Freedom of Speech

daenku32 said:
Could it be that Derek Wray was lying? I don't find any other sources that FrontPage Magazine regarding the incident.

I don't think it's common for campus politics to spill into mainstream press.

Here is an update on the article:

Chris Finarelli could barely believe his own eyes last Wednesday. As Vice President of the College Republican Club at San Francisco State University, Finarelli showed up at the student union building that morning to help table and distribute literature to solicit new club members after President Bush’s victory the previous election day. What he found was a noisy and menacing mob of over 300 Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and radical leftist students surrounding his club’s table being held back by 13 San Francisco State police officers. The police officers were forced to surround the CR’s table both in front and in back in order to protect the conservative students’ safety.

The previous Monday, the day before the election, the CR’s were physically attacked while handing out Bush/Cheney materials in the University’s Malcolm X Plaza. On that day, Victor Traycey, one of the members of the conservative club, was slapped by Nala Gardizi, an Arab woman student who was part of an entourage led by four Palestinian women who accused the conservative students of being responsible for the “murder of Palestinian babies” due to their support for President Bush. In addition, food was thrown at the Republican college students and drinks poured over the campaign materials on their table. Gardizi harangued Victor Traycey that day and even called him “a Nazi,” according to eye-witness reports.

Lee Wolf, another College Republicans member, described one of the women on Monday as shouting, “The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible! I’d rather die a suicide bomber’s death than to call myself an American!” He continued, “In my opinion, these were terrorist threats.”

On Wednesday, Gardizi was back. “She was ranting that 9/11 was the fault of the United States,” according to Finarelli.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15855
 
Is Tony, Mycroft's sock-puppet, or is it the otherway around. I'm confused....
 
BPSCG
I'm not talking about the rabble followers of a particular faith. I'm talking about the leaders of the faith. Where in the Gospels does it condone murder, or even killing, for that matter? Show me where Jesus said you should kill the unbeliever if you can't convert him.

The Bible is more than the Gospels. In Genesis 18 Abraham tells God that if there are ten righteous people in Sodom, then the city should not be destroyed. By Genesis 19, the wicked (and their children) are nothing but ashes. Noah and the flood is another example of killing the unrighteous.


BPSCG
People are quick to find a moral equivalence between the Christian and the Muslim fundamentalists. But it was an imam, not a preacher, who handed down a fatwa ordering the murder of Salman Rushdie. It's the Koran, not the Gospels, that portrays its heroic central character as someone who slaughters his enemies.

Yet there are churches in South Carolina that preach that because abortion is murder, shooting an abortion doctor is an undesireable, but sometimes necessary way of preventing more murders. Yes, those preachers represent a tiny, tiny percentage of all Christian fundamentalists, but they are terrorists nonetheless.

There are millions of Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia, Afghanistan, and other countries that believe that as long as they can be free of western influence in their own cities and towns, then live and let live is an acceptable approach to people in other countries.

..................


As to the original story, I don't understand why the Republicans didn't set up their table under a campus security camera on November 3, or videotape it themselves, or invite reporters to attend. I would suggest they bring state, federal, and even civil charges against their attackers.
 
Ladewig said:
As to the original story, I don't understand why the Republicans didn't set up their table under a campus security camera on November 3, or videotape it themselves, or invite reporters to attend. I would suggest they bring state, federal, and even civil charges against their attackers.

Perhaps they will take a cue from protestwarriors.com and do exactly that in the future.
 
H3LL said:
Is Tony, Mycroft's sock-puppet, or is it the otherway around. I'm confused....

I don't always agree with Tony, but I'll take this as a compliment anyway. :)
 
Ladewig said:
The Bible is more than the Gospels. In Genesis 18 Abraham tells God that if there are ten righteous people in Sodom, then the city should not be destroyed. By Genesis 19, the wicked (and their children) are nothing but ashes. Noah and the flood is another example of killing the unrighteous.
You're quoting the Old Testament. Somewhere between Moses and Jesus, God figured out how he wanted things, and in the New Testament, where the Gospels are located, got a lot more peaceable.

Remember, y'all are trying to draw a moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim ones. For the Christians, the New Testament is their primary guide (corplinx, straighten my theology out here, if necessary). Again, you will search in vain through the New Testament for anything that exhorts the devout to kill the unbeliever. Watch your favorite Sunday televangelist, and see if you can catch him saying "Jee-zus says we must slay the enemies of our faith."
Yet there are churches in South Carolina that preach that because abortion is murder, shooting an abortion doctor is an undesireable, but sometimes necessary way of preventing more murders. Yes, those preachers represent a tiny, tiny percentage of all Christian fundamentalists,
Thank you for making my point. By contrast, Muslim imams who exhort their followers to jihad, who issue fatwas justifying the murder of civilians, who point to the words of The Prophet to justify killing, are not at all difficult to find - just open your morning paper.
As to the original story, I don't understand why the Republicans didn't set up their table under a campus security camera on November 3, or videotape it themselves, or invite reporters to attend.
Perhaps they thought that on a college campus, they would be free to express their ideas without intimidation? How naive...
 
Ladewig
As to the original story, I don't understand why the Republicans didn't set up their table under a campus security camera on November 3, or videotape it themselves, or invite reporters to attend.

BPSCG
Perhaps they thought that on a college campus, they would be free to express their ideas without intimidation? How naive...

Two days earlier they experienced violent lawlessness with no action from the campus police and they expected something different after the election? As President Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again."
 
Mycroft said:
I don't think it's common for campus politics to spill into mainstream press.

It seems to me that it would be common for campus VIOLENCE to spill over into mainstream press.

Crimes were clearly committed here... if the campus police refused to make arrests, they should lose their jobs. Those responsible for physical assault and battery should go to jail.

Where are the lawyers and outside-campus police called in to make this happen? Why were they not? Surely the victims would have taken such recourse as was available to them.

Or were they? Again a lack of real follow-up or another source to fill in missing details.
 
HELLO, this story is from some crazy right wing website. Can you believe their descrtiption of what happend? Really a "mob of arab students'. How many arab students even go to the school? Enough to form a "mob"?

I couldnt find a mainstream outlet that mentioned this ruckuss. Before you can claim media bias, the only plcaes that reported this were wacky righty webpages. Now thats bias.

I call bullflop on this story.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Hmmm Quite a diferent tale then the one spun by that article that
Mycroft sited doncha think?

Yeah. I tend to go with the school papers accounts. Given their description, that smart mouthed republican had a bitch slapp coming.
 
BPSCG said:
From the above: Don't you just hate it when minorities don't know their place? Who do those Republicans think they are? Uppity, aren't they?

You forgot the quote on how the Repubs were screaming at people. Seems to me the Republican were trying to instigate a fight so they could later claim to be the innocent victims of the violent liberals. (which is what happend in those biased articles)

Like this gem:

“Bush is a liberator, and you’re a terrorist,” countered Victor Traycey, Republican Bush supporter. “If you don’t like what he’s doing, why don’t you go back to the country you came from?”


Dems fighting words in my book!!! Shoot, might as well burn a flag in front of some war vets.
 
BPSCG said:
You're quoting the Old Testament. Somewhere between Moses and Jesus, God figured out how he wanted things, and in the New Testament, where the Gospels are located, got a lot more peaceable.

But, but, god is omniscient and omnipotent. What do you mean "figured out". She knew, man, she knew.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Hmmm Quite a diferent tale then the one spun by that article that
Mycroft sited doncha think?

Not terribly different I don't think. Some sort of incident obviously occured, the police appear to have done nothing to dispearse the obviously illegal demonstration by the anti-Bush crowd. Plus a physical altercation, instigated by a member of the anti-Bush crowd, seems to be supported. Remember who the lung-er was and who the lung-ee was. Also, I wonder just who might use the phrase "You are working for the devil." Doesn't sound like something your ordinary, everyday leftist would say. Sounds more like something an angry mob of islamists might chant.


Visibly upset with his accusations, Mohammadi went to grab an item off the table when suddenly Traycey pushed her hand away. Mohammadi then lunged at Traycey.
 
DaChew,
I was not claiming that I know what went on, I don't. I was only reflecting on the fact that the black and white (oop not PC!) err cut and dried account by a reactionary news rag is not necessarily the definitive picture.

Stories have many sides.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
DaChew,
I was not claiming that I know what went on, I don't. I was only reflecting on the fact that the black and white (oop not PC!) err cut and dried account by a reactionary news rag is not necessarily the definitive picture.

Stories have many sides.

They do, but I think the essential facts here is that the Republicans were setting up a voter registration drive, that others gathered around to protest that, and that these protests involved verbal threats and acts of physical intimidation.
 
Mycroft said:
They do, but I think the essential facts here is that the Republicans were setting up a voter registration drive, that others gathered around to protest that, and that these protests involved verbal threats and acts of physical intimidation.

A police officer, who refused to comment, stepped in and warned Mohammadi about the consequences of the argument turning physical and the officers words appeared to calm her flaring temper.

I do note that contrary to the original article, the police did intervene as soon as it turned physical, and both sides face discipline. To me that says that the original article was a) untrue, and b) deliberately and needlessly inflammatory.

The original article made it sound like the protestors had the tacit endorsement of the police. An untruthful implication like that does nothing to solve the problem, and is the product of a mind that wants the probem to be worse.
 
Dorian Gray said:
you can't judge a billion people by the actions of a few douche bags. It would be like looking at Timothy McVeigh or the KKK and saying "Isn't the religion of the Holy Trinity beautiful?"

I have questioned the fundamentals of why it is that Islam produces essentially all the terrorists that we in the west are affected by, and been called "racist" for asking the question. (see other discussions on usage of language :p ); however I think it not so much the actions of terrorists that is the issue (in the above consideration on douche bags), but the inaction of of the Muslim world.

No doubt there are plenty of examples to the contrary, and to be fair I have seen a significant change in the Arab press that I read from time to time (English versions), over the past two years; but the fact is still that Islamic terrorists can find santuary in any Muslim community anywhere and even be created in the most liberal of them as we have seen in Holland recently, and their leaders continue to be ambivalent or dishonest in ways designed to foster muslim resentments.

A few quite dissimilar examples:

When Mubarak (of Egypt) was asked a few days after the Siniai bombings to comment on the Egyptian press speculation that it was done by Israel to embarrass Egypt and Islam, he would only say that they didn't yet know who did it.

The US military and intelligence agencies have problems finding enough Arabic interpreters and translators. Maybe that incompetence, but I would have thought I would read of volunteers lining up.

I listened to the American Muslim Council on C-Span recently. I missed part of it, but what I saw was totally focused on demonstrating against any manifestation of the thought that terrorism comes from muslims, and it was expressed in a very militant manner.

When was the last time one saw a demonstration by Muslims against terrorists who kill indiscriminately in the name of Allah; as opposed to those who demonstrate against the US as waging a war against Allah?


To conclude; I don't judge billions of people by the actions of a few douche bags, but I do judge billions of people by their own inactions, if they profess to be good muslims.
 

Back
Top Bottom