For those who've taken up the cause of Mt Kahlil I'd simply note two things.
1. This is not a freedom of speech issue. The terms of his immigration status impose limits on his actions until he receives full naturalization. Those limits are spelled out in some detail, and agreed to by anyone who goes through the process. If Mr Kahlil wasn't paying attention or is he decided to ignore what he agreed with, that's on him.
2. Freedom of speech has limits for citizens, and different limits for non citizens. Supporting or advocating for a terrorist group or for the overthrow of the US seems like something we'd prefer that non citizens don't engage in
48 comments:
I've addressed this issue at the Blog of Lies, where Dan pretends this dude is a stand up guy preaching the good news to the poor. It seems he does this despite his clear association with antisemitic organizations spewing antisemitic crap. Somehow, because he doesn't overtly speak actual truth about his positions, even acknowledging having to temper his speech to avoid having his green card voided (demonstrating clear knowledge his position/speech is therefore qualifying), Dan will pretend he's just some innocent waif pleading for evil Israel and America to stop oppressing a peaceful people just minding their own business.
I've posted several links wherein a truer picture of this guy and his associations clearly idict him as antisemitic, and Dan's defense of him indicts Dan.
To Dan, he once again objects to truth because neither him nor Mahmoud present their "I Hate Jews" membership card.
---Art
But, to be clear, there is zero evidence that Mr Kahlil has supported terrorism or the overthrow of the US, right?
And IF it's true that Mr Kahlil is opposed to US/Western colonialism, that is NOT the same as terrorism, antisemitism or overthrowing the US, right?
And do you agree that it's absolutely freedom of speech to say, I am opposed to colonialism, oppression or military action that kills innocent people?
I get that you think personally in your head that Mr Kahlil being criminally abducted for the "crime" of speaking out against Israel's killing of innocent people in Gaza is not a free speech issue, but how is it not?
Do you join with the notion that colonialism is wrong and a historical mistake?
Would you criminalize people saying so?
If so, tell the fascists to come and arrest me.
Dan
I've see a lot of that, and it's so available I didn't include it. By all means, if you want to leave it here where it won't be deleted...
Well as long as you say so.
The point, because you are apparently ignoring reality on this one, is that people with his immigration status are limited in what they can do or say, and risk losing their status if they violate the terms they agreed to.
Most immigrants that I've seen comment on this have made it very clear that they went out of their way not to test the limits that they agreed to.
Kahlil chose to test the limits of the terms he agreed to, and he chose poorly.
It's not a free speech issue. It's a personal choice issue. It's an integrity issue. It's an immigration law issue. It's not a free speech issue.
Given that Hamas is officially a terrorist organization, I can't believe that he hasn't supported them.
Under his circumstances, his ability to do so was limited by the terms he agreed to.
You are a citizen, he is not. He was in the middle of his citizenship process and violated the terms he agreed to.
Because it's an issue of immigration law and him failing to abide by the terms he agreed to.
Without colonization, the world would look very differently today, and probably worse in many ways. As "colonialism" is one of those terms thrown around so much that it means everything and nothing simultaneously I see no point in wasting time with it. However, as Israel has not "colonized" anything and there literally has never been in independent nation of Palestine, I see no reason to indulge your delusion.
Again, it's not a free speech issue, it's an issue of him choosing to violate the terms he agreed to as he went through the citizenship process. If he had a modicum of self control and had waited until after he was a citizen, he wouldn't be in trouble.
You mean, legal residents agree not to express opinions that the president disagrees with?
That, of course, is not factual.
That you personally in your own head don't think it's a free speech issue does not make it so.
Unless I'm mistaken, even the pervert prince's administration is not making that claim.
The notion that immigrants also enjoy free speech has long been a given in free nations.
You can't support that claim.
I have relatives married into our family who still have green card status.
Would you dare try to tell them NOT to voice their opinions or you'd support them being deported?
If so, I'd say to hell with that bigoted, oppressive mindset.
You'll have to send your jackboots to arrest me, first.
I guess you know in Nazi Germany, they had informants who'd "tell on" people who used the wrong kind of language. Would you personally do that here?
Dan
I'm curious, Craig, if you would give us a list of the things you approve of legal residents can legally say without fear of deportation by magop jackboots?
