Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Hards Alumni]

No one is sub-human. But two groups with incompatible world views want to eliminate each other. The only solution for peace is for one side to prevail.  Or they can keep killing each other slowly for the next 1,000 years like they have the last 1,000 years.

Yes, we all wish it did not have to be this way. But humans disagree and think differently, and conflict is, unfortunately, the only way to settle it.

I'm sorry, were you going to answer the question directly, or just tap dance around the word no?

[Heisenberg]

I'm sorry, were you going to answer the question directly, or just tap dance around the word no?

Restate the question again, as I thought I answered it twice already.

[Hards Alumni]

Do you dispute that both sides have committed war crimes?

yes or no

[21Jumpstreet]

Maybe it was a poorly used rhetorical device.

I started by using the wording that Marquette University student Amina Dalieh actually said in a rented pickup on Wisconsin Avenue with a loudspeaker.
Video here (https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/status/1714008395231936620?s=20)

I tried to change them as little as possible for the other examples to ask why these words, in the way they were delivered, were acceptable in her instance (acceptable in that it appears to be no percussions against her) and if similar words are acceptable in these other instances.

Should she have been punished?

Yeah, I'm not sure it was a poorly used rhetorical device, I just didn't get it. I'm way less smart than I think I am.

I do not think she should be punished. She is fully free to speak her mind in any way she feels. Now, if she took up arms and emulated Hamas, she should be punished. Do I think it is fair to say because she thinks Palestines should resist they way they are is equal to Hamas should be able to behead children, I do not. Now, she may absolutely feel that way, which is disgusting, but protected.

To be clear, I am an ardent supporter of the idea of free speech, and I do not think that makes me a supporter of violence. I think MU needs to protect her right to say what she said just as much as they should protect a Jewish student calling for one state (I did not hear this or claim to, it is an example). Committing genocide is grotesque, the worst form of humanity, shouting it is irresponsible and inflammatory.

[Heisenberg]

yes or no

Or sorry, I missed that.

I reject this ...

One side intentionally targets civilians. This is the purpose of the 7,3000 rockets fired in the last 13 days. They are so poorly designed, and the only goal is to be fired in the general direction of Israel, hoping they will kill random civilians. Incidentally, these rockets are so poorly constructed, made from dug-up water pipes (contributing to the humanitarian/water crisis in Gaza) that estimates are 10% to 25% land in Gaza and kill Palestinians ... see the hospital the other day. It happens all the time. This side also uses human shields, which are direct violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The other side targets military targets and understands civilian collateral damage will occur. Thsi is not considered a war crime. This side drops leaflets, send text messages, and has radio broadcasts that give civilians warnings and time to leave. Did the other side do any of this on October 7?

So no, I do not think both sides are equally guilty.

To equate these two as equal (back to "bad people on both sides") is wrong.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not resisting anything.

Well yes, you are. You've proclaimed that you have a 5-point plan that would bring Iran to its knees with minimal american lives lost and no significant geo-political consequences. You've been invited repeatedly to share this and you have resisted sharing it.

You should be screaming from the rooftops about the myriad of takes and asinine moral equivalency people are intimating here regarding this horrific situation.  There are a lot of people on the wrong side MU82, I'm not one of them.

You are one of them, the worst one of them in fact, if you are advocating for the use of nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent.

I want you to ask yourself point-blank what some of the squadlike people and all of us posting would write if there were KKK rallies all over college campuses yelling "Dylan Roof was right"?  Do you think they would simply be insouciant and accept it?  Would you and others state that college President's not doing a fking thing about it is "free speech"?  I'm gonna call b-crape.

I would state that. Assuming they stayed within the confines of what is allowed by the first amendment, then I would support their right to do just that while simultaneously using my own rights to denounce them as racist asshats. Some of us hold the first amendment sacred always, not just when it is convenient for us.

And to answer "would I use a nuclear" weapon on Iran I will just state emphatically thaf I would eliminate their chances getting a nuclear weapon.  Ever.  If that means we would have to nuke ourselves to take out their facilities?  I'm not against it but I don't think it would be necessary.

