Jihadists at K...ent???

Doug Snyder · October 29, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/28/profe...test=latestnews

GoZips · October 29, 2011

deleted

mes102 · October 29, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/28/profe...ate-university/apparently just click on the story right below "Most Active"...not sure why it's not working...

K92 · October 29, 2011

Links with the name of that Portage County school in their url will not work because they get changed to Can't.

jem101 · November 1, 2011

I can't believe he still has a job! Sure he has free speech as an American, but if Can't feels that what he said goes against their values (or lack thereof) they have every right to fire him! I guarantee if he had gone in and said "Death to Homosexuals" they would have fired him! I'm sick of cowering in fear to Radical Muslims!

RootforRoo44 · November 1, 2011

can you imagine if a college professor went to a black college students meeting and yelled "death to all (N word)"?! Or if i went to a muslim students meeting/muslim speaker and yelled "death to islam"?Yeah...what a disgusting double-standard.This loon has been doing crap like this for years though.

Valpo Zip · November 2, 2011

I don't usually like to get into this kind of debates on this board but you leave me no options.Israel is a political state, not a race, not a religion. So your comparison to someone yelling death to N word/Islam has no ground.Yelling death to Israel compares to yelling death to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Palestine, which, by the way, happens everyday and nobody cares.

Z.I.P. · November 2, 2011

Mahalo, Ada! :wave:

meatwad · November 2, 2011

After rereading this topic I see what you are saying, but I think the implication of what he is saying goes beyond a nation-state, right?

Dave in Green · November 2, 2011

What exactly does "death to Israel" mean to those who utter the words? Is it a political statement about destroying a country or a religious statement representing "holy war" on people practicing a different religion?A USA Today article quotes the following:Via e-mail to Inside Higher Ed, Pino gave his rationale as follows: "What I spoke was for the sake of the children of Palestine, and no other reason. The only politics I have are 'There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His Messenger.' " Asked about the controversy over his comments, he quoted the Koran: "They try to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will allow nothing but the perfection of that light, though the disbelievers dislike it."USA Today StoryIf people with different religious beliefs cannot exist side-by-side in peace with respect for each other's beliefs, there is little room for negotiation or solution to religious-based discord.

Dave in Green · November 2, 2011

Server hiccup.

Doug Snyder · November 2, 2011

I am not denying that what you are referring to does not happen...but can you give me some specific instances of professors doing this?? I want to write letters to those universities as well. Thanks

Dave in Green · November 2, 2011

Doug, here are the internet results I got for the following Google search terms:"Death to Saudi Arabia" = 71 results"Death to Iran" = About 32,600 results"Death to Palestine" = About 53,900 results"Death to Israel" = About 4,930,000 results

Valpo Zip · November 2, 2011

Doug, I do not have any instances neither am I interested in finding them for you or debating this topic any further. I was merely stating that opposing a political state is not the same as opposing a race or a religion.

Doug Snyder · November 2, 2011

Hate is hate. Teachers and professors should be held to a higher standard and should never espouse hate. Period.

yazan07 · November 2, 2011

Ada is correct, this isn't about death to the Jewish people, but the elimination of an out of control government that has too much power and abuses it at the cost of innocent lives. Blurring the line between Jews and Israel is a common mistake that comes out of a lack of knowledge of the conflict, which Americans have a distorted image of because of the bias presented in the media. Also, there is a difference between unfounded hate and hatred towards an entity that has destroyed so many lives. Hating the Israeli government is much closer to hating Al-Qaeda than hating black people or homosexuals, despite what both sides of the media tell you.I'd write more but I've gotta run, I think I hear the moderators coming and it's past my bed time.

yazan07 · November 2, 2011

Here is a very well timed article that supports a few of my points.""Pino’s view of Israel is “harsh, and I completely disagree with it, but it’s not illegal,” said Wilson Huhn, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of Akron."He is an Akron professor, so maybe you will be less inclined to think he is wrongSome faculty nationwide have been fired for “saying something inappropriate, but that was usually in the classroom,” said Sara Kilpatrick, executive director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors.“Outside the classroom, it’s a grayer area of whether this was a faculty member acting as a faculty member or a private citizen.”I also agree with this. Someone mentioned that educators should be held to a higher standard, but I don't think you forfeit your right to free speech by being an educator. Now, in the class room your job is to be a neutral voice, and if you aren't doing that, then there is a problem. I wonder if this was a problem in the case of this guy?"In the case of Pino, students have not complained about his teaching or for “taking his politics into the classroom,” said Ken Bindas, chairman of the Can't State history department."But, whether or not he was in a position that he could say this, it was still hate speech right?"In addition, his language would not be considered hate speech, because he did not make a credible threat to the speaker, said Jonathan Entin, a professor of law and political science at Case Western Reserve University.“It is a point of view, as controversial as it may be, about policy. That will afford it pretty broad latitude,” he said."

