freedom of speech does not justify terrorism of legitimate students. they closed down the campus and he was responsible for closing down the students who were legitimate enrolled students. h e broke the law and should be deported.
One more thought … that the green-card holder has a gentle demeanour does not mean he is not a propagandist for terrorist. The aholes in Qatar dress in silk suits and use a knife and fork when they eat and smile a lot - but they are still jihadist murderers. As they say, “t’s the quiet ones one needs to be careful with.”
Oh but it has long begun. I was speaking with a friend yesterday about this very topic. My friend felt this would hurt us and disagreed with the extrajudicial aspect, and that it would all cause a chilling effect. My feeling is that we’re already being hurt and it has not stopped. Also, we are not responsible for what that Orange Maggot does, even if he claims it is in our name. But we’ll get blamed for anything so whatever. That aside, addressing the growing swell on the far Left that defends, attempts to justify and celebrates Jihadism requires some kind of action that, unfortunately, the Dems never took (another reason I think they failed in the election). My friend was also concerned about the “chilling” effect. Frankly, if people who are pro-jihadists are chilled to STFU and leave space for other saner, centrist and sane lefty voices to speak up, they might latch on to that new trend. I;m ok if Columbia doesn’t get its $400M until it cleans up its act. It had a lot of time (DECADES!) to do something about the antisemtism on that campus and it didn’t. The money can either go to other institutions that are, hopefully progressive and not extremist or it can come back to Columbia when they rid themselves of source of the stench. This is an excerpt from a letter I’m writing to my friend:
I’m weary and wary of the new version of forced conversions being inflicted on us from those who feel it is normal to say things like “I have no problem with Jews, just Zionists., and the only acceptable Jew is one who denounces/renounces Israel, chants genocidal euphemisms of from the River to the Sea and never mentions Jihadsit terrorism”.
Jews who defer to those people are, if one might risk committing the sin of a relativist historical comparison*, are the Conversos of the Far Left. They are typically desperate to be accepted by the very people who seek to dominate them and have them turn their backs on their own and bow to their new god (in this case, a rigid extremist ideology political ideology that assumes it is the only path to righteousness … a bit like the Catholics of the medieval times and long after … and the Jihadists of today).”
*I was disgusted with how On the Media one of my longtime favourite NPR shows (until October 7, 2023) sooner a good chunk of time this weekend referring to the this current case of an antisemitic jihadists terrorist defender as a critic of a kind of McCarthyism. That is one failure to understand the vastness of differences between the two. (And that followed my now ex-infatuation of Scott Simon doing his sincere sad voice talking to someone who interviewed that terrorist-loving PoS, immediately after a very brief interview with Chuck Schumer about his new book (but not before casting him aside for being stuck between a rock of far lefties and hard palace of governing fascists - all of whom are antisemites). I guess we should feel grateful that they finally spoke to a Jew who is not a right-winger or a leftie antisemite. Schumer is a smart, diligent, righteous mensch and one of the hardest working politicians the U.S. has ever had. It says something that he had to write a book on top of everything else - because there is so little mainstream media coverage that really delves into it at all or stays with it. (I’ve just started the book.)
it makes sense This seems to be a show of superiority in belief systems since it is “Belief” it can be sustained by the similar belief supporters; a conundrum (in some respect) circular self promoting self feeding like the snake swallowing its own tail @Jim Acosta although it is like that it is destructive because it encircles and gathers momentum @Eric Topol @Ben Zimmer (at least that is how I am describing the current events )?1 way would be to stop everything for a duration and re-examine more objectively @Eli Lake later
wow, your nuanced approach resonates very much, Gary.. through my role in media, i have met some of the brightest minds in military and beyond. The 2 who stand out are Adm William McRaven and Stanley McChrystal.
a lesson that stands with me is to have clarity of purpose and that each stage of a war must align with that clarity. Goals/objectives may change but clarity can never be obfuscated.
it's too early to tell if the missile attacks of Monday night were done with clarity of objectives or not. to be honest, while i have strongly supported Israel and emphatically believe that Hamas can never be allowed to govern again, where i'm torn is on whether these missile attacks help or hurt our goals and our broader purpose. Who precisely are we targeting? Are we taking efforts to minimize civilian casualties? Do we even care about civilian casualties? How are future attacks going to impact on our relationships with the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, UAE and other Arab countries that we've developed at least some relationship with? i could go on but i've found very little publicly that tells me Israel's leadership has a clear direction.
at the same time, HAmas seems perfectly content to let their people start, die, etc... they never have nor will care about their own citizenry. From a public relations, i would hammer home in every interview that to end this war, Hamas simply has to return our hostages - both living and not - and to resign from gov't.... in exchange, Israel will agree to save exits for their remaining leadership to live in other countries.