While I guess there's some small comfort that you wouldn't use nuclear weapons as a first resort in your fabled 5-point plan, it is truly concerning that you would be open to the use of nuclear weapons as on offensive weapon. The only acceptable use of a nuclear weapon in today's day and age is as a passive deterrent. To suggest using them to wage war on another country would require a level of depravity on par with the terrorirsts you seek to punish. Careful when fighting monsters Muggsy, lest you become one.

[Hards Alumni]

I did not say they were equal, but you can't even being yourself to admit Israel has committed war crimes.  This is why you're not a serious person.  Your bias clouds your judgement entirely.

Simply because you do not consider them war crimes does not mean they are not.  There is a definition that the international community has decided.  And both sides have committed them.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, I'm not sure it was a poorly used rhetorical device, I just didn't get it. I'm way less smart than I think I am.

I do not think she should be punished. She is fully free to speak her mind in any way she feels. Now, if she took up arms and emulated Hamas, she should be punished. Do I think it is fair to say because she thinks Palestines should resist they way they are is equal to Hamas should be able to behead children, I do not. Now, she may absolutely feel that way, which is disgusting, but protected.

To be clear, I am an ardent supporter of the idea of free speech, and I do not think that makes me a supporter of violence. I think MU needs to protect her right to say what she said just as much as they should protect a Jewish student calling for one state (I did not hear this or claim to, it is an example). Committing genocide is grotesque, the worst form of humanity, shouting it is irresponsible and inflammatory.

I agree as I feel similarly about protecting speech (we protect terrible speech as nice speech needs no protections).

To clarify, do you feel the same if it is directed at minorities, LBGT, abortion, etc? Would you tell minority students the same thing currently being said to Jewish students and take precisely the measures to protect them as Jewish students are getting now?

And if the answer is yes, do we agree that there is no such thing as a micro-aggression anymore? Because if the words directed at Jewish students in the last two weeks on college campuses do not qualify, nothing does.

Last question: if it could be established that her words are a call to violence and that it is not unreasonable to assume they were, does this change the equation?

[21Jumpstreet]

Or sorry, I missed that.

I reject this ...

One side intentionally targets civilians. This is the purpose of the 7,3000 rockets fired in the last 13 days. They are so poorly designed, and the only goal is to be fired in the general direction of Israel, hoping they will kill random civilians. Incidentally, these rockets are so poorly constructed, made from dug-up water pipes (contributing to the humanitarian/water crisis in Gaza) that estimates are 10% to 25% land in Gaza and kill Palestinians ... see the hospital the other day. It happens all the time. This side also uses human shields, which are direct violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The other side targets military targets and understands civilian collateral damage will occur. Thsi is not considered a war crime. This side drops leaflets, send text messages, and has radio broadcasts that give civilians warnings and time to leave. Did the other side do any of this on October 7?

So no, I do not think both sides are equally guilty.

To equate these two as equal (back to "bad people on both sides") is wrong.

Gotta be honest here H2O, while your "arguments" are true, they do miss context. This is dangerous, in my opinion, and we all do it. For example, leaflets were dropped, where were the people supposed to go? What we read and see is that both Hamas and Israel (and Egypt) make it nearly impossible for innocent Palestinians to move freely. I don't want to debate what's worse or equate Hamas' abhorrent attack with anything Israel has done or not done, I just think we need recognize it's just not black and white.

[Heisenberg]

I did not say they were equal, but you can't even being yourself to admit Israel has committed war crimes.  This is why you're not a serious person.  Your bias clouds your judgement entirely.

Simply because you do not consider them war crimes does not mean they are not.  There is a definition that the international community has decided.  And both sides have committed them.

Every side, in every war ever conducted in the history of the human race, has committed a war crime. So yes, they do.

But the war crimes committed here are wildly unequal.

Why are you so desperate for a moral equivalency?

[Heisenberg]

Gotta be honest here H2O, while your "arguments" are true, they do miss context. This is dangerous, in my opinion, and we all do it. For example, leaflets were dropped, where were the people supposed to go? What we read and see is that both Hamas and Israel (and Egypt) make it nearly impossible for innocent Palestinians to move freely. I don't want to debate what's worse or equate Hamas' abhorrent attack with anything Israel has done or not done, I just think we need recognize it's just not black and white.

War represents failure as it is the last and least desirable option. That said, this is where we are.

