They hate Muslims/Arabs, that is the explanation
Rumeysa Ozturk
- Thread starter TheValley91
- Start date
One major Israeli newspaper showed that Netanyahu and his party were giving financial support to Hamas and propping Hamas up. The families of hostages still held by Hamas hate Netanyahu and Netanyahu+his supporters hate the hostage families (they also hate Holocaust survivors but that is another can of worms). The families know that Netanyahu isn't interested in ending the war and bringing the hostages home, which is why the IDF does not care about accidentally killing them. It is in Netanyahu's best interest for Hamas to exist and seem like a threat
That's interesting. Where's the word citizen in the 1st Amendment?
Netanyahu is a cancer to the state of Israel, and Hamas played him like a fiddle. Pick plenty of other people from the Israeli right, and they'd be better for Israeli than that scumbag. They didn't attack when they did because of Biden. They did because they correctly saw that Bibi would throw the rule of law in the trash if it meant staying in power. He got embarrassed, and instead of taking accountability, everyone but him has resigned or been forced out. Halevi, Gallant, IDF Southern Command, now Bar from Shin Bet. Why are the hostages expected to pay the price for his failure? His son sits in a condo in Miami while they suffer beneath Gaza.
Highly convenient that the war can't end while he faces a corruption investigation. The latest "collapse" in the hostage negotiations is a joke. He was never serious about them in the first place.
Exactly. Bibi wants the war to continue (and it is also why he wants to attack Lebanon and is saber rattling about Turkey) because he doesn't want to go to jail
Correct, unless she provided material support to Hamas, her speech is constitutionally protected, so unless there's something we don't know, disappearing her into the abyss by plainclothes officers with their faces covered with masks and sunglasses is disturbing and completely unjustified. And how ironic that Trump pressured Columbia into a deal that mandated their students weren't allowed to wear masks to hide their identities.
Yeah as far as I know her op-ed was just "I think we should have peace in the middle east and not kill civilians"
I push back on anyone that wants to criticize Israel for responding to Hamas by force in any way. How can you blame them? They had their people brutally killed and in some cases raped. There's handwringing over what constitutes a proportional response and so on, but frankly it seems that nothing would be proportional in their view. Regardless, you can't run around saying, starve Gaza, bomb everything, cut off electricity and fuel, no one is innocent, etc and then wondering why you are accused of war crimes. There are countless members of the Israeli government that have openly called for genocide or ethnic cleasning. Proud of it until they face repercussions, not unlike Hamas.
Likewise, the average gun toting American taking issue with the Palestinians resorting to armed resistance under any circumstance is a hypocrite. We're not the only people who feel a duty to God and country. Netanyahu "There won't be a Palestinian state." Some Palestinians will accept it, many of them won't and will fight. That's human nature.
This was supposedly the damning part:
"In March 2024, Ozturk cowrote an op-ed in the school’s newspaper in which she criticized Tufts’ response to a student government group’s call for the university to divest from companies with ties to Israel because of the conflict in Gaza, among other demands.
“Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide,” the op-ed says.
Last edited:
You first few sentences confused me comparing to the rest of the post, but I think we agree?
Disagree on Lebanon even though I personally disagree with how they handled the situation. Hezbollah was attacking them. Israel staying there is a separate question.
The reason I disagree with how they handled the situation was that the military campaign went as well as it possibly could have, totally decimated Hezbollah's leadership, set their military apparatus back a decade, and the long term picture may still be worse for Israel. You got rid of Hezbollah, not coincidentally Assad goes in Syria, and now you've got al-Qaeda lite and an aggressive Turkey on your doorstep.
IMO, the majority of people criticizing Israel for going to war against Hamas would find a way to criticize them regardless of how the war was fought. Their issue with the war as it concerns international law is artificial and driven by their political position. Nonetheless, Israel can't show Geneva the middle finger, which it has done, and wonder why it faces legitimate criticism. In the same vein, they've pushed the Palestinians into a corner with Netanyahu in recent years rejecting the possibility of a Palestinian state. A militarized society that's spent over 50 years occupying another group of people can't clutch their pearls about that other group of people choosing to fight back.
Turkey would be happy with a stable Syria under its thumb, sure. It's not out of Turkish kindness.
From the article you posted:
“Investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans,” the statement said without providing more detail. “Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.”