Dave in Green · November 2, 2011

So, if we can't believe what we read in the media, where do we go for factual data on which to form an educated opinion? For example, where did you get the data that led you to the conclusion that the government of Israel is primarily to blame for the problems in the Middle East?

yazan07 · November 2, 2011

I guess I didn't distinguish between print media, internet media, and television media. I do not watch the news. I feel as though the major TV networks have an agenda and have a very effective way to spread what they believe. If you are going to learn about a certain topic, there are a plethora of ways to find what you are looking for on the internet. I like to read other sources from other countries besides the big news sources in the US. It is a better way to get a different perspective of what is really going on in the world. I know reading other source material is not as convenient as turning on the television and watching a news program, but if you are really trying to delve into a particular world topic, I think it is the better route. I guess really, every news outlet probably has some agenda, but if you want a comprehensive view of what the conflict is, reading multiple sources to put the pieces together is the best way to do it. With the topic of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, that is something for which I have done a great deal of research, in and out of school, because I have personal ties to it and I care about what is going on in the Middle East. I can understand though that if you're not heavily interested in what is happening you are not going to spend a bunch of time trying to connect the dots. I could share my views about Israel if you'd like, I assure you they are nothing close to "death to Israel" but they would probably still be enough for me to be lambasted for being crazy.

Dr Z · November 2, 2011

Reminds me of a time back when I was 17. I went to an Indians game with a friend and was having a discussion the next day with my Dad about how many strike outs a certain pitcher had. I counted them at the game and the newspaper was wrong, but there was no telling him. It was printed in the newspaper, so it had to be correct. :lol:

Hilltopper · November 3, 2011

My daughter is Post Secondary student at UA. She is taking a Freshman level english composition class. She had to write a paper about an event in her life that she felt has shaped her as a person. When she got back the first draft from the professor, there were a few corrections that needed to be made in regards to the composition of the paper. That was to be expected. What was disturbing was the lengthy note from the professor regarding the topic of the paper. The professor scolded her for her view points and called her immature in her thought process. She then told her that she was in a similar situation and that my daughter was wrong in how she handled it. This is where the professor crossed the line. It's not her job to dictate her morals on my kid. The class is about learning how to compose the written word, not a referendum on my daughters personal beliefs. If Professor Pino is able to just stick to teaching the "facts" so to speak that is fine. I seriously doubt that someone who is as passionate as he is is capable of keeping his political agenda out of the classroom. My kid isn't attending college for political indoctrination.

Dave in Green · November 3, 2011

@Yaznasty, I agree with you completely that the best way to get a comprehensive view on anything is to explore multiple sources and arrive at your own conclusions. There are many different perspectives on every issue, and none by itself is likely to be 100% accurate. But it does take a lot of time, and none of us has the time to thoroughly research all the important issues on our own. Ultimately, we have to try to find readily available sources of information that prove over time to be more accurate than others on many different subjects.On the subject of the Middle East, I've done of a lot of reading from a lot of different sources over the years and have not reached the same conclusion that you have -- that the government of Israel is primarily responsible for most of the problems in the area. Even if Israel did not exist, Middle Eastern countries would still be warring with each other and creating innocent victims. The recent wars between Iran and Iraq and invasion of Kuwait by Iraq are only the most recent examples. The various tribes and religious sects in the area and within each country's borders have been warring with each other for centuries.As a country, Israel is essentially the newest neighbor in a very tough neighborhood where the weak are regularly trampled by the strong. The Jewish people, who primarily populate Israel, learned a very tough lesson in Nazi Germany. They cannot afford to be weak in a tough neighborhood full of bullies. The very survival of Israel and its citizens relies on a strong self-defense.Now, it's certainly fair to question whether the government of Israel has gone too far in some of its actions intended to protect its citizens. There's a diversity of opinion among Israeli citizens on the best course of action to secure peace in the area. Unlike its neighbors, Israel is a democracy, so the citizens regularly elect different political parties with different philosophies in search of the best route to peace.But no matter what Israel does, the fact remains that they live in a tough neighborhood full of bullies where violence is a common solution to disagreements. Until that attitude changes among all parties, and until every country in the area agrees that every other country in the area has the right to exist, there will continue to be conflict.I'm interested in everyone's views on the Middle East. I think it's in everyone's best interests to explore all reasonable courses of action to end the perpetual conflict in the area, as the danger of a regional conflict growing into a global war continues to increase.

