March 21, 2007

Professor Who Calls for War Against Iran Will Speak at George Mason U.

A historian with controversial views on Iran will get his chance to speak at George Mason University after all. John D. Lewis, an assistant professor of history at Ashland University, in Ohio, had been scheduled to deliver a lecture last month at the Virginia university, “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.”

The speaking invitation was withdrawn after Muslim students allegedly protested and the university discovered that the talk’s sponsor, the Objectivist Club, had let its charter lapse. The College Republicans’ campus chapter then signed on as co-sponsor, and Mr. Lewis will give the lecture on April 24.

In it, according to an advertisement for the talk, he will argue that “if Americans want to end the threats against their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy — beginning with the Islamic State of Iran.” —Jennifer Howard

Comments

1. We are already at war with Iran and have been since 1979 when radicals seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This was a violation of international law and an act of war. Since then Iran has sanctioned, endorsed, and applauded acts of terrorism designed to weaken and destroy the “Great Satan.”

   — Martin Slann    Mar 21, 01:45 PM    #

2. No, America has been at war with iran since the CIA organised the coup in the 1950’s, which installed the shah. Since then, Iran has hated America

   — wtf Martin    Mar 21, 06:16 PM    #

3. I agree with wtfMartin. Besides, is the Iraq war going so well that starting a war with Iran is such a great idea? Whatever happened to diplomatic solutions?

   — CMG    Mar 22, 05:26 AM    #

4. delighted at the Muslim students’ group integration in the new American cultural pluralism——yell like hell and refuse to listen if you are in danger of hearing something or someone you do not agree with. Perhaps a basis for reconcilation with certain of the Jewish groups active on our campuses

   — norman birnbum    Mar 22, 06:26 AM    #

5. William James (1842-1910) stated “Let no youth have any anxiety about the upshot of his education, whatever the line of it may be. If he keeps faithfully busy each hour of the working day he can safely leave the final result to itself. He can count on waking up some fine morning to find himself one of the most competent people of his generation in whatever pursuit he has singled out.” Leaders from around the world must decide what kind of legacy they plan to leave for future generations.

   William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
   Professor
   PhD Program in Educational Leadership
   Prairie View A&M University/Member of the Texas A&M University System

   Editor-in-Chief
   NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS
   (Founded 1983)
   Over 4,000 Professors Published
   www.nationalforum.com

   — William Allan Kritsonis, PhD    Mar 22, 10:07 AM    #

6. So, what’s your point? Do you suggest that Professor Lewis is correct – that our legacy must be that we eliminated (or tried to eliminate) the threat to western society posed by radical political Islam, or is it that we must allow radical Islam to continue to thrive unimpeded, regardless of the threat? After all, isn’t radical Islam just the manifestation of an alternative cultural perspective? As liberal educators, shouldn’t we accept all cultural perspectives as valid – especially those that have been around for centuries?

   — Floyd Bowles    Mar 22, 11:57 AM    #

7. It remains to be seen whether “political Islam” is the hegemonic beast as was Naziism and whether John Lewis is a war monger or a prophet. Certainly, if the leader of Iran calls for the destruction of the United States, Iranians should have no complaints about a college speaker warning his fellow countrymen about this threat and advocating war against a potentially lethal enemy.

   — Monk    Mar 22, 12:08 PM    #

8. I don’t think it remains to be seen at all. “Political Islam,” as John Lewis calls it, and Naziism are branches that grow from the same poisonous tree. Hitler never publicly called for the destruction of the United States, so why should we expect that from Ahmadinejad? On September 30th, 1938, Chamberlain agreed not to oppose Hitler in his takeover of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, foolishly believing this would appease Hitler, who promised not to go further. Less that a year later, on September 1st 1939, German tanks rolled into Poland in the now famous “Blitzkreig”, beginning the most destructive and deadly war the world has ever known. Ahmadinejad is cut from the same cloth as Hitler. Ahmadinejad, who has, by the way, publicly stated that the Holocaust never took place, cannot be believed, must not be appeased, and must be contained. Tens of millions of people were killed as a result of World War II, and many times that were permanently injured or lost everything. Today, the stakes are much, much greater.

   The evil and hatred that defined Naziism, and now defines radical or “political” Islam, has always existed and always will exist. If left unchecked, it will grow until its perpetrators feel they have the strength to conquer the naiive and unsuspecting, those well meaning souls who believe that words can solve all ills. The problem is that our society is losing its will to defend our way of life.

   Wars are not fought to preserve the peace (an idiotic concept sometimes expressed during the Vietnam years). Wars are fought to defend life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. Anyone who wants war is a psycohpath. We must recognize, however, that war is being thrust upon us from someone who hates us and wants to destroy our way of life. If we are not willing to defend that way of life at all costs, we are doomed to lose it.

   — Floyd Bowles    Mar 23, 09:48 AM    #

9. Floyd’s post is a great answer to CMG’s “Whatever happened to diplomatic solutions?” My answer was simply going to be, “Ask Neville Chamberlain”.

   — Catherine Carl    Mar 23, 11:15 AM    #

10. Nothing can be more wrong than the idea that the United States is at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran like many other arab nations nationalized American oil company property, in which American oil companies bought land, brought in their geologists, and built everything that made American oil great in the middle east, only to be nationalized.

    Like the Saudis the Islamic Republic of Iran stole most of its oil by nationalizing what was American property, which is the initiation of physical force.

    So from 1940-1960, way before the hostage crisis, the United States has had the moral obligation, infact, a moral imperative, to use retaliatory force against those who initiate its use [Iran] who were initiating force against US citizens.

    The United States especially since a more flagrant declaration of war, where Iran attacked US soil militarily in 1979, has never done anything more than crashing a few helicopters in the desert — that’s not what I call war…

    What we need is a war against Iran, the enemy is not terrorism, terrorism is a tactic, it’s a very useful one if you need to save American lives and bomb Hiroshima.

    The enemy is never kamikazes, or German tanks, it is what drives them, the ideology, Japanese Imperialism, Nazism and in this case — Radical Totalitarian Islam.

    What is the major victory of this Radical Totalitarian Islamist expansionist movement?

    The Islamic universe that is the Islamic Republic of Iran…

    and what would retaliating for 9.11 really encapsulate?

    Taking out that beacon of hope for their cause and demoralizing them.

    It took flattening dresden to show those blinded by their ideology the undenyable consequence of their hateful ideology — it will take an ultimatum, and if that is not met, assuming we would have an America where the government acted in its own self-interests rather than sacrificing its soldiers so the Iraqis can have sewers — then the United States should absolutely annihilate the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Here’s some perspective…

    Iran attacked the United States.

    The United States has not retaliated.

    The United States has not properly retaliated for 9.11.

    Any civilian casualties that result from war with Iran is the moral responsibility of Iran, since Iran attacked the United States first, simple.

    — Peter Brown    Mar 24, 02:22 AM    #

11. Meaningful discussions respecting all views must take place. Practical solutions must be implemented that benefit everyone.

    William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

    — William Allan Kritsonis, PhD    Mar 30, 04:42 PM    #

Previous: Smoke Incident at Boston U. Lab Raises Fears About New Facility
Next: Homeopathic Degree in Britain Puts Scientific Gloss on Nonscientific Dross, Critics Say