Now this is a “quote”, but it’s the only thing we have regarding the contents of her opinion piece. We have the same amount of evidence that her opinion piece was completely vanilla as we do that it was racist filth. So yes I’m “assuming” her opinion piece (and I’m sure social media and public statements) are in line with other anti-Semitic/anti-American drivel, but your also assuming that her comments were as harmless as a blue berry muffin recipe.
She isn’t a citizen, she is a guest and her visa is conditional. She isnt entitled to the same rights as a citizen is. I know I know Trump Bad Trump me no like …. I get it … and shoot I agree with a lot of that and have said so numerous times in numerous threads …. but …. A foreign student on our soil does NOT have the same rights as a citizen.
And again … while there are qualified American kids being rejected from American Universities, not a single student visa should be issued.
You asked for opinions, I gave you one that you didn’t like. That’s difference between us I suppose … we disagree … ok cool … you on the other hand … REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
I find it hard to take anyone seriously who cannot see the clear potential for abuse when using this kind of power, even if we might agree that having some of these people in our country is a net negative. The laziest form of this this way of thinking is the "what about" argument that try to change the subject to something similar that political opponents did that the What About-ist also considers bad. But all this does is allege that all parties are partisan hypocrites, since the What About-ist is just trying to dismiss objections to what their guy is doing, rather than seeking agreement that similar actions are wrong, no matter who does them.
We also need to pay attention to what's actually being argued by the parties involved here instead of turning this into an abstract argument about immigration, speech, and Trump. The Secretary of State has argued that he's authorized by statute to do this when a legal immigrant's "presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.”
It seems pretty clear that this justification is being used because they want to avoid making this about speech they don't like. That's because there's strong precedent supporting freedom of speech for non-citizens, even if the process of vetting a potential immigrant can involve considering speech. Practically, think about how broadly this could be used if applied beyond allegedly pro-Hamas speech and activities by students. Couldn't this policy be used as a justification for detaining and deporting someone who criticized Trump's rhetoric about Canadian tariffs and making it the 51st state? We know the Trump administration is very sensitive to criticism of Russia as it attempts to woo the Russians into a ceasefire, so what about Ukrainians, Poles, or people from the Baltics who criticize the government's handling of Ukraine negotiations? This is not even to mention the way this could be used by a left-wing administration.
Do we really even believe that what some random students say is undermining our foreign policy, then? If we don't think that's a serious justification for this, then the justification is back to being that these people have engaged in speech the government doesn't like, and not even the government is trying to defend that justification because it knows it would fail.
But even if we think that legal immigrants shouldn't have free speech (which is manifestly dangerous), shouldn't we also ask why it's necessary to basically disappear these people extra-judicially? Shouldn't we deliberate a little more to avoid things like wrongly asserting the guy who was grabbed at Columbia was on a student visa? What about defying court orders? It all seems like a bit too much for some goofball students.
Whenever free speech is implicated, one of the best rules of thumb is to see where FIRE stands. In this case, they're clearly against the government: https://www.thefire.org/news/should-government-punish-you-allegedly-undermining-american-diplomacy
We also need to pay attention to what's actually being argued by the parties involved here instead of turning this into an abstract argument about immigration, speech, and Trump. The Secretary of State has argued that he's authorized by statute to do this when a legal immigrant's "presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.”
It seems pretty clear that this justification is being used because they want to avoid making this about speech they don't like. That's because there's strong precedent supporting freedom of speech for non-citizens, even if the process of vetting a potential immigrant can involve considering speech. Practically, think about how broadly this could be used if applied beyond allegedly pro-Hamas speech and activities by students. Couldn't this policy be used as a justification for detaining and deporting someone who criticized Trump's rhetoric about Canadian tariffs and making it the 51st state? We know the Trump administration is very sensitive to criticism of Russia as it attempts to woo the Russians into a ceasefire, so what about Ukrainians, Poles, or people from the Baltics who criticize the government's handling of Ukraine negotiations? This is not even to mention the way this could be used by a left-wing administration.
Do we really even believe that what some random students say is undermining our foreign policy, then? If we don't think that's a serious justification for this, then the justification is back to being that these people have engaged in speech the government doesn't like, and not even the government is trying to defend that justification because it knows it would fail.
But even if we think that legal immigrants shouldn't have free speech (which is manifestly dangerous), shouldn't we also ask why it's necessary to basically disappear these people extra-judicially? Shouldn't we deliberate a little more to avoid things like wrongly asserting the guy who was grabbed at Columbia was on a student visa? What about defying court orders? It all seems like a bit too much for some goofball students.