GoZips · November 3, 2011

Who is kidding who?Islam has fomented hate and treachery through out the world for 1,400 years.Israel is a current popular target of Islam. The blame for terrorism and hatredrests squarely on Islam.Political correctness allows this piece of crap to hold on to his job a Cantville.Had he spoken against blacks or homosexuals they would have fired him inless than a minute.Popular targets for evil are Christianity, the Catholic Church, Conservatives,Pro-Life, anything that represents goodness, a black man who is a Conservative,fair play, justice and America.How long would the occupy wall street demonstrators be allowed to foist theirviews on the world if they were the TEA Party? Done in a New York minute.

Valpo Zip · November 3, 2011

No body is kidding no body! In my book, Ignorance is defined as the situation when some one is so arrogant to think that his opinion is absolutely true and that he knows it all and he can judge others. Gozips is saying that more than a billion people in this world support a religion that fomented hate and treachery and doing that, the religion survived for 1400 years! He is also saying that the academic system, and the administration of Can't state and the education system in Ohio are wrong and he is right. Also the Ph D holding gentleman is now a piece of crap because he doesn't share his point of view about the political state of Israel. A wise man once said: whenever i debate a wise person, I may win or lose the debate. However, every time i debate an ignorant, I lose the battle. So sure gozips, you're not wrong! everyone else is.