Can they say out loud that they disapprove of a president or congressperson?
Can they express an opinion about a policy position?
Can they state support for or against abortion procedures?
Can they say that Democrats are wrong on border policies?
Can they agree with the current president?
Could they be deported when it's a new president?
How about sports ball teams? Can they voice support for team Brazil?
How will they know what they can say without you all giving them a list of approved opinions they can voice?
Do you not see how fascist, oppressive, chilling to human rights this is?
Dan
No, because what I "approve of" is completely and utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is that people going through the naturalization process agree to limits on their speech and actions that they know could cost them their shot at citizenship. If Kahlil violated the terms he agreed to, he opened himself up to the consequences.
If you're stupid enough to ask idiotic questions about what I think, it's no wonder you revere Kahlil.
No, I do not see how a person freely entering in to an agreement that restricts their behavior for a limited time is "fascist, oppressive, and chilling to human rights". If someone freely enters in to an agreement, and fails to live up to what they agreed to, isn't that a failure of integrity on a personal level?
No.
I "wouldn't dare" tell them anything. I would caution them that failing to follow the rules they agreed to might result in consequences they might not like. But, assuming these people exist, they can say what they want as long as they are prepared for the consequences for their actions. If they lack the integrity to fulfill their side of the agreement they freely signed, then of course they should face the consequences.
Irrelevant. When people publicly flaunt their behavior on social media, no one has to "tell on" them.
Craig...
" I would caution them that failing to follow the rules they agreed to might result in consequences they might not..."
But that's the thing. There ARE no rules where they're told that they can't use their free speech. That's what they say in China and fascist nations. Not in free nations.
This IS a free speech issue. It's an oppression issue. Don't speak about things you're not familiar with. Or do, it's a free nation. Until your pervert prince decides to abduct you for displeasing him.
Dan
An extended explanation from someone who's been through the process.
"As a green card holder, I had to sign papers for my immigration attorney acknowledging that he had explained to me the consequences of participating in any political protest including *signing petitions.*
We also had to submit all our social media accounts for scrutiny.
I changed my profile picture to one where I had on a "I love guns 'n' Jesus T-shirt" and a "I hate commies" baseball hat - just to remove any doubt. Just kidding. It was a Stars and Stripes bikini though.
Can you imagine being caught on camera wearing a keffiyeh and saying you support armed resistance of ANY kind?
Most Americans understandably have no clue as to how many conditions are attached to the permanent residence status as they are born into it.
This process is important for green card applicants because it proves that you want to assimilate to the American way of life. The five-year conditional status is also a great filtering mechanism for which prospective citizens have enough self-discipline to at least wait until naturalization before engaging in any political activity. That is a base-level test for the kind of immigrant you want.
If 1A is allowed to trump immigration law, do you even have a nation?"
"Green card holders walk on eggshells for the first five years because their immigration attorneys told them their status can be revoked for:
1) Complaining that °F makes no sense
2) Using the wrong date format of dd-mm-yyyy
3) Driving a French car. Any French car."
"The First Amendment is NOT a magical shield AGAINST immigration laws that trigger deportation
As a green card holder - which is a provisional status - Khalil is subject to immigration law in a way that citizens are not.
The last thing right-wingers care about is free speech rights for someone who is not a citizen. If sovereignty and borders are to mean anything, then a government should be able to determine who should and should not have the privilege of attaining lawful residence in America.
The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact
If you want to bring up consistency then it can just as easily be thrown back at all you Weimar liberals allying with the Freikorps over the last 8 years saying hate speech isn't free speech, justifying cancel culture and clamoring for safe spaces FOR US CITIZENS BY THE WAY
Now you are all just feigning outrage."
Melissa Chen
If you say so.
The problem with your approach, contrasted with mine, is that I would be willing to sacrifice some things temporarily to gain citizenship. You clearly seem to be insisting that there be virtually zero expectations on prospective citizens before the are granted citizenship.
But hey, whatever you say because you're an expert.
"Expected to support the democratic form of government (“support” does not include voting. Permanent residents cannot vote in federal, state, or local elections.);"
From the actual federal government. I could be wrong, but supporting Hamas is the complete opposite of "support the democratic form of government".
