Galway Resists Propaganda Visit of US Ambassador to NUI Galway

by lateresponse Mon Dec 17, 2007 16:55

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2007/1130/1196....html
Madam, - I refer to the letter entitled "US ambassador at NUI Galway" (Nov 26th).
...
Were they equally "shocked" when we invited a human rights campaigner and former death-row inmate, Sunny Jacobs, to address the society on the subject of the death penalty? - Yours, etc, NUIG LAW SOC

the difference is that Sunny Jacobs was not promoting and defending, kidnap, torture, imperialism, invasion etc etc

by Yousuf - NUIG Fri Nov 23, 2007 21:30

I won I see, thats the way I like it.

by Yousuf - NUIG Sun Nov 18, 2007 00:35 uniteblasian at gmail dot com 0872729021

Ciaran, you say you are personally aware of my 'controversial past', why, has it mentally scarred you? Do you lie in bed, and suddenly you think of me and you're in tears, clutching your pillow and calling for your mother? Come on man, get real will you? Controversial? You make it sound like I've served 5 years in Belmarsh already, and that I'm only 2 behind Ayman Al-Zawhari ont he CIA'S most wanted list!!!! The truth of the matter is this, debate with ploiticians has done nothing so far in this world, those who have espoused pacifism have had their dreamlands ruined due to continual adherence to "Don't shout, Don't fight, Just listen". Martin Luther King had aimed for an ideal world, one only has to look at the after effects of Hurricane Katrina to see that his means have failed, this is coming from someone who idolises the man. Ghandhi used peaceful means too, but look at the trouble in Kashmir now? Had the African-Americans and the Indians properly stood up to their oppressors, and I mean do more than just shout and swear like I did, then maybe we'd be living in a different world. Ciaran you say you want to meet me, then fair enough, my email address, even my number is on my first comment up above, so feel free to contact me, I would like to discuss your views probably even uncover your right-wing leanings. All I am is someone who believes in justice, I am not interested in farting around and debating in circles, I believe in getting things done, ok people may say I let down my argument by behaving how I did, but I believe in what I believe in passionately, I'm not going to have my beliefs tossed aside by some piece of shit, if a message has to be spread then do it any way possible, bar using violence. Life is too short to wait for the fortunate few who hold power to listen to the common man, in what little time we have I intend to get myself heard even if it means doing it disrespectfully.

by adele pillay - arts(legal science) Sat Nov 17, 2007 21:32

i think that we all agree that there was others who also shouted out and spoke out of turn besides Yousuf. He was singled out because his remarks were the most nocticable. However people have made their points about that issue already therefore i think it is of no further need to keep discussing it or slandering Yousuf for his acions or even going to the extent and putting up sections of his bebo profile on this site.To whoever pasted that your point was certainly NOT PROVEN!!!!! In any case i hope that there are more productive debates which we all can engage in!!

by Ciarán LLB Sat Nov 17, 2007 20:26

Im glad to see the reaction that this issue has received..by and large. The debacle on Wednesday night has certainly sparked much debate on the NUIG campus, for that I thank all who comment. To those who have chosen to take me on, I will say that im glad my comments have really brought some interesting points out of you all. I will say this. I am a very liberally minded student who is a constant critic of many governments and their policies, not only the US gov and their unjust war and war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere, but even the Irish Gov and there practice of sitting on the fence. Sadly though, many of those who would agree with me on those issues go about bringing them up the wrong way-Wednesday was a prime example of this. By acting in such a manner, Yousuf, SOME of his supporters, and I stress SOME, AND ALSO the idiots who responded with racist slurs and inappropriate comments, only undermined the causes they and I support, I pick Yousuf out directly because I am aware of his controversial past personally. To Yousuf, you will know me if ou dont already. I will PEACEFULLY confront you about this issue..over a cup of tea or something and please..spare the insults! Thank you all

by zara Sat Nov 17, 2007 15:38

ok where do i begin... ciaran and dave if you had a problem with what happened that are night why did you guys not bring it to the attention of those people that your talking about online to them that night.. its easy to critisise a few handful of people when there were others aswell, i know for a fact because i was there and the people sitting in front of me were talkn out of turn, mumbling stuff, and yet nothing was said to them they walked out.. or how about the man who tried to have a fight with him in the middle of the debate... there is nothing been said about him. i mean if Mr foley isnt going to answer any questions why is he here, and this man is an ambassador of foreign policy he is always under pressure and he should be able to answer these questions because its not like this was his first debate and am sure these questions have been asked previously.. and to call others radicals is offensive when you dont know them well.... shame on you..

by ri - galway food not bombs Sat Nov 17, 2007 00:19

mr.foley deserves a cake, not just a "fuck off".

fucking hell, my friends, how in the world can you respect a person so full of shit as mr. foley? you've spent too much time in your goddamn academy where the words get said and nothing gets done. go buy yourself an armchair and let the spectacle go on.

by ADELE PILLAY - ARTS(legal science) Sat Nov 17, 2007 00:18 a.pillay1 at nuigalway dot ie