And to your question of where they should go, that is the job of the governing body of Gaza ... Hamas, to figure it out. The 1949 Geneva Convention states that protecting civilians is the government's job. The opposing side only needs not to target civilians and make every effort to keep collateral damage minimal. So, ask Hamas where they are supposed to go, not Israel.

And they have answered. Hamas is telling them to go nowhere. They want them to be human shields, which is also a violation of the Geneva Convention.

----

Israel's attitude has changed. So when they go in after the warnings, they will not intentionally kill civilians., But they are not going to let their presence stop them from their military objects.

The October 7 attack has changed the Israelis' attitude and the equalization in this conflict. When the ground operations start, it will be different from previous operations.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Marquette University student Amina Dalieh - "Palestinians have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".


What if a student group rented a pickup and  loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about George Floyd a week after he was killed

"Palestinians Minneapolis police officers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is this acceptable, and you would defend their right? What's the difference?

What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about abortion?

"Palestinians Pro-lifers have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

First Amendment? Nothing to see here?


What if a student group rented a pickup and loudspeaker and drove up and down Wisconsin Avenue saying this about transgenders?
"Palestinians sys-genders have every right to resist in the way they are resisting".

Is it perfectly ok to do this?

None of what you listed is "perfectly okay". It's all deplorable. It is also free-speech. And yes, I would defend all of their rights to do this even while using my own free speech to condemn the content of all of their messages.

The first amendment has limits, so while I can't say "no exceptions" as you put it, I do agree that exceptions should not be made based solely on the content of the message. The first amendment is not something that can be applied only when convenient.

Also it's "cisgender" not "sys-gender" just so you know.

And if the answer is yes, do we agree that there is no such as a micro-aggression anymore? Because if the words directed at Jewish students in the last two weeks on college campuses do not qualify, nothing does.

Huh? Just because something is free speech doesn't mean it can't also be a microaggression (or just pure bigotry). There's no logic to this argument.

Last question: if it could be established that her words are a call to violence and that it is not unreasonable to assume they were, does this change the equation?

It is unreasonable to assume that the examples you gave were a call to violence in the sense that it would not be protected by the first amendment. Incitement (the legal word for a call to violence or other unlawful action) requires that the words were both intended and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. There is no judge in the states who would classify what the Marquette student said (or any of the other examples you gave) as incitement.

[21Jumpstreet]

I agree as I feel similarly about protecting speech (we protect terrible speech as nice speech needs no protections).

To clarify, do you feel the same if it is directed at minorities, LBGT, abortion, etc? Would you tell minority students the same thing currently being said to Jewish students and take precisely the measures to protect them as Jewish students are getting now?

And if the answer is yes, do we agree that there is no such as a micro-aggression anymore? Because if the words directed at Jewish students in the last two weeks on college campuses do not qualify, nothing does.

Last question: if it could be established that her words are a call to violence and that it is not unreasonable to assume they were, does this change the equation?

First and foremost, I appreciate the dialog, sincerely.

Can you give me an example of what you're getting at with what statements are being made towards minorities/LGBTQ/about abortion? I actually had something written regarding abortion in my other reply to you, but I deleted it because I didn't quite understand what you were asking.

Candidly, I'm not sure I totally understand the micro-aggressions comment. I think statements made most certainly feel and sound aggressive, but they have yet to be physically aggressive (I'm probably wrong to make a blanket statement, as I'm sure there have been instances). If a Jewish student feels threatened, they should be protected and feel that they have a way to be protected. Do I think it's reasonable to think that some Jewish students are afraid, scared of physical altercations, I do. And, I would recommend they ask for protection and get it.

As for your last question, I don't think so. It might very well be a call to violence, but it didn't materialize that way. I hesitate to use this example but some think Trumps words were a call to violence that led to the US Capitol being compromised. Does Trump hold any responsibility. Candidly, I do not think so. If I am dumb enough to hear someone's words and take violent action, I'm at fault.

Some people might feel the MU student is calling for violence and take up arms. Some most certainly do not feel that is what she is calling for. Those who take up arms and act violently, should be charged/punished. Her speech is protected from charges/punishment. Now, I'm no attorney so perhaps there is precedence regarding this sort of thing, so I'll defer to that.

[Heisenberg]

Microaggression
a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

For years, students and educators have been punished for their perceived actions (indirect, subtle, or unintentional).