Had Mr Kahlil only exercised a bit of patience and waited until he was a citizen, he'd have been fine. He, apparently, was unwilling to exercise patience and self control, and his choices cost him dearly.
I know, personal responsibility for one's choices and actions, isn't popular right now.
Craig...
" I could be wrong, but supporting Hamas is the complete opposite of "support the democratic form of government".
Oh? Mr Kahlil supported Hamas? I didn't realize that. Where did he do that?
Answer: he didn't. It's part of the slanderous false claims magops make to defend attacks on human rights.
Can you admit that it's a stupidly false claim that he has expressed support for Hamas and that you were wrong to spread that libel? And apologize for your slander?
These widespread illegal abductions and imprisonment without no charges are a violation of our better ideals. Be better.
Dan
I don't know who "Melissa Chen" is, but I can find NO support for her claims and the green card holders I know didn't have to agree to not take part in protests.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-protections-do-green-card-holders-and-foreign-students-have-in-the-u-s
I think you're reading misinformation.
Dan
Like other "progressives", Dan draws no distinction between being a "permanent resident" on a green card with actual citizenship. Yet, if an actual citizen was promoting the things Khalil was, and aligning himself with the same organization Khalil did...which definitely is anti-Semitic...then that citizen would be running similar risks, but would face different consequences because of his actually being a citizen. As one of the links I posted at Dan's, which he didn't read, expresses, the 1st Amendment isn't without restrictions, as it was intended to allow for disagreement with government, not inciting people or defending savages acting against our allies or a host of other abuses of the 1st Amendment.
"But that's the thing. There ARE no rules where they're told that they can't use their free speech."
This is a lie as the federal codes explaining those restrictions are outlined in great detail. Khalil ran afoul of them. If my links are still available at his Blog of Lies, he can actually peruse them all deeply, rather than a cursory skimming as he seems to have done.
Interesting take. I guess believing all women and accepting lived experience doesn't cut it any more. I think you're ignoring the lived experience of a woman because you don't like the implications.
Yeah, him taking part in a pro Hamas protest isn't supporting Hamas.
Well if you say so, then I guess I must apologize. Clearly you have secret information based on your close personal association with Kahlil that you are privy to.
Interesting that I provided actual data that demonstrates my point that the "freedom of speech" is limited for green card holders, and you ignore that reality and start splitting hairs.
I'm not sure it's in "great detail" as per the bullet point I copy/pasted, but If there's more I'd love to see it.
Back when my grandfather immigrated from the UK, he had to affirm three things.
1. That he renounced his previous citizenship.
2. That he was not a member of a group advocating for the violent overthrow of the US.
3. That he wasn't a member of a polygamous sect.
It's like the US has had restrictions on immigrants for well over 100 years.
Where I think that we differ from Dan is that we see US citizenship as something so important that we would temporarily modify our behavior so as to remove any question that we were doing what needed to be done to get through the process. We, like Melissa Chen who I quoted, would make every effort to stay as far away from doing anything to screw the process up.
Dan doesn't seem to realize the difference between voluntarily agreeing to something, temporarily, as a means to an end and being forced to do something against one's will. Kahlil absolutely had the freedom to attend protests supporting Hamas, yet he did so knowing the risk that he took. He chose to risk his citizenship/legal status (when his wife was pregnant) in order to go to a protest. That is obviously his choice, and I support him having the right to make it. I'm just not going to get worked up over the fact that he made a bad choice.
As I looked at the requirements, it seems obvious that the intent is to make sure that assimilation is the goal of immigrants. This seems reasonable, yet so many recent immigrants (legal and otherwise) seem determined not to assimilate.
Things like nuance are generally not strong suits of Dan. Of course there are restrictions of free speech, and of course the consequences might differ based on immigration status.
Again, I have no idea who Chen is or if she even exists. You didn't provide proof of anything. You put down some words and asked me to accept it as actual legal advice.
WHERE is the line in the green card application process where it says, "I agree to not voice my opinion publicly..." or words to that effect? I've walked through this process with three separate friends and family in the last 5 years and they did not sign away their rights to voice opinions.
As to Mr Khalil supporting Hamas, you've not offered proof of that. He has protested the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, but that does not imply he also supports Hamas.
It's not good to slander people with false, unsupported claims.