Firstly Ciaran i would gladly appreciate it if you can answer me this, what exactly made Yousuf's behaviour "radical" or is that just a a nice way of saying his an EXTREMIST??? and who by the way are his fellow RADICALS as you put it? i certainly do agree with you and others when you say that profunities were not needed, however can you say that the gentleman who approached Yousuf was right in his behaviour as well?? he also used fowl language and then i heared no intervence by anyone saying "we have rules" now was there? and futhermore Yousuf's previous history has absolutely nothing to do with the event at hand so i will kindly ask for you to make your point without dragging his name through the mud, people can make up their minds for themselves without your manipulation of the facts! You may of felt that Yousuf's refusal of re-entry was to your liking, however there was no substantial grounds for his refusal as he left out of his own free will .If his behaviour was such an OFFENSIVE problem then why was he not asked to leave in the first place? Another question i would like to bring to attention is the so call race card everyone is talking about, was it not rascist for ambassdor Foley to ask Yousuf if he was irish when he could very well hear that he sounds IRISH!!!! NO OTHER WHITE IRISH PERSON WAS ASKED THAT QUESTION!! NOW IS THAT NOT RACISM?? Moving on to Michael Mac, you agree with the ambassdor thats your perogative, however my only problem or should i say Ireland's only problem is that if you feel that Ireland should sent forces to iraq to eradicate the "scumbags" as you put it, i suggest that you should be the first to sign up on that Death list, as that is the only result war brings!!!

by Yousuf - NUIG Fri Nov 16, 2007 22:22

Ciaran, I don't know if I have ever met you, but you claim to be in a 2nd year class of mine where i issued a fatwa on Ireland?!! Lolz. Please my young friend, I believe you are talking about when me and the Dean of the law faculty, Donncha O'Connell, had a discussion over whether Ireland will suffer as a result of them not condemning the publication of the blasphemous cartoons in a danish magazine? The Dean came up to me afterwards and thanked me for my remarks and joked in front of everyone that, by saying Ireland could get into trouble over no condemnation, it would be a prime target, to which I responded that people could read it that way. Yes, thats me, the big radical, so radical that I have a girlfriend is that it? I mean everyone sees Anjum Choudary, Abu Hamza or Omar Bakri Mohammed sitting beside their girlfriends in a debate, don't they? Come on man, just because you don't like my aggressive way of putting across my point, please leave personal insults to yourself. I would never say such a thing about Ireland, I am half Irish, my surname is Loughnane for crying out loud!! I believe what others are trying to say is that, ok, call me a radical for my behaviour, but how can you call all the other asian people beside me radicals? They didn't do anthing, numerous people around the hall said much more stuff and laughed out loud and commented out of turn, yet they are not labelled radical, are they? One is led to believe that is because this row of people who are "radicals" all of a sudden are so because of their skin colour. Im sorry there is no other reason for it. I am not a violent man, if I was I would have fought with that man who wanted a fight with me. I was enraged by the ambassador and his refusal to answer questions, it was said he had accepted an offer to do so, but he didn't, this event was not put on for the public's benefit but for his, even though he came out of it looking like an eejit. I am not scathed, I have done so many things for minority groups in Galway, one being raising the issue of racism against african taxi divers, where i wrote letters into the galway advertiser, feel free to check this up. Please people, as well as being a student of law, i am a tutor in philosophy, i know what it is to be rational,its just that sometimes people need to see disrespect to get the message that not everyone will sit down and accept this world for the way it is, and i'll say it again, i must have done something right for so many people to congratulate me afterwards, and ask me to join them for debate.

by Yousuf - NUIG Fri Nov 16, 2007 21:30

Just to clear things up, it was Ciaran who made the racist radicals remark and not Dave.