Example

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html

---

I'll be blunt to get my point across. For years, we have seen "made up" injustices by dispossessed groups taken seriously and students and educators punished.

Now, students nationwide are calling for genocide ("from the river to the sea ..."). When Jewish students tell administrators they are scared, they are given a lecture about the First Amendment.

So the next time a minority student complains that the use of the term "color blindness" is a racist microaggression and deserving of punishment (and there have been punishments for the use of this phrase), they should now be given a lecture about the First Amendment?

https://reason.com/2015/08/05/speech-codes-and-humanism/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Microaggression
a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

For years, students and educators have been punished for their perceived actions (indirect, subtle, or unintentional).

Example

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html

---

I'll be blunt to get my point across. For years, we have seen "made up" injustices by dispossessed groups taken seriously and students and educators punished.

Now, students nationwide are calling for genocide ("from the river to the sea ..."). When Jewish students tell administrators they are scared, they are given a lecture about the First Amendment.

So the next time a minority student complains that the use of the term "color blindness" is a racist microaggression and deserving of punishment (and there have been punishments for the use of this phrase), they should now be given a lecture about the First Amendment?

https://reason.com/2015/08/05/speech-codes-and-humanism/

Please give me an example of a university punishing a faculty member or student for committing a single microaggression.

[21Jumpstreet]

Microaggression
a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.

For years, students and educators have been punished for their perceived actions (indirect, subtle, or unintentional).

Example

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html

---

I'll be blunt to get my point across. For years, we have seen "made up" injustices by dispossessed groups taken seriously and students and educators punished.

Now, students nationwide are calling for genocide ("from the river to the sea ..."). When Jewish students tell administrators they are scared, they are given a lecture about the First Amendment.

So the next time a minority student complains that the use of the term "color blindness" is a racist microaggression and deserving of punishment (and there have been punishments for the use of this phrase), they should now be given a lecture about the First Amendment?

https://reason.com/2015/08/05/speech-codes-and-humanism/

So, I understand the term, I didn't understand what you were getting at. And, clearly I have fallen prey to being this way as I have caused your tone to change. My apologies, I wasn't being intentionally obtuse, I wanted to make sure I understood what you were asking. I've never been one to like the term micro-aggression, but if someone feels uncomfortable or scared, so be it, who am I to say otherwise. Sometimes I feel like the term micro-aggression has been used to minimize casual racism or ignorance, which we have total control over our personal roles in both.

Yes, I think we could all use a lesson on both the first amendment and compassion/kindness. I've always been one to feel if someone is offended by something, figure out a way to be less offensive. Or, at the very least hear what they are feeling is a micro-aggression. I try (and fail) not to get defensive about my offensive words.

Yes, I think any time inflammatory or disgusting words are spoken, both the speaker and the hearer might need a lesson on the first amendment. If someone feels color blindness is a micro-aggression, why would I use the term towards that person? When that person calls for punishment, I would absolutely tell them the speech is protected. I don't have to like it, but I have to allow for it.

[Heisenberg]

Please give me an example of a university punishing a faculty member or student for committing a single microaggression.

Here's two

https://reason.com/2021/04/07/microaggressions-uva-student-kieran-bhattacharya-threat/
Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand.

Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya's question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus. He is now suing UVA for violating his First Amendment rights, and a judge recently ruled that his suit should proceed.


https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-and-student-press-law-center-file-brief-oyama-v-university-hawaii
Mark Oyama was a student in the University of Hawaii's (UH's) teaching certification program, where he was required to complete a student teaching assignment. UH denied his application for a student teaching position, citing concerns about comments he made with respect to his personal views on students with disabilities and age-of-consent laws. Although Oyama was never accused of any actual misconduct, nor of expressing an intent to engage in misconduct, UH justified its denial of his application by claiming that his views were "not in alignment" with professional teaching standards.

[Heisenberg]

Reasonable or not?

October 20, 2023
Jewish Americans Arm Themselves in Wake of Israeli Horror
https://thereload.com/jewish-americans-arm-themselves-in-wake-of-horror-in-israel/

"There's another order coming from Hamas to kill the Jews. I happen to be Jewish, and I don't want to be killed."