Exactly. The issue -- as is often the case -- is how this is/was/will be done. To be truly effective, the government -- any government -- must make its case publicly over matters of law. There was illegal trespassing, disruption of classes, ignoring safety protocols, etc. Thus, people -- including everyone who broke into the particular classroom discussed (and it was a "break-in") should be punished to the extent allowed by the law.
Protest legally and say things that I harshly oppose? That's within your right and that's not something for which you should be prosecuted. To say that his words were a threat to U.S. foreign policy is a joke as well as a very dangerous road upon which to travel.
You never bothered to argue the point that Trump administrations deporting a supporter of terrorism is backfiring. The same antisemetic forces on the left that share his views are the same forces that ensured Trump’s election.
You have an unnamed Columbia professor that agrees he should be deported but for trespassing. Trump’s own economic advisors concede his idiotic economic policies will cause a recession. The stock market is in free fall , where only Trump’s insiders benefit by trading ahead of the market.
Beside the point? No. You need to show how deportation is galvanizing anti-Trump support and citing one anonymous professor and one article in the Atlantic is to be expected. Your comments section shows there will be arguments about tactics on any issue. Trump is an incompetent grifter. His many screwups will invite organized opposition. Where’s the beef supporting your premise that deporting a green card holder for his pro-terror, antisemitic advocacy is increasing that opposition-as opposed to his ignoring the Judiciary, destroying the economy or his isolationism?
You might look more closely at the weird law the govt is using on this guy. It says nothing about speech. It’s a purposely vague law from the McCarthy era, designed to let the gov’t expel non-citizen communists. It says any alien who is pursuing activities that the State Dept believes could have adverse foreign policy consequences, is deportable. Nothing in there about speech. This frees the gov’t from attacking what he said, which is probably protected speech, and instead focus on who funded him, and who he associated with. All the clamor about the violation of his free-speech rights is off the mark. Don’t be distracted.
freedom of speech does not justify terrorism of legitimate students. they closed down the campus and he was responsible for closing down the students who were legitimate enrolled students. h e broke the law and should be deported.
One more thought … that the green-card holder has a gentle demeanour does not mean he is not a propagandist for terrorist. The aholes in Qatar dress in silk suits and use a knife and fork when they eat and smile a lot - but they are still jihadist murderers. As they say, “t’s the quiet ones one needs to be careful with.”
Oh but it has long begun. I was speaking with a friend yesterday about this very topic. My friend felt this would hurt us and disagreed with the extrajudicial aspect, and that it would all cause a chilling effect. My feeling is that we’re already being hurt and it has not stopped. Also, we are not responsible for what that Orange Maggot does, even if he claims it is in our name. But we’ll get blamed for anything so whatever. That aside, addressing the growing swell on the far Left that defends, attempts to justify and celebrates Jihadism requires some kind of action that, unfortunately, the Dems never took (another reason I think they failed in the election). My friend was also concerned about the “chilling” effect. Frankly, if people who are pro-jihadists are chilled to STFU and leave space for other saner, centrist and sane lefty voices to speak up, they might latch on to that new trend. I;m ok if Columbia doesn’t get its $400M until it cleans up its act. It had a lot of time (DECADES!) to do something about the antisemtism on that campus and it didn’t. The money can either go to other institutions that are, hopefully progressive and not extremist or it can come back to Columbia when they rid themselves of source of the stench. This is an excerpt from a letter I’m writing to my friend:
I’m weary and wary of the new version of forced conversions being inflicted on us from those who feel it is normal to say things like “I have no problem with Jews, just Zionists., and the only acceptable Jew is one who denounces/renounces Israel, chants genocidal euphemisms of from the River to the Sea and never mentions Jihadsit terrorism”.
Jews who defer to those people are, if one might risk committing the sin of a relativist historical comparison*, are the Conversos of the Far Left. They are typically desperate to be accepted by the very people who seek to dominate them and have them turn their backs on their own and bow to their new god (in this case, a rigid extremist ideology political ideology that assumes it is the only path to righteousness … a bit like the Catholics of the medieval times and long after … and the Jihadists of today).”