And Khalil is just one of the hundreds that are being abducted and detained with no charges, like that innocent man that even the pervert prince admits was a mistake and now they claim there's nothing to do to fix their errors/injustices.
Is there any limit to what you'll allow/defend from the magop crowd?
Dan
Your inability or unwillingness to Google a public figure isn't my problem. You expect me to blindly accept your tales of some "family members on green cards" with zero proof, but bitch about my specific quotes from someone who's gone through the process. Again, your laziness is not my problem.
I literally quoted you the relevant section from the literal federal government. That you feel the need to misrepresent things, again, isn't my problem. The reality is that people who agree to the restrictions (a voluntary choice) can choose to act with integrity and abide by the agreement they made or not. If they choose not to, or to act in ways that open the door for questions, then they face the consequences they were made aware of.
As Hamas is Gaza, and is the reason for what's happening in Gaza, it's hair splitting to act as if there's a significant difference. Again, HE MADE THE CHOICE TO RISK HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS, he apparently chose poorly.
As I've been quite clear over and over about my disagreements with Trump, you asking this stupid question literally shows how divorced you are from reality.
Craig, "I literally quoted you the relevant section..."
What you cited was this...
"Expected to support the democratic form of government (“support” does not include voting. Permanent residents cannot vote in federal, state, or local elections.);"
From the actual federal government. I could be wrong, but supporting Hamas is the complete opposite of "support the democratic form of government"."
That literally doesn't say they surrender a right to voice opinions and opposition to policies.
Fyi.
Dan
No, it does literally say that support for a "democratic form of government" is a requirement. The government of Israel IS democratic, the "government" of Gaza is not.
But I understand, it's easier to play with straw men.
Is Gaza governed by a "democratic form of government"?
If they/you get your way and Israel stops trying to get their citizens back, will Gaza then be governed by a "democratic form of government"?
Does Hamas recognize all of the basic human rights you espouse and expect other nations to recognize?
Name one Islamic country with a "democratic form of government"?
Does Hamas recognize the rights of Christians, Jews, Druze, or other religions to freely practice in Gaza?
Were the protests intended to provide an "democratic form of government" for Gaza?
The stated requirement is broad and potentially vague, but assuming that Mr Kahili read what he agreed to, then common sense might suggest that he not take risks that might get him deported.
FYI, the protesters at Columbia were actively engaged in antisemitic behavior aimed at Jewish students on campus, and were actively supporting Hamas. It seems a stretch to assume that Mr Kahlil was an active part of a series of protests which featured those behaviors as well as violence, destruction of property, and trespassing, but thinks that he can pretend that he can separate himself from those he was in solidarity with.
Seems like y'all can't have it both ways. If trespassing, and destruction of property are to be harshly punished, then why is this an exception?
It's your world, you just demand that we accept your made up shit as Truth.
Again, the links I provided at Dan's...which if he read any of them, he did so in a cursory manner (he mentioned the Jerusalem Post article which was very long and detailed in describing the history of the organization of which Khalil is a activist leader)...give plenty of details regarding both Khalil's activities in supporting Gazans over Israel, as well as what the law says about non-citizen residents limitations. He crossed the lines well enough that his green card revocation and deportation are more than justified.
Dan seems to think that even citizens can say anything they like and believe they're covered by the 1st Amendment. This is how porn got so embedded in our culture. Disagreeing with the president is one thing. How one expresses that disagreement is another and can be illegal for citizens. I believe a lot of what we heard in recent years regarding celebs making threatening "suggestions", to others (DeNiro, for example) talking about wanting to punch Trump in the mouth, are all actual threats which are actionable, even if the probability for conviction is low. They are not what the 1st was meant to protect, and neither is supporting enemies of free people, such as Hamas, Hezb'allah and other such murderous groups.
Dan's PBS link does nothing to mitigate the facts of this case with regard to revoking a green card. In fact, it rather acknowledges the ability to do so without any criminal convictions for actual crimes, but simply for what appears to be strong potential for acting against the terms of their status.
Your surprised that Dan submits a link that doesn't actually make the point he thought it did?
Dan doesn't bother with reading any links that don't meet his secret criteria of "real" journalism, even to the point of failing to acknowledge the recent decline of the MSM.
I'm not sure he does. He was clearly fine with government censorship during COVID, and he regularly has to be reminded that the 1st protects offensive speech.
While I think that is part of the reason porn is so ubiquitous, I'm not sure it's that as much as the technological advances that moved porn from sleazy theaters and bookstores, to the living room, to the phone.
Again, I don't see this as a free speech issue as much as an immigration law issue. I have no problem with allowing all of the absurd leftist bullshit, until it gets into specifically calling for specific actions. This is simply a matter of immigration law restricting the speech and actions of those who want citizenship to the support of a democratic FOG and to not support terrorists.
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems like one option to "free" Mr Kahlil would be to deport him to his country of origin. He'd be free, we wouldn't have to deal with him, and he'd bear the responsibility for failing to live up to his agreement.
WIn/Win
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO GIVE UP HIS FREE SPEECH.
Man! Lying fascists are the worst.
You dishonor your family, your country and your immigrant-loving God.
Dan
Craig...
"it does literally say that support for a "democratic form of government" is a requirement. The government of Israel IS democratic, the "government" of Gaza is not.
But I understand, it's easier to play with straw men."
Yes. That's exactly what you are trying and failing miserably to do. This man has NOT advocates against a democratic form of government. Just another of your stupidly false claims.
Do you never get tired of passing on slanderous lies? I mean, it seems of you had any integrity or intellectual honesty, you'd be embarrassed by these repeated lies.
By all means, support your claim where Mr Khalil has said ANY of the false claims you've attributed to him. You won't because you can't. It's not enough for you to say, "He said X, and therefore, we must assume he means A, B, 12 and the square root of pi..."
YOU all do not get to tell people what they think.
No wonder y'all are so confused about the Bible... you assume your twisted interpretations of words are what people are saying.
Stop it. Be a better man. If you can't find quotes where he said what you claim, have the decency to admit it and that you're literally reading into his words something he literally didn't say.
Lord God Almighty, have mercy!
Dan
Craig...
"the protesters at Columbia were actively engaged in antisemitic behavior aimed at Jewish students on campus,..."
I keep hearing you all say this. Never with any support.
Unsupported allegations are just gossip and rumors. And IF SOME students did engage in bad behavior, is that sufficient to abduct someone who has no such incidents?
I hear you've been sending money to Iran to buy bombs to use on the US. Should we abduct you and imprisonment you based upon that unsupported allegation?
This is deeply fascist and unjust and contrary to our better ideals. Why you can't see that is what is puzzling.
You all would shit your pants if the Proud boys and their allies were abducted and held without charges.
To that end, there were also Jewish students here on visas who took part in protests. Should they be abducted too?
No. Everyone can see that you are oppressing only certain immigrants.
Shame.
Dan
To answer your irrelevant questions:
Is Gaza governed by a "democratic form of government"?
No. Unless I'm mistaken, Gazans are NOT able to vote because Israel doesn't allows it. Whose fault is that?
https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid
If they/you get your way and Israel stops trying to get their citizens back, will Gaza then be governed by a "democratic form of government"?
1. First of all, MY WAY (contrary to your stupidly false claim) is that all hostages and unjustly imprisoned people - held by Hamas or held by Israel - would be that they would ALL be released. Don't be obtuse. Do you REALLY think I don't want to see hostages freed? You're not that stupid, man. Be better.
2. No. Not so long as Israel refuses to allow it. Again, as I understand it.
Does Hamas recognize all of the basic human rights you espouse and expect other nations to recognize?
No. Not at all. I'm not a supporter of Hamas. As far as you know, neither is Mr Khalil. Right? Can you admit that much?
Name one Islamic country with a "democratic form of government"?
Albania. And most Muslims want democratic forms of government.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/
But it IS true that extremist religious authoritarians (Christian, Muslim, Mormon, otherwise) have a hard time being good free Democratic Republics. Which is why it's so vital to have a separation of religion and state. This is true in probably most Muslim majority nations.
Does Hamas recognize the rights of Christians, Jews, Druze, or other religions to freely practice in Gaza?
I doubt it. Again, I'm not supporting Hamas. And again, you do not KNOW if Mr Khalil is supporting Hamas. Will you admit as much?
Were the protests intended to provide an "democratic form of government" for Gaza?
When your people are being slaughtered by the tens of thousands, you're going to be first of all concerned with stopping the slaughter. This is, of course, rational. I suspect, from what I've read, that Mr Khalil wants a free democratic form of government. That is why, after all, he is opposed to oppressive colonialistic/apartheid-like powers in the US and Israel.
Asked and answered.
Marshal:
Dan's PBS link does nothing to mitigate the facts of this case with regard to revoking a green card.
Seriously. Y'all have some reading for comprehension deficiencies.
The article:
that [Green Card} protection isn’t absolute. Green card holders can still be deported
for committing certain crimes,
failing to notify immigration officials of a change in address or
engaging in marriage fraud, for example.
The Department of Homeland Security said Khalil was taken into custody as a result of Trump’s executive orders
prohibiting antisemitism.
Trump has argued that protesters forfeited their rights to remain in the country by supporting the Palestinian group Hamas, which controls Gaza and has been designated as a terrorist organization.
Khalil and other student leaders of Columbia University Apartheid Divest have rejected claims of antisemitism,
saying they are part of a broader anti-war movement that also
includes Jewish students and groups.
But the protest coalition, at times, has also voiced
support for leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah,
another Islamist organization designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group.
[BUT, has Mr Khalil? Or does that matter to y'all? ~DT]
Experts say that officials seem to indicate with their rhetoric that they are trying to deport Khalil
on the grounds that he’s engaging in some sort of
terrorist activity or somehow poses a threat.
[what IS it, then? Daring to disagree with the pervert prince? He's going to HAVE to get over himself. Just because many idiots are willing to kiss his ass and lick his jackboots, rational and moral people are NOT. ~DT]
Khalil has not been convicted of any terrorist-related activity.
In fact, he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
But experts say the federal government has fairly broad authority to arrest and try to deport a green card holder on terrorism grounds.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, green card holders do not need to be convicted of something to be “removable,” Kelley-Widmer said.
They could be deported
IF the secretary of homeland security or the attorney general have reasonable grounds to believe they engaged in, or are likely to engage in, terrorist activities, she said.
[WHERE IS THE DATA? Stupidly vapid and unsupported claims don't mean one single thing to rational people concerned about justice and righteousness. ~DT]
But Kelley-Widmer said she’s never seen a case where the alleged terrorist activity happened in the U.S., and she questioned whether taking part in protests as Khalil did qualifies.
I never said there was. I DID point out that he DID agree to abide by the restrictions that go along with temporary green card status. One of those very well might involve curbing one's desire to speak for a temporary period of time. I know it's hard for you to understand, but when you agree to something you should live up to what you agreed to or face the consequences.
"This man has NOT advocates against a democratic form of government."
1. The complete and utter lack of proof for this claim is astounding.
2. If he's advocating for Hamas, he's advocating against a democratic FOG.
3. The organization he was advocating for, allied with, and standing side by side with is certainly advocating against a democratic FOG.
This bullshit where you randomly accuse me of lies, creative though it might be, without actually demonstrating and specific lies I've told is both boring, repetitive, and an example of you doing what you bitch at me for.
If you didn't pay attention the the news when these were at their worst, that's on you. It's not my job to shove widely available MSM reports with both video and audio in your face.
You're idiocy and partisanship is showing here. If anyone of any faith, color, creed, religion, tribe, nation, tongue, or political viewpoint violates the terms of their immigration status, then they should absolutely be deported.
American citizenship used to be highly valued, and people endured all manner of hardships to get to the US and to gain their citizenship. I still highly value US citizenship, therefore I expect those who want it to fulfill the requirements placed before them (to which they've agreed). If they don't, they should be out.
"No. Unless I'm mistaken, Gazans are NOT able to vote because Israel doesn't allows it. Whose fault is that?"
Gazans voted for Hamas, and well over 80% continue to support Hamas.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/
Your problem is that you continue to ignore the complexities in the area. There are SOME parts of the region where Israel shares control with the "Palestinian Authority or Hamas", but in Gaza proper it appears as if Israel ceded complete control to the Palestinian Authority/Hamas years ago.
FYI, "palestinains/Arabs" that live in Israel proper and are Israeli citizens have had citizenship rights since the founding. Name one Muslim country where Jews or Christians have similar citizenship rights?
1. Given your complete and total lack of mentioning the hostages, unless pressed, makes me wonder if you really care as much as you do. Especially as returning the hostages would stop the hostilities immediately.