That's the succinct explanation Joshua, a doctor in Los Angeles, gave for why he decided to buy his first gun this week. He's far from alone. New owners and trainers alike described scenes of gun stores and safety classes full of Jewish Americans hoping to protect themselves from the kind of slaughter that played out on October 7th when Hamas terrorists streamed over the border into Israel and ruthlessly slaughtered more than 1,400 men, women, and children.

"I was at a local gun store a couple of days ago, where my wife was doing her firearms training test, and it was full," Joshua, who–like several others who spoke to The Reload for this story–did not want his real name revealed in large part due to safety concerns, said. "There was a line outside to get in for people to do their tests, or buy firearms, or practice on the range. And I would say it was 90% Jewish people and Israelis."

He said the motivation of those in line was clear.

"We all know what happened in Israel. It was a horrific attack on civilians by Hamas with the tally now up close to 1,500 dead," Joshua said. "It's the worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust. I never thought I'd say this, but it's almost worse than the Nazis. They buried the bodies or cremated the bodies. The Nazis hid their atrocities. Hamas is live streaming their atrocities where they kill babies, shoot the elderly waiting at bus stops, rape women, and mow down young people at a music festival for peace."

----

"The tension and the anger is palpable," he said. "And the calls that you're seeing come out of these rallies, it's not let's get along with our Jewish brothers and sisters, let's coexist. You hear things like, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' That's not a call for peace. That's a call for the eradication of Jews from Israel. That literally means from the river to the sea, that's referring to all of Israel. They want they want the entire land. And these aren't isolated incidents."

He pointed to anti-Semitic incidents across the globe. Outside the Sydney Opera House in Australia, protesters chanted, "Gas the Jews." A swastika was held up during a rally in New York City's Times Square, and another was drawn on a famous Jewish Deli in the city. Iconography of paragliders, which Hamas terrorists used in their attack, has been featured at numerous protests throughout the country and the world.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here's two

https://reason.com/2021/04/07/microaggressions-uva-student-kieran-bhattacharya-threat/
Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand.

Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya's question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus. He is now suing UVA for violating his First Amendment rights, and a judge recently ruled that his suit should proceed.


https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-and-student-press-law-center-file-brief-oyama-v-university-hawaii
Mark Oyama was a student in the University of Hawaii's (UH's) teaching certification program, where he was required to complete a student teaching assignment. UH denied his application for a student teaching position, citing concerns about comments he made with respect to his personal views on students with disabilities and age-of-consent laws. Although Oyama was never accused of any actual misconduct, nor of expressing an intent to engage in misconduct, UH justified its denial of his application by claiming that his views were "not in alignment" with professional teaching standards.

Courts found no evidence in your first example and granted summary judgement to UVA.

https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2022/08/court-grants-universitys-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-bhattacharya-case

Your second example was denied a student teaching placement (with minors) because he made comments advocating for the legalization of pedophilia including this gem: "Personally, I think that online child predation should be legal, and find it ridiculous that one could be arrested for comments they make on the Internet. I even think that real-life child predation should be legal, provided that the child is consentual [sic]. Basically from my point of view, the age of consent should be either 0, or whatever age a child is when puberty begins."

Courts ruled that your second example was not a free speech issue. Rather it was a decision based on national professional standard and job requirements for teachers (which I imagine includes not placing pedophilia advocates with minors).

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/04/appeals-court-upholds-u-hawaii-decision-deny-student-teaching-assignment-based

Please feel free to try again. I imagine there are isolated incidents where this has happened, but generally universities hold the first amendment sacred and usually get it right

[MuggsyB]

Or sorry, I missed that.

I reject this ...

One side intentionally targets civilians. This is the purpose of the 7,3000 rockets fired in the last 13 days. They are so poorly designed, and the only goal is to be fired in the general direction of Israel, hoping they will kill random civilians. Incidentally, these rockets are so poorly constructed, made from dug-up water pipes (contributing to the humanitarian/water crisis in Gaza) that estimates are 10% to 25% land in Gaza and kill Palestinians ... see the hospital the other day. It happens all the time. This side also uses human shields, which are direct violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The other side targets military targets and understands civilian collateral damage will occur. Thsi is not considered a war crime. This side drops leaflets, send text messages, and has radio broadcasts that give civilians warnings and time to leave. Did the other side do any of this on October 7?

So no, I do not think both sides are equally guilty.