by SD Fri Nov 16, 2007 21:07

I would like firstly to address the author of the original thread for condemning the Law Society for it's invitation of Ambassador Foley and indeed last years visit of the Israeli Ambassador Zion Evrony.
As was pointed out in the opening remarks of the Auditor one of the fundamental purposes of the Law society is to provide a forum for debate on legal and general issues. Was this visit in keeping with such an aim? The Law society brought the American ambassador to deliver a speach on ' American Foreign Policy'. It was his speach to deliver and it was then for the audience to reproach him on what they saw fit; ie a debate on legal and general issues. Quod erat demonstrandum.
This was not done with any particular agenda other than the aforementioned promotion of debate. So as to create an atmosphere for such discussion there was private members time, which took place in the presence of the Ambassador, where the topic was the Israeli/Palestenian conflict.
After the ambassadors speach followed 45 minutes of questions and answers, where those in attendance were given the opportunity to ask a question. Granted the ambassador did not treat many of the questions with due dilligence nor did he engage in a level corresponding to degree of research and the intelligence of many of the questions - having no option but to revert the question to the questioner. However debate was provided for- and the audience did see first hand a representative of the current US administration unable to provide answers for their pressing questions. What could one expect from a George W Bush 'Pioneer'? Silence is as close to an acknowlegement of guilt as one could hope for in such a situation. Anybody who came to the speech expecting an apology for US behaviour/actions could only be described as being naive as to how such talks operate. The Ambassador is a diplomat, it is his profession to be able to side-step such questions. The fact that we saw him under such pressure to answer the very relevant and well-researched questions of the house should be satisfaction enough.
I would point out that but for the Law society such an opportunity to heir one's views (either by protesting outside the theatre or by asking a quiestion inside) would not have been granted at all. By facilitating his visit people were allowed to so express their opinions. The visit also allowed for such issues as Abu Ghraib , renditions and the Iraqi war (among others) to be highlighted again.
I would also like to point out to 'Yousuf' that the reaction to your good self was not on grounds of your political views, as many shared and supported your opinions, nor was it on grounds of your race but because of your lack of respect and common decency. The people in attendance came to witness a debate not self-indulgent shouting and profanities. Many others felt equel levels of dusgust at the Ambassadors comments, but were albe to hold their tongue. you are not the only person who is concerned with these issues. You aer however the only person who brought shame onto the house on what what was otherwise a very interesting night. You seem to care for these issues and for that I applaud you, should you be able to detach ego from your point of view you may stand a better chance of being listened to and consequently answered in the future.
I would end by congratulating the society on a great event and hope there will be more of the same in the future.

by - Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:51

he never siad that i was behind him.he said fuck you all.k
and race is at the subject here with Dave(message no longer here)calling his friemds radicals when they never spoke out of turn.All they did was leave and that was quietly by the way.

by Observer - Student Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:42

Im afraid i have to agree with Ross having been sat near to Yousuf on the night in question, I found him aggressive and intimidating, haveing been asked to be quiet while ppl attempted to speak he respoded with " Ill break your Fu****g faces" (albeit in a low tone only those surrounding us heard it including the gentleman who thretened him , which I do not condone in any way )not exactly the non violent approach he boasts of, which was met by a not so savory response from anothe audience member.

Race was not and is not an issue in this debate had any person be they yellow pink or blue acted in that manner of course they would have been refused re entry, its all very easy to play the race card and ignore the real issue!!

by to confused Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:32

The message is no longer there.But it must have being someone who took it off why else would we be complaing about him using the term radicals.why else would Ciaran,
mine,Miss Hussain,Sandra and Sarah argue about him using the term radicals.This is not fair everyone should have seen what he said about his friends being radical.

by Ross - Independant Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:31

Im kinda confused here... I was there and in my opinion, the guy who was most disruptive (Yusuf im guessin) just made an ass of himself when he could have been puttin his point across. Maybe he is a radical as Ciaran says or maybe not .but to me he just sounds like a guy who doesnt know how to put his beliefs across properly and I think thats what Ciaran is really tryin to say.

by sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:27

it is ciaron who is saying that we are radicals and it was in daves msg but that has gone

by sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:24

will u plz answer the questions!!!...........you havent answered why you think his friends are radicals??Hmmm?? just coz they got up and left the hall they suddenly become radicals?? What kind of a logic is that? if you had any sense you would have been able to conclude that they left the hall to avoid voilence and to get away from the people who were saying racial stuff to us.........I think you owe us an apology for calling us radicals coz all i remember doing is sitting there listening to the speech and then PEACEFULLY getting up and leaving the hall coz of all the racial remarks being hurled at us. You also say that we spoke out of turn (and i donnot remember doing so,) What exactly was it that we said could you plz tell me.
Goodnight to all.

by Observer - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:22

Could someone please scroll up the page and actually read Daves comments i see no reference to radicals????

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:16

I can see Im getting drawn into a debate on semantics here which is not for the better. Im going to conclude my comments as such. Yousaf is a radical. He acted in a radical manner on Wednesday night, he disgraced himself, he did not put his point across very well. He is a radical now, he was a radical in 2nd year when he threatened the Irish people with terrorism in a class I shared with him and he will be a radical until he learns that that is not the way to put an argument forward. His current tactic only serves to undermine his cause. I suggest he change tac and realises what a disgrace he is as it stands. Good night all!!

by sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:16

other people spoke out of turn but you are not critisizing them..oh no! you just only wanna say stuff about us....may i ask why is that??? are they not radicals den too as you so UNkindly put it?

by Annie Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:15

I was there and as far as i remember they didnt speak out of turn,can you kindly tell me what they said out of turn.

by Annie Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:11

Oh and i forgot Ciaran i never mentioned your name i said it in general.But since you took offence to it then maybe you are the gulity person.

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:10

Ah Annie. You litte red haired rapscallion. Will you please read the comment above. I dont care what they said...they spoke out of turn and impeded debate. I dont care if they sang Waltzing Matilda

by sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:09

umm excuse you yosuf is not a disgrace!!! How dare you say that.....ok you want me to talk without using offensive language ok i will......now you stop saying stuff like that about yosuf and his friends....do you not know that saying someone is radical is also very offensive.

by Annie Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:07

What Im saying is that they impeded debate in an improper manner by shouting and being obtrusive.

