New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Berkley

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2008111...-students.html

Not good, not good at all.
post #2 of 11
This is very worrisome. It's indicative of the broader problem of non-assimilation. I think we talked about this some time ago in a thread about an honor killing.
post #3 of 11
While I agree that what happened is terrible... I disagree that "Arab", "muslim", "Students for Justice in Palestine", and "anti-Israel" are synonyms as they are used in this article. They are 4 different categories of people and one does not necessitate the other.
post #4 of 11
Well, no, of course, not, but I didn't see that in the article. I had to reread it to try to understand. Maybe I missed something. But how else could they be identified? Arab students are Arab students. Muslim students are Muslim students. Anti-Semetic students are Anti-Semetic students. Anti-Israel students are Anti-Israel students. The only thing those four descriptions have in common is "student." That in this case they were also all four of the other descriptors ties them together only for this group. Synonymous for these individuals, for this group, for this time, and for this place. Not for all Muslims, or for all Arabs, or for all anti-Semites, or for all students. I think that's understood. I didn't get the impression the article was implying otherwise.
post #5 of 11
I take issue with the following statement. It doesn't read to me as incident-specific. "At the end of it all the Muslims do what they usually do, they played the victim card"
post #6 of 11
It isn't until the very end of the piece and you read the fine print that it's obvious the author has an agenda. I just didn't read it the same way and it doesn't come across to me that way. Goes to show how different people can get some very different from the same words. Maybe we should require all written word to have fine print appended spelling out the author's intent? How boring that would be!!

(and in this day and age just everybody plays the victim card some time or another, you and I included, so statements like the one that offended you are statements that I usually gloss over, because most everybody abuses words like "all" and "everybody" and we learned to do that when we were kids)
post #7 of 11
Tim, it's only after you take a look at some of the other articles at that website that you can really pass judgment on the veracity or impartiality of the article quoted. The site is apparently very biased against Muslims, so caution is advisable.
post #8 of 11
I looked at other articles and independent witnesses said this started when Students for Justice in Palestine hung 2 Palestinian flags off a balcony across the street from the pro-Israel hip-hop concert whereupon the 3 pro-Israeli students & senator (school) went over to demand that they take it down. Words led to fisticuffs
Berkeley police are investigating. Which is good, because if the Palestinians were peacefully demonstrating, they were within the rights to freedom of speech and demonstration, as protected by our United States Constitution.
There were several good articles online yesterday, using a Yahoo search.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Tim, it's only after you take a look at some of the other articles at that website that you can really pass judgment on the veracity or impartiality of the article quoted. The site is apparently very biased against Muslims, so caution is advisable.
Yes, my comments are with respect to that article only. That's why I mentioned the "fine print." And also a good example of how it can be chancy drawing conclusions from one article. Either my conclusion on one end -or- the other conclusion on the other end.
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
, because if the Palestinians were peacefully demonstrating, they were within the rights to freedom of speech and demonstration, as protected by our United States Constitution. .
Well, maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court has said that the First Ammendment applies only in public space. Any other place, the owner of the space can place limits) I didn't see in the article what the building was; whether it was a university building (public) or maybe something else, like an apartment building (private). If the building was privately owned, then the owner of the building would be within his rights to deny them from demonstrating on his balcony, if he chose.

Oh, the First Ammendment doesn't say anything about "freedom of demonstration" ... it's "peaceably assemble" ... and honestly, I don't know if and what the Supreme Court has said that means. Assemble and demonstrate aren't exactly synonyms.
post #11 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Yes, my comments are with respect to that article only. That's why I mentioned the "fine print." And also a good example of how it can be chancy drawing conclusions from one article. Either my conclusion on one end -or- the other conclusion on the other end.
There's definitely such a thing as "media overload". I've taken to googling catch phrases from links posted here, and when I get results such as this
, I check out the sources. Talk about exhaustion!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews