David Horrowitz encounters genocidal Muslim student.

[Virus]

Clip from the Q&A session of a speech.



Why is she asking for proof that the Muslim Students Association supports terrorists when she admits to supporting Hamas? That's pretty dumb isn't it?

Her comment at the end was the most chilling. She even started to get into a victimhood whine before Horowitz rightly cut her off.

Apparently her teacher defended her in the comments section of Horrowitz's blog:

“This girl is actually my student,” A. Casavantes wrote in the comments’ section of Horowitz’s NewsReal blog. “I know her to be an intelligent, moral young woman who believes in peace. I do not support any organization that advocates violence against any specific group, nor do I believe that my student would do so. As a peace loving, Catholic teacher, I’m saddened that this speaker — her elder — manipulated the conversation in this fashion to make her look like someone she isn’t, out of an egotistical desire to prove his own point, rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue.”

Apparently you can call for the murder of all Jews and still be considered an "intelligent, moral person who believes in peace". Hey, maybe she does really believe in peace. She just thinks peace will come about when the Muslims get rid of all the Jews.

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/294066

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is it possible that this student supports Hamas due to being disgusted by the corruption of the PA and the legacy of corruption Arafat passed down?


Granted, what I've read on Hamas doesn't look too good on the corruption angle, but perhaps the relative degrees are what inform her choice.

DR

 

[WildCat]

Clip from the Q&A session of a speech.



Why is she asking for proof that the Muslim Students Association supports terrorists when she admits to supporting Hamas? That's pretty dumb isn't it?

Yes, it is dumb.

Apparently you can call for the murder of all Jews and still be considered an "intelligent, moral person who believes in peace". Hey, maybe she does really believe in peace. She just thinks peace will come about when the Muslims get rid of all the Jews.

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/294066

Yep, once you slaughter all those who think differently than you you get peace.

Why do you hate peace Virus?

 

[WildCat]

Is it possible that this student supports Hamas due to being disgusted by the corruption of the PA and the legacy of corruption Arafat passed down?


Granted, what I've read on Hamas doesn't look too good on the corruption angle, but perhaps the relative degrees are what inform her choice.

DR

I'm pretty disgusted with the corruption of the Dems who run Chicago and Cook County, but for some reason I don't look to the neo-nazis as an alternative.

 

[WildCat]

This woman isn't very bright either. She thinks she'll get arrested for saying she supports Hamas? No ma'am, you have to materially support them to get arrested. Like sending them money or materiel.

 

[Lallante]

This woman isn't very bright either. She thinks she'll get arrested for saying she supports Hamas? No ma'am, you have to materially support them to get arrested. Like sending them money or materiel.

Sorry chaps but you are missing the point.

Hamas is a palestinian political group that supports violent attacks against israel. Its main use of funds is its political role, including providing basic healthcare and even food etc to palestinians.

Its not contradictory to support hamas but be broadly against terrorism.

Its also not a huge stretch to claim the violence hamas does is not terrorism but armed resistance against invasion, albeit by methods not used by western nations.

 

[Virus]

Its also not a huge stretch to claim the violence hamas does is not terrorism but armed resistance against invasion, albeit by methods not used by western nations.

Rocket attacks on civilians? On kindergartens? Seriously, fudge Hamas.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

_{I will ask. What's an "enocunter"?}

 

[Cleon]

_{I will ask. What's an "enocunter"?}

Well, you remember that time in middle school you "experimented" with your best friend...?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Its also not a huge stretch to claim the violence hamas does is not terrorism but armed resistance against invasion, albeit by methods not used by western nations.

No, that actually is what is usually referred to as "a huge stretch," at least by people trying to be polite.

 

[Lallante]

Rocket attacks on civilians? On kindergartens? Seriously, fudge Hamas.

I agree, they aren't nice guys.

Quick question though - was the carbet bombing done by the allies against Germany in WWII an act of terrorism?

Was Hiroshima terrorism?

If not why not?

Terrorism does have some defined meanings, and IMO one of the key elements is that it is not done by a country. I think "terrorist state" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[tyr_13]

I agree, they aren't nice guys.

Quick question though - was the carbet bombing done by the allies against Germany in WWII an act of terrorism?

Was Hiroshima terrorism?

If not why not?

Those were done against valid military targets, and the purpose of them was to defeat the ability to wage war of those nations. It was not to kill civilians. This has been discussed at length many times in other threads.