What did they say plz do tell i'm waiting.

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:04

Annie. Your inaccuracy beggars belief. Please read my comments or anyone elses before commenting.

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:01

Sandra, they could have sang the Rose of Mooncoin for all I care. What Im saying is that they impeded debate in an improper manner by shouting and being obtrusive. Is that any way to act at a civilised discussion. Yousaf and his fellow radicals are radicals because of there radical actions, not because of there skin colour. The IRA were radical Irish people..ill admit that and im Irish. Why because of there actions. Look Sandra, I dont agree with US Policy or the negative sterotype of Muslims or any peoples. However, Yousaf et al. are living in a time when its hard to be Muslim, but that should give noone the right to act in such a manner. He is a disgrace!

by Annie Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:00

How stupid you are, do you not know that it is offensive to call coloured people radicals (especally if some of them are Muslims i can only presume that some of them are0)
just as it is wrong to call black people niggers.Grow up you know you shouldnt be calling people such names.

by Sandra Fri Nov 16, 2007 19:53

Actualy i really would want to know what slogans his friends (or shall i put it as Dave and Ciaran put it the radicals )said.What did they shout out or even say that was offensive.Many people walked in and out of the place so if his friends walked out quietly does thatmake them radical or is it because they were coloured.Tell what they did wrong and then i will say yes maybe it was'nt because they were coloured.Come on answer the question.

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 19:38

I find it quite interesting that you make some bland assumptions about my views on the subject matter. After all I never stated that I agreed with US foreign policy, I never stated that I was a Catholic or of any religion and I certainly did not not back up one word of what the ambassador said on the night. But I shall now set you straight Miss Hussein. I merely stated that debate, which the law society stands for and fosters was disrupted by radicals, regardless of religion or colour on the night. Debate is productive, is not class, colour or religion specific and is the ONLY way we can deal with such controversial issues. Yousaf and his fellow radicals impeded its course in an improper manner. It is great that those who protested did so, but i reserve such praise for those who did so in proper fashion, unlike Yousaf who once again has made a display of himself in front of the student body. All he has done is destroyed his own credibility by such action. I know I certainly wouldnt pay too much heed to what he says. I merely suggest to him and his supporters that they change tactics-change from radical shouting of slogans to engaging in debate. Even if the opponent fails to answer question adequately, simply pointing this out would have sufficed. There was no call for such RADICAL action...oh and lookk that word up Ms Hussein its an adjective not usually regarded as an insult.

by Miss Hussain!!! - Nuig Fri Nov 16, 2007 19:18

1st of all i would like to tell ciaran that my friend did not throw racist comments out!! so what gives him the right to post such a racist comment!! if not racist then xplain wht u mean by the term radicals??????
"his band of coffee-shop radicals went home patting each other on the back for pointlessly disrupting another meeting and impeding the course of an interesting debate..." just because we disagree with his views, jus because we stood by our friend!!! who gave you the bloody right to be using such terminology!! there were several irish people disagreeing with what he was saying.. there were people clapping for the group "non-coloured"..what would you call them?.. is there such a word to describe their behaviour if there is please tell me i would love to know.... wink wink!! am assuming you think that row was full of muslims only.. but let me correct you.. there were 2 catholics there backing yousaf up..so let me get this straight umm just because they were coloured does it mean they have to be muslim?.. isnt that a little racist?... just a doubt u know!!!!
i agree there was alot of disrespect shown towards the ambassador ,he was alone and he was here to represent the US..but let me tell you what drove yousaf mad...
1stly he couldnt answer any of the questions that were asked.. then whenever he said something, it was pro US..fair enough he is american he will back them up..no-one is shooting him for it. but his speach was full of thousands of lies too.. the people of ireland are not fully aware of what the americans are doing and have been doing!! now can u honestly tell me you know the entire story?..about palestine and what exactly happened???....his lies drove everyone mad!!! his stupid explanations made everyone mad!!! .. he never insulted the ambassador with aggressive language!! u can correct me if i am wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am waiting for it...we live in a democracy .. everyone has a right to express their opnions... so if yousaf expressed his opinion be it in n anger tone..he has a right to.. unless you can deny that ciaran!!!..

by Ciarán LLB Fri Nov 16, 2007 18:13

Well Done Sarah. You have achieved what Yousaf acheived at the meeting, taking it to a place where we no longer debate, but insult eachother and thus acheive nothing. Please learn to make your points without using offensive terms next time

by Sandra Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:45

Do you know what Dave did? he called his friends radicals how does he know that.Just because they walked out doesnt mean that they are radicals.

by Adam - Independent Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:42

bit hypocritical to write a comment as though it is impartial when thepersonyou are refering to in such impartial terms is standing over your shoulder dont you think??

by sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:41

what the hell are you on about? Yosuf was not an " incredibily offensive student" as you put it. he most certainly was not abusive sure you probably say dat f word every second of your stupid whiny little life so dont you be saying that its offensive and stuff like you've never heard that word before. sure there is bad language evrywhere even in movies and you dont go saying dat was offensive...so keep your shit to yourself and just get a life.

and plus he was not " highly aggresive " people were saying racist stuff to him and thats why he was defending himslf..wouldn't you do the same? obviosly you would but probably not in the decent manner that he did it. You probably would have picked a fight right there in the middle of the hall but Yosuf on the other hand left the room and decided to be the bigger man........and what is with the stupid rumour of him wanting to come back into the hall....why would he wanna come back? you people are sooo stupid he left to avoid violence and snide racial remarks and you dickheads probably think he went on a toilet break r something but he didnt and why would he wanna come back???

and he did not " defame" anyone. I was not defamed in any way at all. he does not need anger management but you on the other hand need racial management.

by Shane LLB - Independent Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:39

"Dave should be ashamed for his comments about this man even though he might have spoken out of hand"

The man spoke out of hand, you admit that yourself, Why Should dave apologise?

by Paddy Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:37

Dave you are a racist .I have never accused anyone in my life of being a racist.But you have earned this title congratulations.I saw your actions on that night they were a disgrace to the society, is this the new Ireland that we are all proud off?

by Sarah Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:30

I have to say that what yousuf said was not wrong he had excellant points on which no one could answer him ,if anyone could then probably the whole situation wouldn't have gotten out of hand.This was such a controversial man as he was a US Ambasador now how come people were suprised that something like this would have happened personaly speaking i wasnt suprised,in fact i was expecting something like this.Shame that Dave had to Label all his friends radicals and what did they do?They just showed their support for their friend.I found their behaviour acceptable as they didn't annoy anyone they just showed their support for their friend who wasn't wrong in his viewpoints. My message to Dave and everyone else is dont judge a person by who they hang around with, how they look because what you think might be completely wrong. I think Dave should be ashamed for his comments about this man even though he might have spoken out of hand and also for his offensive slur against his friends.

by Dave Fri Nov 16, 2007 16:05

"Finally, when the long-haired gentleman came outside he came over to me and started on me again, however the Guards decided that the right thing to do was to move me,with force I must say, amazing how the lighter-skinned man was left alone isn't it!"

Obviously you have your belief that a lot of your treatment was racially motivated but I just wanted to add something, though it's not related to the topic in hand.

Having been trained in martial arts, it was always said that in a situation where there was the possibility of a fight, you took the 'victim' away from the situation rather than the aggressor. It's better for diffusing a situation.

by anon a mouse - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 15:23

One Blood everybody, the names Yousuf or Joey, i"m half Pakistani/half irish but I look, think and act like a Paki. Okay I"ll cut to the chase, i"m a bit more politically active than your average leftist student, but hey a guy has gotta get worked up about sumthin...
My biggest ambition is to be 2pac"s replacement, or if that fails I"ll be a barrister. Imagine that - "your honour you"re a gonner, there aint no way that that dudes bent, jury think again or my angers what i"ll vent"
Yeah whatever......

on his bebo page, case proven

by john - llb Fri Nov 16, 2007 15:19

i wish to second the views expressed by Ciarán.
other students should not have to tolerate the actions of one individual nor suffer the consequences.

by Ciarán LLB - Independant Fri Nov 16, 2007 15:06

Once again, we the impartial, theopen-minded, might I even say the enlightened students of NUIG have been let down by the actions of one person. At an event after which many went home to debate, digest and discuss the issues brought up, one person and his band of coffee-shop radicals went home patting each other on the back for pointlessly disrupting another meeting and impeding the course of an interesting debate. Yousaf, what do you gain? Who did you persuade by your actions? When are you going to realise that debate and argument and not the insults and silly jargons that you read from a fundamentalist blog somewhere are the only way to put your views forward. I ask you, please do not turn up to another debate until you are prepared to debate. Please pass that message on to your fellow coffee-shop fundamentalists.

by jason greaney - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 14:24

readin through yousufs comments on the event in question, it is clear that he has a valid point, the ambassador sidestepped many questions put to him. this would enrage many. however it must be noted that when justice scalia visited the society a few years ago to deliver a presentation he too avoided and blatantly refused to answer the majority of questions put to him- he even went as far as to call one individual "a nutter" and refused point blank to answer his question. he even cut off donncha oconnell midway through his question and refused to deal with him. despite all this, which is on par with the ambassadors performance, no one purposely got at the ambassador or the crowd in any way or form in order that their question be answered. decorum was preserved.
sadly for the ambassadors visit, decorum was not preserved. there was no common courtesy given to the ambassador. it resembled jerry springer at times. it was a shame that sections of the crowd turned on onne individual. but we must ask ourselves-was it not to be expected? he took the bait hookline and sinker. he took personal offence to being hushed by people whose patience was being exhausted at his snide remarks. fair enough, you had a point and you made it. the ambassador ,as all "diplomats" do, avoided it. he was never under any obligation to answer your question or anybodys question. it was a debate, not a star chamber or an inquisition.
under what authority did you believe you had to get abusive and try to dominate the floor?
also, under what authority to you think you have to call a member of the lawsoc committee rascist for ignoring one of your friends? that is a very harsh and unfounded statement to make.
it is admirable that you have such good friends to stand by you. it is totally unaccetable that people would make rascist remarks at them as they left to stand by you.
finally, it was a shame that people only focused on the iraq element of us foreign policy. surely their foreign policy in relation to its treatment of south americans is worth a considerable degree of scrutiny too, is it not????

by simon johnson - erasmus student Fri Nov 16, 2007 14:05

i was at the debate,
it was clear the ambassador was sidestepping the serious questions, this however in my view did not warrant such dissent from the crowd in any shape or form. protest was obvious from the very moment it was advertised the ambassador would talk on us foreign policy.
one of the things i have learned in my yrs at college attending debates is to show respect for the speaker and the audience. put simply there are "house rules" to follow when attending a debate, same as any other event. abusive behavoiur should not be tolerated. if it were in the library or in the canteen or even the college bar, anyone with abusive language and such bad behaviour wouldbe asked to leave. its an issue of respect to all people present.
also, to call someone rascist for ignoring your friends is a pretty big accusation to make. since when did ignoring someone become the actions of a "rascist", a term i mylsef is thrown about very loosely these days.
it is pretty evident that the americans dont have full control over what they are doing in iraq, it is evident that it is the new vietnam. lives lost for no real reason. there is no such thing as a good or right or a just war. americans should be accountable for their actions. well done lawsoc for getting the ambassador.

by fintan queally - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 13:53

4yrs of research to say "fuck you all"....that says it all really

by Yousuf - NUIG Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:07

There is written evidence that this man was present when young Iraqi men were being slaughtered, thats enough for me to warrant abuse. Its amazing how my behaviour was picked up on but no one elses? Why did the ambassador say to me "i'm assuming you're Irish" when he said it to no one else. Blatant racism was an answer given to me by numerous people. What about the gentleman who wanted to start a fight with me, I never incited violence, I merely voiced opinions out loud, passed comment on verbal diarrhoea. What about the 3 men sitting in front of me, who after I left, made racist remarks to my South-African Indian girlfriend and my 3 other female Pakistani friends sitting beside her? Encourage debate? This society knew well that protest was going to happen, its recent events have been accompanied with low attendances, it had to try and rival the visit of Anjum Choudary to the Lit & Deb Society. Theres no point in asking him questions he'll never answer them, for the first 20 minutes I sat quiet, slowly preparing questions concerning research I had done over the past 4 years. However once he started to belittle things and utter obvious fallacies, it wasn't me but about 10-15 people behind me who started to laugh out loud and pass comment out of turn. I then realised that this man was not going to answer the questions asked, so I started to protest, as this was the only way he would realise that what he stands for is causing severe unrest amongst large parts of the population. When I decided to leave, it was not because of a toilet break, it must be great to make humorous remarks about serious things, it was because I could not stand anymore for his refusal to answer questions. It was at this stage that the right to refuse re-entry was invented, as I intended on going back in to hear him out. However, my friends then left to show solidarity with me but mentioned to me afterwards that as they walked up the stairs, numerous racial slurs were thrown at them. Once my girlfriend and her friend were outside they proceeded to talk with 2 members of the Law Society, one, John, was very nice but the other, who was wearing a white jumper over a shirt and tie, would not look at them throughout their speech. This man to me showed obvious signs of racism. Finally, when the long-haired gentleman came outside he came over to me and started on me again, however the Guards decided that the right thing to do was to move me,with force I must say, amazing how the lighter-skinned man was left alone isn't it!

by michael mac mathúna - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:20

fair play to the ambassador for coming to ucg to speak.
we do havev similar views on foreign policy. the biggest difference is that we haven got the weapons to after the scumbags in the world and we have our own oil-hup mayo!!
its great to see the work progressing in north west mayo, its a real coup for the county, it will create jobs and the economy will improve as a result.
i was at the debate for a bit but left because i was sick of listenin to that clown abuse everyone. im sure it was far from that sort of abusive language he was raised!
good work and hats off to the students of the nuig lawsoc, they put on a mighty show!!
more power to them

by joe mulqueen - student Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:13

any old eejit can have a fit. the abuse and pure contempt by "yousuf" was totally childish. im glad he was refused re-entry, what an idiot. what point was he trying to make?
im a member of the law society myself, he broke the house rules with obvious blatant disregard for them and all those present. i dont think his actions were justified.

by aidan chuke - an academic Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:08

to all.
the debate was great, even for non law students like myself, in to see a good debate. i thought the ambassador was a brave man to stand so firmly by his speach and reaffirm his belief. i thought he spoke well and delivered a great talk. though some of his answers were not water-tight it was still a good performance.
it was a shame that lad tried to ruin it. it was a very selfish act.
his language and demeanour are highly offensive. his childish behaviour at a debate was pathetic. he should be ashamed of himself -anyone can have a tantrum and use bad language. real men, can hold their tongue and use their composure coupled with their intelligence.
as someone who was in the audience and watching his silly act , im glad he were not let back in after his little toilet break, no doubt he couldnt contain himself.
its encouraging to hear that he intends to ruin another lawsoc debate. what a hero. what a guy. take a bow little angry man.

by Dave - Law Society Fri Nov 16, 2007 08:37

The disruption of an event by one or two individuals cannot be allowed to take away from the overall event. That particular gentleman did not do his argument any justice by telling everyone "where to go", insulting other students posing questions and indeed insulting the speaker. Societies are voluntary organisations that hold events like this in order to benefit the students of the university. ALL students. Those who contribute through protesting should and are welcomed, provided they observe decency and respect. That did not happen at the Law Society in relation to one gentleman, and as such, he was refused re entry. The apology was issued for his belief that the refusal was unjustified, not for the refusal itself.

by doug - GAAW Fri Nov 16, 2007 03:09 Galway

Two Iranians who came to the talk brought their country's flag. I don't know if they were students, but the public was invited. Some in the US administration have been threatening to attack their country. So i suppose they had a good reason to come to hear about official US foreign policy and to patriotically show their flag.

by Yousuf - NUIG Fri Nov 16, 2007 01:31 uniteblasian at gmail dot com 0872729021

To the above writer I was the student who apparently needed anger management, and afterwards, considering the fact that almost 30 different people came up to me and shook my hand, I believe the way I acted was the right thing to do. Scum like that ambassador don't deserve respect especially if they are going to answer questions with questions, as well as use colloquialisms to belittle the tragedy that has resulted becasue of US foreign policy. Concerning my refusal to be let in again, the auditor apologised to me on behalf of the whole Law Society, of which i am a member, as they have the right to refuse entry but they have no right to refuse re-entry,no such right exists. The man who attempted to start a fight with me apologised to me and begged for my hand to shake. Concerning my apparent 'fuck off' to the whole audience, it was pointed out to me that if you had been someone who had agreed with what I was saying then you would not have been offended by my verbal assault, it was merely aimed at those who were too scared to say anthing and were now getting at me due to their support for that excuse for an ambassador. Thank you all,and don't worry I'll be back again, to ruin another debate!!

by tom bonk - nuig Thu Nov 15, 2007 23:34

well done ucg law society!
it was agreat and brave move by this young group of dedicated students to invite mr foley to the university. the topic of debate was even better-a real coup for the university.
it was a good debate and the students really got involved.
credit to all in the society, even those who managed to keep order in the house and even refuse re-entry to the incredibly offensive student that defamed those present and was highly aggressive. what he repesents is anyones guess, anger management maybe?
once again, well done law soc, without such controversial speakers then there would be no protest, no protest = lack of awareness.
ucg law society, devils advocate!!

by What the???? Thu Nov 15, 2007 20:25

Why be at the protest where you have a Iranian flag. A country that who's revolutionary guard persecutes its people tramples on women's rights and dont forget the execution of gay citizens.

by redjade Thu Nov 15, 2007 15:32

'From August, 2003 through March, 2004, Mr. Foley served in Iraq as the Director of Private-Sector Development for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Mr. Foley had responsibility for overseeing Iraq's state-owned enterprises, developing foreign trade and investment, and advising Iraqi Ministries on developing a private-sector economy. Mr. Foley received the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award in June, 2004 for his service in I'

US State Dept BIOGRAPHY of Thomas C. Foley
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/75194.htm

If you watch the documentary 'No End In Sight' about the early days of the US occupation of Iraq - you will see how ill prepared brainiacs like Foley were. Obviously he wasn't punished for his incompetance, but promoted for it - he was given a role to supervise the first link in the military supply chain outside of North America on the way to Iraq - a little island named Ireland.

US Amb Thomas C. Foley

by TD - IPSC Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:09

As I could'nt attend Foley's spiel, below is Doug's (Galway Alliance Against War) articulate account of what transpired inside Cairnes Theatre.

Security was'nt as tight as for the visit of the Israeli Ambassador - bags, etc, were'nt allowed into the lecture theatre but tolerated on the concourse.

United States Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas C. Foley, gave a talk defending US foreign policy to a public meeting of the NUIG Law Society Wednesday evening. His thesis was that US foreign policy had not changed during the Bush years, but remained based on promotion of democracy and human rights world-wide, opposition to terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and stabilizing unstable regions around the world. He explained that the European population had strongly moved from support to opposition of US policy because the Bush Administration's policy was no longer the Eurocentric policy that the US had maintained since World War
I, not because of any basic disagreement with the goals of that policy. He reminded the audience that the US was the largest foreign aid donor.

He found it remarkable that the world public supported the US war on Afghanistan after 9/11, but opposed the war on Iraq, which was waged, not only for the same reasons, but also because it was a nation which (the US mistaken thought) had nuclear weapons and threatened its neighbors.

He was pleased that the governments of France and Germany, which has so objected to US foreign policy five years ago had now changed position and come around to support it, but regretted that their publics remained opposed. Ambassador Foley showed no awareness that praising governments for opposing the popular will was inconsistent with his earlier support of
"democracy".

Although he was explaining the basis for US foreign policy the phrases "national interest" and "US interests" did not cross his lips. US foreign policy was presented purely as intended to improve the lot of the people of the world.

The almost-packed house politely sat through twenty minutes of a presentation that many later described as "insulting", "arrogant", and
"unbelievable", before launching into a bruising question-and-answer period, with all but the closing question hostile. In many cases the questions received sustained applause while the answers received none.

Ambassador Foley, a businessman who was awarded a position to privatize Iraq's industry early in the occupation and then the ambassadorship to Ireland after raising over $100,000 for George Bush's 2000 campaign, struggled to answer numerous critiques of US foreign policy. He admitted not knowing about US trade policy with Africa, and dismissed some events presented as background to questions as occurring before he started representing US policy (which he has done for less than five years).

The audience was unable to supress its reaction to some of the ambassador's responses to questions: that rendition flights are legal, that the US respects international law, that everyone believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, that the US doesn't torture, ..., and had to be reminded time and again not to verbally respond during what the moderator described as a debate (between the audience and Amb. Foley).

Among the issues brought up were the following:

* Renditions -- The ambassador first mentioned Bertie Ahern's claim that rendition flights did not go through Ireland, but when it was pointed out that the charge was that flights on their way to or from renditions passed
through Ireland, he ended up denying that also -- despite recorded evidence to the contrary.

* US military flights through Shannon -- In response to a question objecting to the US military using Shannon to support US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan as violating Ireland's neutrality, Foley replied that later UN resolutions authorizing the continued occupation of Iraq made such flights legal under international law.

* One questioner reported talking to a US Sergeant in Shannon Airport who was returning from an extended (year and a half) tour in Iraq who said that the war was being waged for oil. The Ambassador replied that there is no reason to expect that US troops know why they are fighting a war.

* US harboring a terrorist who bombed a Cuban airliner killing 72 people -- this part of a question was ignored.

* Abu Ghraib -- Foley claimed that the abuse shown in the released photographs were not US policy.

* Cuba -- Foley said that the US embargo on Cuba would be reviewed by the US government when it felt it appropriate.

* Assassinations of foreign leaders -- Foley claimed that the US doesn't do this, that it is against the law, and that a president that did so
would go to jail. He failed to admit that the US has engaged in assassinations and assassination attempts in the past. He remarked,
"Castro is still alive", ignoring the numerous US-sponsored assassination
attempts on him. He did not explain how a president, who is the Attorney General's boss and who if all else fails could pardon himself, could be sent to jail.

* Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq -- Foley did not recognize that the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force against Afghanistan gave the US attack there a legitimacy that its war on Iraq lacked due the Security Council's refusal to pass a similar authorizing resolution.

* War on Iran -- There is strong evidence that the US has been preparing for a military strike on Iran: extra aircraft carriers being sent to the region, additional marines being sent to ships in the Persian Gulf who are not being stationed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, a propaganda campaign against Iran mirroring that against Iraq in 2002-2003, and leaks of war plans. Foley avoided answering a question as to whether the US is actually planning such an attack, responding with a question about whether
Iran should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons.

* Iran's nuclear program -- Iran has the right under the non-proliferation treaty to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or production of highly enriched uranium (which could be used for nuclear weapons). As long as enrichment plants are under IAEA inspections they would be unable to secretly produce highly enriched uranium. Confronted with this information, the ambassador replied with his own question -- whether the asker would oppose Iran producing nuclear weapons. In the back-and-forth he avoided even renewing his claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, much less provided evidence for such a claim.

In defense of his claim of US Eurocentrism, Ambassador Foley explained Clinton's war on Yugoslavia over Kosovo, as in support of the million Kosovars who fled Yugoslav forces, neither recognizing that they did not flee until the US bombing attacks started, nor that people were fleeing the bombs as well as the federal troops.

People picked up their bags outside the doors to the lecture hall on the way out where they had been left in a pile "for security's sake".

by Mark C Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:01

Just a question. Were bags banned from the hall, like last year, for security reasons (suicide bombings I presume, against the Israeli Ambassador - sure we're all at it now)?

Mark.

by TD - IPSC Thu Nov 15, 2007 09:56

5

Dette (SWP)

NUIG academic and stalwart activist, Maggie (second from right) and troops

Another sui generis activist; Maureen G (Workers Solidarity) and two SWP activists attired in Guantanamo Bay chic

Black Pope's (Eoin Rice) Armageddon brainchild attracted oodles of attention

"Ri" (Galway Food Not Bomb) on left

by jamie - sligo Thu Nov 15, 2007 09:52

well done to all involved, keep up the good work
how did the event itself go, was there an opportunity to make interventions and challenge the speaker from the floor