Whenever free speech is implicated, one of the best rules of thumb is to see where FIRE stands. In this case, they're clearly against the government: https://www.thefire.org/news/should-government-punish-you-allegedly-undermining-american-diplomacy
Painting with a very broad brush, there. Plenty of people who believe what you said in the first part of your first paragraph are not as baldly partisan as some in this thread. You've also somewhat confused the issue in the second paragraph, since we actually can use speech to vet immigrants before they have legal status. Plus, how much or how little immigration you think we should have is a separate issue from support for constitutional rights.
Oh boy. And this is how Trump manages to win these issues despite being cackhanded all the time.
Not confusing the issue at all. This situation is clearly after having legal status. You bring up a situation of someone who doesn’t.
I think we are closely aligned on this topic btw.
Visa/green card holders are in the US at the pleasure of the citizens of the united states. They have the right to not support/recruit for terrorist organizations and/or declared enemies of the united states while they are here. Those that do, should be shown the door. My preference would be that the benefit of the doubt NOT go to them. Play with or near fire and sometimes you get burnt.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Isn’t the whole idea of the “grand experiment” that certain rights are granted to people just on the basis that they are people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, etc?
Haven’t conservatives been arguing for years that these rights are “god given” and cannot be taken away?
Whats changed?
Isn’t the whole idea of the “grand experiment” that certain rights are granted to people just on the basis that they are people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, etc?
Haven’t conservatives been arguing for years that these rights are “god given” and cannot be taken away?
Whats changed?
Again, you're talking about the difference between someone who already has legal status versus somebody who's still being vetted for legal status. Constitutional protections are also for "persons" in the US, not just citizens. What you're saying also isn't even the justification being given by the administration, since they know it's not one that would hold up legally.
Unfortunately, what appears to be happening here is that some in the administration want to enforce something more like the regime you're talking about where non-citizens can be deported because of speech the government doesn't like, and then they're looking for post-hoc authorization to do that.
Last edited:
This is a red herring, especially since you're quoting the Declaration of Independence. Everyone has natural rights, to be sure, but not everybody is entitled to the government's enforcement of their natural rights. Hence, the sentence after the one you quoted, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Unfortunately free speech applies to speech you don't like and unless they're also supplying material support, they should not be detained. Wish we could also show the door to those who would attack our own Capitol and close the door to ex-pats like the Tate brothers, but here we are.
I appreciate the spin here … and the attempt at a “gotcha”, but as @ChicagoTiger85 already stated … red herring.
But carry on good sir.
Its ok if you don't know much about the topic. Just say that instead of spiraling. We can agree with that.
I don't feel that strongly about either of those, TBH. And US citzens are a whole different ballgame for me. 100% agree on the free speech even if you don't like it. Naturally the inevitable point of debate is where to draw the "fire in a crowded theater" line.
same reason slavery existed at the same time as that documents creation: racism
Sounds like I know just as much as you do. If you do a little digging on this person, sounds like she is a known agitator who already had a lawyer on retainer. So clearly not just someone who wrote a piece for college paper and then was randomly scooped up off the street.
but carry on … you do you boo.
Trump and the gang that can't shoot straight just interpret the constitution to fit their personal narrative
I agree with you libs on Netanyahu. October 7th could have been a false flag absolutely.
You know that AIPAC has a lot of influence here in the US. I still do not have a huge amount of sympathy here.
Again don’t know what you are talking about but feel free to send your twitter links.
If you are not aware of this it's a true testament to your presence in the lib echo chamber. Please do not come back with the dem cover story justifying the imprisonment of a 75 year old woman for praying on a public sidewalk.
Elderly pro-life activist sentenced to prison after abortion clinic demonstration
Blocking a business forcefully from being open legally is against the law and was a law for over two decades. That’s not freedom of speech.
If she wanted to be outside and protest she had every right and I support her right. She didn’t do that and broke the law.
The topic of this thread shows no laws broken.
I’m well aware you don’t understand the difference between the two situations.
I'm calling BS on your response here. This 75 year old woman was put in prison for exercising her 1st amendment rights. She is old and frail mind you and is an American citizen.
Blocking a business from being open with ropes and chains is not protected by the first amendment. She broke the law as the article you provided stated.
Latest posts
-
Thoughts from the Christians on the board regarding Righteous Gemstones- Latest: OrangeRegalia
-
-
-