To equate these two as equal (back to "bad people on both sides") is wrong.

Exactly.  Why this has to be explained to people like they're 4 is beyond me. 

[MuggsyB]

Well yes, you are. You've proclaimed that you have a 5-point plan that would bring Iran to its knees with minimal american lives lost and no significant geo-political consequences. You've been invited repeatedly to share this and you have resisted sharing it.

You are one of them, the worst one of them in fact, if you are advocating for the use of nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent.

I would state that. Assuming they stayed within the confines of what is allowed by the first amendment, then I would support their right to do just that while simultaneously using my own rights to denounce them as racist asshats. Some of us hold the first amendment sacred always, not just when it is convenient for us.

While I guess there's some small comfort that you wouldn't use nuclear weapons as a first resort in your fabled 5-point plan, it is truly concerning that you would be open to the use of nuclear weapons as on offensive weapon. The only acceptable use of a nuclear weapon in today's day and age is as a passive deterrent. To suggest using them to wage war on another country would require a level of depravity on par with the terrorirsts you seek to punish. Careful when fighting monsters Muggsy, lest you become one.

We cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon and the fact that we have placating that regime is an unmitigated disaster.  There is no Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, without Iran.  To wipe these terrorist organizations off the face of the earth you have to deal with Iran, it's that simple.  There is 0.0 reason they should be raking in oil money hand over fist to subjugate their own people and inflict terror all over the world.  They are the monsters as were the Nazis before them.  I never stated that  the country should be wiped off the face of the earth, I said the Mullahs should be introduced to darkness and we should seize their oil. 

[The Sultan]

We cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon and the fact that we have placating that regime is an unmitigated disaster.  There is no Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, without Iran.  To wipe these terrorist organizations off the face of the earth you have to deal with Iran, it's that simple.  There is 0.0 reason they should be raking in oil money hand over fist to subjugate their own people and inflict terror all over the world.  They are the monsters as were the Nazis before them.  I never stated that  the country should be wiped off the face of the earth, I said the Mullahs should be introduced to darkness and we should seize their oil. 

But again, how do you plan to do that without killing tens of thousands of American solidiers and millions of Iranian civilians? 

You act like it's a game of Risk and aren't dealing with the realities at play here.

[The Sultan]

Courts found no evidence in your first example and granted summary judgement to UVA.

https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2022/08/court-grants-universitys-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-bhattacharya-case

Your second example was denied a student teaching placement (with minors) because he made comments advocating for the legalization of pedophilia including this gem: "Personally, I think that online child predation should be legal, and find it ridiculous that one could be arrested for comments they make on the Internet. I even think that real-life child predation should be legal, provided that the child is consentual [sic]. Basically from my point of view, the age of consent should be either 0, or whatever age a child is when puberty begins."

Courts ruled that your second example was not a free speech issue. Rather it was a decision based on national professional standard and job requirements for teachers (which I imagine includes not placing pedophilia advocates with minors).

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/04/appeals-court-upholds-u-hawaii-decision-deny-student-teaching-assignment-based

Please feel free to try again. I imagine there are isolated incidents where this has happened, but generally universities hold the first amendment sacred and usually get it right

Yeah Heisey I really think you don't understand what goes on at most colleges and universities and have let outliers affect your overall beliefs.

Also, it would be nice if you could keep this thread on-topic and not delve into your culture-war nonsense that got the last one shut down.

[Uncle Rico]

We cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon and the fact that we have placating that regime is an unmitigated disaster.  There is no Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, without Iran.  To wipe these terrorist organizations off the face of the earth you have to deal with Iran, it's that simple.  There is 0.0 reason they should be raking in oil money hand over fist to subjugate their own people and inflict terror all over the world.  They are the monsters as were the Nazis before them.  I never stated that  the country should be wiped off the face of the earth, I said the Mullahs should be introduced to darkness and we should seize their oil.

If you think there'd be no terrorism without Iran, I'd like to see your work.

Hezbollah, Hamas or any other organization of that ilk existed long before Iran became a Theocracy

[Pakuni]

I never stated that  the country should be wiped off the face of the earth, I said the Mullahs should be introduced to darkness and we should seize their oil.

You keep saying this, but have offered not even a hint of how you would achieve it. Until you do, we can only assume you're living in a Rambo cosplay.