*I was disgusted with how On the Media one of my longtime favourite NPR shows (until October 7, 2023) sooner a good chunk of time this weekend referring to the this current case of an antisemitic jihadists terrorist defender as a critic of a kind of McCarthyism. That is one failure to understand the vastness of differences between the two. (And that followed my now ex-infatuation of Scott Simon doing his sincere sad voice talking to someone who interviewed that terrorist-loving PoS, immediately after a very brief interview with Chuck Schumer about his new book (but not before casting him aside for being stuck between a rock of far lefties and hard palace of governing fascists - all of whom are antisemites). I guess we should feel grateful that they finally spoke to a Jew who is not a right-winger or a leftie antisemite. Schumer is a smart, diligent, righteous mensch and one of the hardest working politicians the U.S. has ever had. It says something that he had to write a book on top of everything else - because there is so little mainstream media coverage that really delves into it at all or stays with it. (I’ve just started the book.)
Thank you for writing this piece, though!
it makes sense This seems to be a show of superiority in belief systems since it is “Belief” it can be sustained by the similar belief supporters; a conundrum (in some respect) circular self promoting self feeding like the snake swallowing its own tail @Jim Acosta although it is like that it is destructive because it encircles and gathers momentum @Eric Topol @Ben Zimmer (at least that is how I am describing the current events )?1 way would be to stop everything for a duration and re-examine more objectively @Eli Lake later
wow, your nuanced approach resonates very much, Gary.. through my role in media, i have met some of the brightest minds in military and beyond. The 2 who stand out are Adm William McRaven and Stanley McChrystal.
a lesson that stands with me is to have clarity of purpose and that each stage of a war must align with that clarity. Goals/objectives may change but clarity can never be obfuscated.
it's too early to tell if the missile attacks of Monday night were done with clarity of objectives or not. to be honest, while i have strongly supported Israel and emphatically believe that Hamas can never be allowed to govern again, where i'm torn is on whether these missile attacks help or hurt our goals and our broader purpose. Who precisely are we targeting? Are we taking efforts to minimize civilian casualties? Do we even care about civilian casualties? How are future attacks going to impact on our relationships with the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, UAE and other Arab countries that we've developed at least some relationship with? i could go on but i've found very little publicly that tells me Israel's leadership has a clear direction.
at the same time, HAmas seems perfectly content to let their people start, die, etc... they never have nor will care about their own citizenry. From a public relations, i would hammer home in every interview that to end this war, Hamas simply has to return our hostages - both living and not - and to resign from gov't.... in exchange, Israel will agree to save exits for their remaining leadership to live in other countries.
Exactly. The issue -- as is often the case -- is how this is/was/will be done. To be truly effective, the government -- any government -- must make its case publicly over matters of law. There was illegal trespassing, disruption of classes, ignoring safety protocols, etc. Thus, people -- including everyone who broke into the particular classroom discussed (and it was a "break-in") should be punished to the extent allowed by the law.
Protest legally and say things that I harshly oppose? That's within your right and that's not something for which you should be prosecuted. To say that his words were a threat to U.S. foreign policy is a joke as well as a very dangerous road upon which to travel.
You never bothered to argue the point that Trump administrations deporting a supporter of terrorism is backfiring. The same antisemetic forces on the left that share his views are the same forces that ensured Trump’s election.
You have an unnamed Columbia professor that agrees he should be deported but for trespassing. Trump’s own economic advisors concede his idiotic economic policies will cause a recession. The stock market is in free fall , where only Trump’s insiders benefit by trading ahead of the market.
Beside the point? No. You need to show how deportation is galvanizing anti-Trump support and citing one anonymous professor and one article in the Atlantic is to be expected. Your comments section shows there will be arguments about tactics on any issue. Trump is an incompetent grifter. His many screwups will invite organized opposition. Where’s the beef supporting your premise that deporting a green card holder for his pro-terror, antisemitic advocacy is increasing that opposition-as opposed to his ignoring the Judiciary, destroying the economy or his isolationism?
You might look more closely at the weird law the govt is using on this guy. It says nothing about speech. It’s a purposely vague law from the McCarthy era, designed to let the gov’t expel non-citizen communists. It says any alien who is pursuing activities that the State Dept believes could have adverse foreign policy consequences, is deportable. Nothing in there about speech. This frees the gov’t from attacking what he said, which is probably protected speech, and instead focus on who funded him, and who he associated with. All the clamor about the violation of his free-speech rights is off the mark. Don’t be distracted.