Terrorism does have some defined meanings, and IMO one of the key elements is that it is not done by a country. I think "terrorist state" is a contradiction in terms.

No, it simply is not a contradiction and no, it being done by a country is certainly not a key element in what constitutes terrorism. Blowing up civilian buses and rocketing random targets is in not way comparable to the nukes dropped on Japan in the way you're using it.

 

[Lallante]

Those were done against valid military targets, and the purpose of them was to defeat the ability to wage war of those nations. It was not to kill civilians. This has been discussed at length many times in other threads.

Please explain how a policy of carpet bombing a civilian population centre (which was explicity chosen as a policy INSTEAD of targetting military structures FOR THE PURPOSE of killing morale), or atom-bombing a city rather than an isolated atol, in either case is a "legitimate military target" and "not to kill civilians". Its a tactic of war, arguably a legitimate one, but in both cases it is UNDENIABLE that the purpose was to inflict huge civilian casualties for the purpose of breaking the countries will to continue fighting.

I dont disagree with either move, but the distinction you are trying to draw is false. Its rather like the arguement some right-wing hawks use when they say "they shouldnt have brought children into warzone" -> if you are the one defining "warzone" (and indeed, bringing the "war") that isn't a particularly compelling arguement.

No, it simply is not a contradiction and no, it being done by a country is certainly not a key element in what constitutes terrorism. Blowing up civilian buses and rocketing random targets is in not way comparable to the nukes dropped on Japan in the way you're using it.

Why not? Seriously? The purpose is identical: to change public opinion to (eventually) lose support for their war.

 

[tyr_13]

Please explain how a policy of carpet bombing a civilian population centre (which was explicity chosen as a policy INSTEAD of targetting military structures FOR THE PURPOSE of killing morale), or atom-bombing a city rather than an isolated atol, in either case is a "legitimate military target" and "not to kill civilians". Its a tactic of war, arguably a legitimate one, but in both cases it is UNDENIABLE that the purpose was to inflict huge civilian casualties for the purpose of breaking the countries will to continue fighting.

Your ignorance of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is not a good thing to base an argument on.

I dont disagree with either move, but the distinction you are trying to draw is false. Its rather like the arguement some right-wing hawks use when they say "they shouldnt have brought children into warzone" -> if you are the one defining "warzone" (and indeed, bringing the "war") that isn't a particularly compelling arguement.


Why not? Seriously? The purpose is identical: to change public opinion to (eventually) lose support for their war.

Please go to one of the threads that discussed this very thing in length and read it. Even if your assertion was correct and they were the same, tu quequo is still a fallacy.

 

[Lallante]

Your ignorance of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is not a good thing to base an argument on.

False dichotomy. Just because they weren't picked for their ability to destroy "the most" civilians doesnt mean that killing a huge number of civilians was not the purpose of the attacks. If this was not the case we could have targetted an outlying navel base on a smaller island, or any non-population centre target.

I particularly like how you tell me I'm wrong but don't present a counter arguement. Classy.

Please go to one of the threads that discussed this very thing in length and read it. Even if your assertion was correct and they were the same, tu quequo is still a fallacy.

I agree "tu quequo" is a fallacy. What does that have to do with anything I've said?

My point was that organised acts against 'western' civilians are labelled terrorism by default, and that arguably it makes more sense to distinguish terrorism from non-symetrical state warfare.

 

[Virus]

Whenever terrorism comes up someone, usually a far-leftist will try and fudge the definition and set up moral equivalences. The fact of the matter is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and recognized as such by pretty much every country. Saying "I know you are but what am I?" won't change that.

 

[MikeMangum]

The damning thing wasn't even really her support for Hamas, although I myself would consider that pretty damning. The damning thing was that the question wasn't simply 'do you support Hamas', the question was (paraphrased) 'the leader of Hezbollah has said he wants all Jews all over the world to come to Israel so that he doesn't have to hunt them down, for it or against it'.

Her response was a simple "for it".

 

[Virus]

The fundamentalist Muslim idea of peace is not a cessation of hostilities. That's just a hudna, or temporary truce to gather your forces. Peace is obtained through the conquest of Islam.

 

[geni]

Rocket attacks on civilians? On kindergartens? Seriously, fudge Hamas.

Okey it would probably have been better phrased as "not commonly and recently used by western nations" But I'm not sure that was fundimental to the poster's point.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Equivocation is a fallacy also..