks At Columbia University
CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pam Falk discusses Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University, and offers her thoughts on his reception in the U.S.
-
Photo Essay
Controversial Visit
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York for U.N. General Assembly.
-
Photo Essay
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The outspoken Iranian president is one of the most controversial figures on the international stage.
Ahmadinejad, who was giving a speech to a select group at the university to mark the beginning of the academic year, ignored the chants of "death to the dictator" and continued with his speech on the merits of science and the pitfalls of Western-style democracy, witnesses said.
The protesters scuffled with hardline students who were chanting "thank you president" while police looked on from outside the university gates. The protesters dispersed after the car carrying Ahmadinejad left the campus.
Students were once the main power base of Iran's reform movement but have faced intense pressure in recent years from Ahmadinejad's hardline government, making anti-government protests rare.
The president faced a similar outburst during a speech last December when students at Amir Kabir Technical University called Ahmadinejad a dictator and set fire to his picture.
Hoping to avoid a similar disturbance Monday, organizers imposed tight security measures, checking the identity papers of all students entering the university and allowing only selected students into the hall. But the protesters were somehow able to gain entrance.
Iran's reform movement peaked in the late 1990s after former reformist president Mohammad Khatami was elected and his supporters swept parliament. But hardliners who control the judiciary, security forces and powerful unelected bodies in the government stymied attempts to ease social and political restrictions.
Numerous pro-reform newspapers were shut down, and since Ahmadinejad's election in 2005, those that remain have been muted in their criticism fearing closure.
At universities, pro-reform students have been marginalized, holding low-level meetings. They hold occasional demonstrations, usually to demand better school facilities or the release of detained colleagues. But pro-government student groups have grown more powerful.
Monday's student protests in Tehran followed Ahmadinejad's controversial appearance last month at Columbia University in New York, where the school's president blasted the Iranian leader for behaving like "a petty and cruel dictator."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 79 CommentsWWW.MONEYASDEBT.NET
WWW.ZEITGEISTMOVIE.COM
Good Job!
Posted by SgtRDS at 10:00 AM : Oct 08, 2007
They are very westernized. The Shah of Iran may have been a dictator, crushed opposition and very anti-female but he modernized and exposed Iranians to western ways. Ahmadinejad gives speeches to "select" groups practices the same behavior as the Shrub. Two peas in a pod !!
There are just as many anti-Americans in IRAN, just as there are many anti-Bush (such as yourself) here in America.
Those people, they love the coutry (including me) that they live in. They can cut through the kind of mularky like you, and others, post on here. We are not buying your "Vision" of a one world govt, or, your vision of "leave everyone alone and they will go away" type of utopia that you hope gets created.
Posted by notblue at 11:02 AM : Oct 08, 2007
I have noticed that the majority of people (right,left,libertarian or whatever) that post comments here have served at one time, myself included. So your remark about keyboard warriors, is a two edged sword - who was it that announced "Mission Accomplished" !!
No plan for victory - like the shrub listens to anybody !!
Police.....gimme a break! The police arent trained to fight terrorism on a global scale. However, the FBI and the CIA do a pretty good job. But, the military has the hardware to make the strikes that are needed.
TUCKER, combating terrorism is a "Combined" effort from all law enforcement agency''s, the military, and the govt.
Any chicken hawk advocating we act militarily against him is not only a fool, but a traitor, because such an act will irreparably harm the US.
However, the insurgency we didnt count on, that''s for sure. A mistake, that we did not see.
However, I pose this question to you. If the CIA and the FBI failed to connect the dots, so to speak, of the terrorists that hit my country, what makes you think that the local police (who arent privy to any intelligence mind you) are going to do a better job at combating terrorism?
Your a little off your game today TUCKER......
PS to "tuckerndfw":
I DO think "George Bush really is a total idiot".
Sometimes you just gotta LOL at the left-wing meltdowns posted on every thread.
Are we to say, "Hey, this is not a military matter. If you dont stop the training camps, we are going to send the Colorado Police Dept after you?"
Come on man, surely your arent that naive?
Look, every govt makes mistakes. Every govt lies to its people. If you think by fostering your one world govt views is going to make a difference, it''s not.
Sometimes you just gotta LOL at the left-wing meltdowns posted on every thread.
Posted by YankeeRebel7 at 11:44 AM : Oct 08, 2007
Actually they are two peas in a pod - they both exhibit some of the same behavior.
First, an international co-alition is in Afghanistan. Second, we weren''t in either country until islamic extremists declared, then executed, an act of war against the US, slaying 3000 US civilans...with the explicit sponsorship of the Taliban. The US has rightly retaliated for this act of war.
It is Bush and the Washington Regime who are anti-American and internationalist. They leave our borders open despite the flood of illegals and the faux-War on Terror. They attack our citizens with false flag operations. They wage wars for oil and drugs. They attempt to overthrow the Bill of Rights and call our Constitution "just a G-- D--- piece of paper." They threaten force against nations that have lived up to their treaty obligations with military strikes and war. They murder helpless civilians and try to cover up war crimes.
These are the anti-Americans. These are the anti-Constitutionalists. These are the big-government internationalists--and most of them are just too War Pig stupid to even realize.
