Your answers:
1) For the most part, nobody did any travelling. It's NY. You get on the subway.
2) Who said they wanted to prove something? They wanted to be heard.
3) They didn't exactly protest one person. Most people protested against the campus. Some protested against the Iranian regime. Some protested against Bush or whomever. For those that protested against Columbia, it was the fact that they gave him a podium and for those that protested against the Iranian regime (not just one person), it ranged from the abuse of women, homosexuals, jews, other minority groups.
4) Again, I didn't see or hear anyone talking about an end result. They wanted to be heard and to let the Iranian president know those actions were unacceptable and they were upset that Columbia had let him speak. Columbia went as far as introducing the president as a tyrant before his speech so perhaps they saw eye to eye in the end.
5) You ask derivations of the same question over and over and I'm getting tired of providing the same answer, but read the previous responses.
If this has to do with your issues over Jena, I don't see how the two are related. I don't think anti-Iranian protestors objected to your anger over Jena. But then again you wouldn't mind my being murdered so I don't know if you have any logic to your thoughts anymore.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
here is my question and this may sound familiar to some...the
Why did a whole bunch of people travel all this distance to Columbia to protest?
What did it prove?
What was the purpose of protesting one isolated person out of all the people in the world that you could protest?
What did you all think would be the end result of this protest would be....?
and I forgot to add...what is the relevance of having a protest if this gentleman lives so far away that what he does is of no relevance to you.
just a thought.
|