yazan07 · November 3, 2011

Dave, first of all I'd like to say that it is great to hear that someone is interested in having this conversation and is willing to share viewpoints and listen to different perspectives rather than just reducing the whole thing to being as simple as "all Islam's fault." I think that second line of thinking is what has lead to most of hate and misunderstanding that exists in the world today. Now on to the topic. Palestinians are currently entrenched in a battle (figurative battle, not actually warfare) to be recognized as a state. After Israel was established in '48, many Arabs held on to their angry feelings and were violent in trying to protest the state of Israel. Within the last 15-20 year the Palestinian Liberation Organization has denounced violence and has instead focused on diplomacy and building institutions to help further their argument for statehood. Palestinian leadership saw that violence was ineffective and that pushed them to adopt diplomatic methods and try to negotiate with Israel, often though help from the United States. The big issues that have plagued the peace process are boarders, settlements, right of Palestinians to return to the land that once belonged to them, and the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. There was one point where an agreement was almost met in 2000, but the then leader of the PLO felt that the conditions were not right and that accepting this deal would be settling for less than they should receive. The issue with the boarders is that while Israel says it is willing to recognize a Palestinian state, it still wants to be able to patrol the boarder between Palestine and Jordan. How can a sovereign nation have another nation patrolling their boarders? The issue with East Jerusalem is that for much of the previous negotiations, Palestinians were promised that East Jerusalem, home to several Muslim holy sites and a predominantly Arab area, would be given to them as the capital of their state. Now, the right-wing Israeli government asserts that "there is one Jerusalem, there has always been one Jerusalem, there is no east and west, it is one city that cannot be divided." The issue with the settlements is that in the West Bank, the area that is supposed to be sovereign Palestinian land, Israel comes in and bulldozes villages and erects new Jewish neighborhoods. These illegal neighborhoods are spread throughout the West Bank and have effectively changed the facts on the ground. Now for negotiations about boarders to be had, you have to consider the settlements which dig deep into Palestinian territory. Furthermore, the settlements effect the conflict because of settler violence. It is not uncommon for these settlers to go into the Arab villages and burn crops, vandalize property, and even burn mosques. Talk about a rough neighborhood. There is also the "security wall." There is a giant wall the runs through the West Bank dividing it from Israel for "security purposes." The issue with this, however, is that the way the wall was constructed, much of it actually lies on Palestinian land, dividing families and dividing people from their own property. There are also checkpoints that lie throughout the WB. These checkpoints are operated by young Israeli soldiers who will will detain Arabs for whatever they see fit. It becomes very difficult for Palestinians to travel to different parts of the WB because they can sometimes be held up for hours. Now the most recent demand that the Israeli leadership has put on the Palestinian leadership is the demand for Israel to be recognized as a Jewish State. Now, on the outside, it would appear as though not accepting this is stubborn and perhaps shows a lack of willingness to accept Jews. Actually, the reason why the Palestinian Authority won't do this is because that will give the Israeli leadership freedom to enact laws to treat Arabs in Israel as second class citizens, something it has already tried doing. Simply put, Israel always says it is willing to negotiate for peace with Palestinians, but it has implemented policies that make coming to the negotiating table almost impossible. How can you say you are willing to help establish a Palestinian state when at the same time you are building on land for that future state? So what is the United States' role in all this? Well the US has on many occasions expressed its unwavering support for Israel. How is a country going to be an effective mediator when it has unwavering support for one of the parties? The US refuses to ever not support Israel in something. This has never been truer than in the Palestinian's recent bid for statehood at the UN. The PLO figured that since Israel won't really negotiate, they will just go to the UN to try to be recognized as a state. Now, while many countries have supported this bid, the US has said that it will veto a bid in the security council for a Palestinian state no matter what, because the US sees it as a unilateral move and the only way to achieve peace is through negotiation, which as I have shown is extremely difficult. The US will not budge on this issue, but does it seem fair? How can we, the nation that preaches democracy and freedom suppress this country from acquiring its freedom the same way we achieved freedom? The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization just admitted Palestine as a member. They are now a member of a UN organization, which is a massive achievement. They won 107-14 with fiftysome countries abstaining. 14 countries in the entire world vetoed this with the US being one of them. So do you know what we did? We just withdrew the $60 million in aid we were going to give to that organization. Why is democracy only fair when the outcome is the one we want? How can the United States do this in good faith? Well although I don't have the number in front of me, there is a strong belief that it is because of the Israel lobby. There are a lot of people and companies with big wallets who come election time are willing to support the candidates who will throw the most support behind Israel. That's the name of the game. Either do what the man with the checkbook says, or say goodbye to your position. Can't blame the politicians too much for that. Who wouldn't want to keep their job? Can't blame the lobbies too much either. What's the point in having money if you aren't going to use it to get what you want? Unfortunately what they want comes at a cost of many others' happiness and well being. And this, my friends, is why the Middle East "hates" the United States. After 9/11 there was much talk of "they hate our way of life, they hate our freedoms," etc, but that is all rubbish. Many individuals in the Middle East hate that we give undying support to the country that has been oppressing other Arabs and Muslims for far too long. They see our freedom, and they don't hate it, but they wonder why it is good enough for us but that we prevent them from having it. Furthermore the US for a long time supported oppressive rulers like Hosni Mubarak and Saddam Hussein. These rulers were not oppressive because they were strict Muslims, Islam had nothing to do with it. They were oppressive because they were power hungry, and the United States took care of them because they feared what would happen if the popular rulers came into power. Someone will probably say "well what about Hamas? You can't tell me they have been peaceful," so I'll just bring it up myself. Funny thing is Hamas initially got funding from Israel in order for them to rival the PLO as a way to divide Palestinians. It worked, but I'd say it wasn't a good experiment. If you look at the numbers though, Hamas has reduced their violence. They definitely still allow violence to occur though, which is wrong, but again, I think if you look at it in context you see why. This is a more conservative group and they see the negotiations as going nowhere. Israel used to occupy the Gaza strip, but because of that violence from Hamas, Israel left that area. So technically they got what they wanted right? I am NOT saying it is right, but they don't see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as freedom fighters. Again, I know it may seem like a stretch, but in many ways it is similar to the US's own struggle for freedom (a weaker power using less formal and less accepted means of warfare to obtain freedom from their oppressor). Furthermore, while we only hear about the violence caused by Hamas, we do not hear at all about the programs they use to provide for the Palestinian people. They do a lot to provide and have various welfare programs. Again, please don't misconstrue this as me condoning violence against civilians. I don't believe that is ever acceptable.Some Arab leadership genuinely dislike the US for our support of Israel against the Palestinians. Others piggyback off the Palestinian cause when in reality they do not care. I do not really have as much knowledge on the entire Middle East as I do on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I hope this provided some insight for anyone who managed to read the whole thing. Wow I wrote a lot. Is it time for that basketball game yet?

Sign In

Jihadists at K...ent???

Recommended Posts

Doug Snyder

GoZips

mes102

K92

jem101

RootforRoo44

Valpo Zip

Z.I.P.

meatwad

Dave in Green

Dave in Green

Doug Snyder

Dave in Green

Valpo Zip

Doug Snyder

yazan07

yazan07

Dave in Green

yazan07

Dr Z

Hilltopper

Dave in Green

GoZips

Valpo Zip

yazan07

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity