| CURRENT EVENTS Israel vs. Iran, and where will the US fit in?

[TerryP]

1965.

The only reason anyone will equate that Chicago convention with the upcoming one is because they want to over emphasize any connection just to get clicks and for shits and giggles. In 1968, people were being drafted and sent to Vietnam. Completely different scenario now, albeit unpopular in some segments, but not nearly the same. American treasure is being spilled, but no American blood is being spilled.

It doesn't seem too much of a stretch for people to associate Chicago, demonstrations and riots, and the two different conventions in the same mental exercise. Setting Israel/Iran aside, I started thinking about this a year or so ago wondering how bad it might get. Those thoughts weren't sparked by foreign policy; it was a combination of border, sanctuary, and Chicago's propensity for violence.

Now? Today? I'm surprised we haven't seen mirror images of Columbia on campus at the University of Chicago.

---

---

FWIW, on last nights Gutfeld! there was a reference to UA...a few video clips about southern colleges being more tolerant than their northern counterparts.

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

Just ran across this… UF is not scared to be the adult.

 

[TerryP]

UF is not scared to be the adult.

This is the version of your parents telling you not to do something, you ask why, and they said "Because I said so." That was bullshit. And, this is as close to bullshit as you can get:

Any other items and/or activities deemed to be non-compliant with policy and regulations by university officials.

That's a slippery slope. I tend to rant on "grammar" a bit. Look at the word "deemed." While that used to carry the meaning of "legally condemning" it's now a mere opinion.

No disruption

That's not a slippery slope. That a damn cliff.

If I interrupt your train of thought to get you to think about something else...I've just committed the act of disruption.

Most of the stuff in that letter is reasonable: until it's not.

I don't know what the hell "shall be trespassed from campus" is supposed to mean. Florida is an AAU school??!?!? "Trespassed" is past tense. So, Florida has this time travel thing down now?

No blocking egress.

Am I to assume it would be ok to block ingress? Or, would that be "deemed" as disruptive?

This alone makes me think this was hastily thrown together spurned by 'knee-jerk' reactions.

 

[XXL TideFan]

I never really paid attention to DeSantis. This is an example of the pendulum that the left has pushed to the limit is about to start its violent swing to the extreme right. All to protect the zionist need for genocide.

 

[musso]

This is an example of the pendulum that the left has pushed to the limit is about to start its violent swing to the extreme right.

"That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord and cultivate predjudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.”
--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ​

 

[XXL TideFan]

"That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord and cultivate predjudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.” ​

--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ​

Tribal

 

[24and7]

People can have their free speech.. but they can not block the road or restrict your movements… If they get in my way it is kidnapping or false imprisonment…It will be met with force, until I get my freedom of movement restored..

 

[TerryP]

All to protect the zionist need for genocide.

...versus the genocidal actions against the Jews.

This is another example of the casual use of language; in this case genocide. I find it disingenuous.

This often used cliche needs to be retired. As if the actions that preceded Israel's response wasn't an act of eliminating a nation made up of an ethnic group: genocide, defined.

Such irony in the day of the "strongly worded letter."

 

[XXL TideFan]

...versus the genocidal actions against the Jews.

This is another example of the casual use of language; in this case genocide. I find it disingenuous.

This often used cliche needs to be retired. As if the actions that preceded Israel's response wasn't an act of eliminating a nation made up of an ethnic group: genocide, defined.

Such irony in the day of the "strongly worded letter."

You make a living parsing words not unlike a lawyer. I would think the stated goals of those engaging Israel do indeed sound genocidal but they lack the ability to actually carry out such whereas the Israelis do have the ability & are currently doing so.
Calling something a cliché in an attempt to discredit or create doubt is nothing more that the literary equivalent of the N bomb. Clichés become that not because of being inaccurate but usage.
The only dog that I have in that fight are the Christians that are actually being killed.

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

This is the version of your parents telling you not to do something, you ask why, and they said "Because I said so." That was bullshit. And, this is as close to bullshit as you can get:

I don't really see it that way. It looks to me like the kid says they are going to play in the street with their friends, and the parent said ok, but you can't do this, this, or this. or else you're punished.

For most of the rest, it appears that you’re dissecting the words/grammar and not the message itself, which I think was fine. We touched on it (barely) in another thread about the issues on The Strip at UA. There's problems there that have gotten out of hand. Most all of those problems could be fixed/solved if some people in charge stood up and made what would be considered, by some, tough decisions. Up to this point, they haven't. In Florida's case, they flexed on them. As they should have done IMO. Same as if they were dealing with the Proud Boys, or some Westboro nutjob religious sect, who tried to extend the boundaries of their rights on campus. But with many in this particular case, there is the ability to expel them also, which serves as a nice little determent.

 

[24and7]

Pretty soon the Zionist/ So called Jews are going to stop trying to take the moral high ground..Prepare for the “Hebrew Hammer”.. Some equally boisterous and ready to use violence types, entering the fray..A false flag is rapidly approaching…
Btw… Palestinians are not well thought of in the Middle East either… why do they insist on giving them their own state?… because they don’t want them in their nations… especially Jordan and Egypt..

 

[musso]

Palestinians are not well thought of in the Middle East either… why do they insist on giving them their own state?… because they don’t want them in their nations… especially Jordan and Egypt..

I’m sorry, but that’s absolute rubbish. Yes, the ruling classes of all these states, notably on the receiving end of US aid and implicitly under the thumb of our nuclear monopolist in the region (Israel), don’t want the destabilizing effects of taking in poor immigrants. But the Shia Muslim masses in all these countries overwhelmingly support the Palestinian cause, which is why all the Sunni heads of state want a quick end to this. But let’s not needlessly demonize the Palestinians merely because all these fragile artificial states created and propped up by Britain, France, and the US are ill equipped to take in poor immigrants.

 

[TerryP]

You make a living parsing words not unlike a lawyer.

Because they mean something. Definitions have been queered. I'm tired of words being so casually thrown around in attempts to create a positional hierarchy that they've lost their meaning.

I would think the stated goals of those engaging Israel do indeed sound genocidal but they lack the ability to actually carry out such whereas the Israelis do have the ability & are currently doing so.

Stated goals? When do past actions come into play? Sound genocidal? While they are killing people?

Are you drawing a line of demarcation based on "lack of ability?" This makes no sense to me. It seems you are suggesting that just because those 300 rockets/drones launched towards Israel didn't achieve their targets those who fired them should be looked upon with more grace than those who were the actual targets.

One guy has a gun. One guy has a knife. They are both trying to kill each other. BUT, the one with the gun is somehow worse than the one with the knife?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this with you. But, from what I'm reading ... doesn't make a lot of sense.

Calling something a cliché in an attempt to discredit or create doubt is nothing more that the literary equivalent of the N bomb. Clichés become that not because of being inaccurate but usage.

Exactly. The overuse of the word genocide is the point. Calling it a cliche is accurate; it's overused to the point it doesn't carry its original meaning.

It implies a lack of original thought as well. Casually labeling Israel's response as "genocide" isn't original.

 

[TerryP]

I’m sorry, but that’s absolute rubbish. Yes, the ruling classes of all these states, notably on the receiving end of US aid and implicitly under the thumb of our nuclear monopolist in the region (Israel), don’t want the destabilizing effects of taking in poor immigrants. But the Shia Muslim masses in all these countries overwhelmingly support the Palestinian cause, which is why all the Sunni heads of state want a quick end to this. But let’s not needlessly demonize the Palestinians merely because all these fragile artificial states created and propped up by Britain, France, and the US are ill equipped to take in poor immigrants.

There are many states within the Palestinian cause, wouldn't you agree? While there are those who want a quick end to this, there are others who want an end to a nation.

Here's the umbrella again. Are Hamas members Palestinian? Sure, we can agree on that. Are all Palestinians Hamas? No. We can agree on that as well, right?

If a group of Palestinians elect Hamas as their government, how are they now viewed? As supporters of a terrorist nation or as supporters of the "Palestinian cause?"

 

[TerryP]

I don't really see it that way. It looks to me like the kid says they are going to play in the street with their friends, and the parent said ok, but you can't do this, this, or this. or else you're punished.

I get that. And, to a point I agree.

I see simple rules being lain out, as do you. I suspect some of these "prohibited activities" are on the 'books' already.

I also see a red flags: like the one I see flying over "deemed non-compliant." I don't know those making policy at UF but I am wary. "Deemed non-compliant" can easily become so arbitrary when, in a lot of cases, "compliant" is only when one's feelings are spared.

There are a large number of people who believe in free speech until they don't agree with the speech freely offered. We've seen how compliant administrations of different Universities have been over the last few years: dependent on the direction of the winds in most cases. These aren't people whose judgments I trust.

How easy is it now for one 'rogue' professor to say, "I deem that non-compliant" and that student is out on his arse? Certainly much easier, yes?

 

[24and7]

I’m sorry, but that’s absolute rubbish. Yes, the ruling classes of all these states, notably on the receiving end of US aid and implicitly under the thumb of our nuclear monopolist in the region (Israel), don’t want the destabilizing effects of taking in poor immigrants. But the Shia Muslim masses in all these countries overwhelmingly support the Palestinian cause, which is why all the Sunni heads of state want a quick end to this. But let’s not needlessly demonize the Palestinians merely because all these fragile artificial states created and propped up by Britain, France, and the US are ill equipped to take in poor immigrants.

Its 100% true.. Those countries are refusing any Palestinian refugees.. check it out..Some have even slaughtered Palestinians before Israel.. that is why they support Palestine getting a state where they won’t have them in their nations..

 

[musso]

Its 100% true.. Those countries are refusing an Palestinian refugees check it out..Some have even slaughtered Palestinians before Israel..

I know it's true. You're not even comprehending my response.

 

[24and7]

I know it's true. You're not even comprehending my response.

I’m telling you that they would rather see them killed by Israel than themselves.. not good PR..

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

I get that. And, to a point I agree.

I see simple rules being lain out, as do you. I suspect some of these "prohibited activities" are on the 'books' already.

I also see a red flags: like the one I see flying over "deemed non-compliant." I don't know those making policy at UF but I am wary. "Deemed non-compliant" can easily become so arbitrary when, in a lot of cases, "compliant" is only when one's feelings are spared.

There are a large number of people who believe in free speech until they don't agree with the speech freely offered. We've seen how compliant administrations of different Universities have been over the last few years: dependent on the direction of the winds in most cases. These aren't people whose judgments I trust.

How easy is it now for one 'rogue' professor to say, "I deem that non-compliant" and that student is out on his arse? Certainly much easier, yes?

No doubt some are already on the books or at least fall into a catchall category under student the conduct policy. If I went and pitched a tent on the Quad Monday afternoon, it would take about 5-10 minutes before UAPD stopped by to ask what was going on. If I told them I was there to protest the chicken factory down the road, they'd give me about another 5-10 minutes to have my shit cleared out before they took me away and trespassed me. But, I think the UF rules stuff, to me, was event specific (not something that bleeds over into the classrooms that give professors admin powers) with some pretty straightforward stuff they they knew they wanted to cover, but also the vague "non-compliant" line that served to cover most anything else that wasn't spelled out. To me, really no different that the old paper tickets that pretty much said the same on the back for sporting events... This, this, and this are strictly prohibited... along with anything else we deem prohibited.

Maybe I'm being naive when taking them at their word that if they were to follow the rules and voice their free speech within the rules and regulations, that they'd be fine. Maybe a permit would be required for such, not sure.

 

[TerryP]

Maybe I'm being naive when taking them at their word that if they were to follow the rules and voice their free speech within the rules and regulations, that they'd be fine. Maybe a permit would be required for such, not sure.

I think I read where the UTx resulted in charges of "unlawful assembly." I assume that means protest/demonstrations without permit.

Hey, perhaps I'm naive. I see so many decisions based on emotions and feelings I can't help but suspect this could easily follow the same path. I believe I hold a bit of bias towards UF. That's based on what I experienced with UF on the academic side when the two colleges were working together. (There were some 'strange' professors and students in their New College studies back in the early '90's. Should I expect them to become "more grounded?")