The Giuliani and Clinton campaigns are calling for your support, War Pigs!....Can''t you hear them? Sou-sou-sou-eeeeeee!
Since you think that the Police is the only entity that should be combating terrorism (in which you didnt answer my direct question to you), I will ask you again. What is your solution to terrorism.
I know your historically known for not aswering direct questions (just like Democracts), but, could you do me this one favor? Could you asnwer the direct question........please?
Did you watch "Zeitgeistmovie.com"?
You mentioned earlier that invading Afghanistan and Iraq were BOTH ill advised and unwarranted. Just wondering.
Posted by emsaund1 at 12:26 PM : Oct 08, 2007
............
Actually, San Francisco is considered as one of many "sanctuary cities" in the U.S., meaning that the SFPD does not assist the CIA, FBI, or ICE in determining/confirming the immigration status of any of its citizens. This clearly makes it easier for a terrorist sleeper cell to operate in that city. Not only because of the sanctuary status, but also due to the wide ethnic diversity... the potential terrorists would easily "blend in" better.
Posted by emsaund1 at 12:49 PM : Oct 08, 2007
Historically huh ! Where was congressional oversight prior to Nov. 2006 ? Now that the Democrats control congress you have oversight and you complain about that "questioning" !
Posted by tuckerndfw at 12:59 PM : Oct 08, 2007
................
EXCELLENT!
Tucker, you''re one of so few who actually knows the true definition of "terrorism". Bravo!
WWW.MONEYASDEBT.NET
WWW.ZEITGEISTMOVIE.COM
Posted by tuckerndfw at 01:03 PM : Oct 08, 2007
..................
This is very true.
I turned Feelfree onto that movie a few months ago, and it is very interesting/informative. I see others are also promoting the movie on their posts as well.
Whether you watch the movie or not, it''s nice to know you are keen to Bush''s ulterior motives in this whole "war on terror" sham.
the sad truth about all the goverments of the world
Dont be mad TUCKER, your girl Hillary will NOT be elected President. Giuliani is your man. And with that, we will continue the fight agains terrorism (without the SFPD, mind you)
I think I''ve laid out my case to you and I hope that "People with common sense" can see your replies to my questions to you.
George Soros would be proud of you. But, then again, you will be defreated at the polls.
Baeder Meinhof, within the last couple of years, hit a German banker who had crossed the Establishment. I always had the feeling that it was a government run terror enterprise...like much of the IRA...
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:59 AM : Oct 08, 2007
I''m confused... aren''t you saying that Bush did the same thing? That 9/11 was a fraud, that the wars are for drugs and oil, that these "war profiteers" somehow have the power to "not allow anyone to be elected who does not support their thievery?" It seems you are saying that Bush is the smartest man in the world, because he has pulled off all of this without anyone ever being able to make a case against him while also being able to pull off all of the massive 9/11 cover up stuff in a mere 8 months of being in office.
If Americans weren''''t so stupid, Bush would have been impeached no later than the end of 2002.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:05 PM : Oct 08, 2007
So you''re saying that our entire Congress is made up of these "stupid" people unable to impeach Bush?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:05 PM : Oct 08, 2007
So you''''re saying that our entire Congress is made up of these "stupid" people unable to impeach Bush?
Posted by s1ckd09 at 02:33 PM : Oct 08, 2007
Who controlled Congress back in 2002 ??
The vast majority (over 90%) of Americans do not participate in or give money to political campaigns.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:25 PM : Oct 08, 2007
In case YOU haven''t noticed, money raised does not buy votes. You can argue about influence all you want, but no amount of money can buy a vote. I have never voted for anyone because they raised a certain amount of money. But apparently you have, along with your 90% of America.
Bush isn''''t pulling off a nefarious criminal plot, he is doing it in plain sight.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:05 PM : Oct 08, 2007
Wow, so he''s even smarter than I originally thought to be able to be so "obvious" about it and STILL have nothing to be able to be prosecuted for. I have even MORE respect for him now! Thanks!
Posted by s1ckd09 at 02:43 PM : Oct 08, 2007
But will you still love him after he is charged with War Crimes !!
Posted by s1ckd09 at 02:43 PM : Oct 08, 2007
Hmmmm....How smart??
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:05 PM : Oct 08, 2007
I would love to see the stats back this statement up. But I bet all you will be able to come up with is opinion polls that say they have some doubt about the "official story". This is not the same as "seeing right through it", nor is it based on anything other than opinion.
Even the zeitgeist movie has such blatant lies and misinformation that it makes it difficult to trust any of it. I wonder if the "majority of the rest of the world" believes everything in that propaganda piece?
Who controlled Congress back in 2002 ??
I assume by your question you are saying that because Republicans controlled Congress, that impeachment proceedings were impossible? So how many times were impeachment proceedings shot down by the Republican controlled Congress?
Posted by IOWEIGN at 02:50 PM : Oct 08, 2007
Well, there you have it. The supreme ruler of the world, Kofi Annan, said it was illegal. Did he also say that the actions taken in the oil-for-food scandal in which he was deeply involved was corrupt and illegal also? He surely didn''t have a conflict of interest, now did he?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 79 Comments