2. It appears that you understand incorrectly. Perhaps if you didn't rely on biased advocacy organizations for your information...
Well, it's good to know you know that much. As far as I can tell, Mr Kahlil (at a minimum) strongly supports those who support Hamas. I'm not sure that indirect support isn't support. By all means, demonstrate the he explicitly does not support Hamas>
It's impressive that you can find one "Muslim majority" country that is transitioning into a "parliamentary republic". A couple of notes, while Islam is the primary religion of Albania the government is a secular government. The EU rates Albania as a "flawed democracy". So maybe half a point.
Please provide proof that "most Muslims want a democracy", that's more recent that 2012. As we see in Europe the Muslim immigrants are making it abundantly clear that their goal is a theocracy under Sharia laws.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg19gx7vl4o
Does a democracy even consider a "two tiered" sentencing laws based on race/ethnicity/religion/country of origin?
So you're not going to answer the last question, nice dodge. It simply chooses to ignore why Israel is engaged in hostilities with Hamas, how easy it would be for Hamas to and the hostilities, how easy it would be for any combination of the Arab world to end the hostilities be ending Hamas, the history of the region, or the stated intention of Hamas to eradicate Israel and every Jew in the country.
It's strange that Israel has vastly more opportunities for Muslims to gain citizenship, they even serve in the IDF, that any Muslim nation in the Middle East. Every country that borders Israel is much more oppressive, much more "Apartheid", and much less democratic than Israel.
But why let reality get in the way of a good narrative.
Presumably Kahlil has enough shills like you who would donate to a legal defense fund that would allow him to get his day in court. What in the world could be wrong with litigating this?
I'm sure you'll be getting off your ass to start a go fund me for Kahlil's legal expenses very soon.
FYI, I agree that Kahlil should be freed. Although he should be freed in his country of origin. That would seem to solve the problem nicely. I'm sure his country of origin would be happy to accept his wife and their unborn child.
I hear Algeria is lovely.
"[BUT, has Mr Khalil? Or does that matter to y'all? ~DT]"
This is getting more tiresome than usual. Dan continues to play the fool (not that I truly think he's acting). This is the typical prevarication and equivocation so common of Dan. Khalil's very association and activism on behalf of CUAD is enough, as well as has been his references to the situation in the conflict being one of "Palestinian victimhood", expresses the every same words and expressions of Hamas, and yet you're going to insist it has no connection to them or isn't in solidarity with them? What a vile liar you continue to be! And so transparently so!
"[what IS it, then? Daring to disagree with the pervert prince? He's going to HAVE to get over himself. Just because many idiots are willing to kiss his ass and lick his jackboots, rational and moral people are NOT. ~DT]"
Well, he has expressed displeasure with your Joe Biden, but the rest of you perverts try to ignore that.
You are neither rational nor moral, so you must be applauding the good sense of people like me who don't play your kind of bullshit games at the expense of the truly oppressed...the citizens of Israel and all others murderously victimized by islamic savages.
But of course, his crimes are his support for that barbarity and the Gazan hatred of Israel and it's ongoing war to totally annihilate them. He couches his hatred in transparently general terms as if he cares about "the oppressed of the world". He doesn't, and nor do you, you vile scum.
"[WHERE IS THE DATA? Stupidly vapid and unsupported claims don't mean one single thing to rational people concerned about justice and righteousness. ~DT]"
Damn that Marco Rubio for not contacting Dan Traubue with all the details of their case against this punk! He should know better than to leave Dan Trabue wondering, because if anyone should be kept abreast of such details, it's Dan Trabue, dammit!
Even what we know, you hapless putz, there is enough to satisfy the law should Rubio seek to have him deported. He's an activist "LEADER" of an organization of marxist, pro-Hamas/Gazan, anti-Western assholes who dare make demands on universities to tell the how to spend their money or else!
The last thing YOU are, Trabue, is one among "rational people concerned about justice and righteousness" you baby-killing POS! You're concerned about your marxist crap being forced upon better people.
I believe he referred to himself as Algerian!
I have so much info about this case, with so many angles for how to address it fighting it out in my head. Whether directly or by clear inference, Dan's stupidity and dishonesty will be more greatly exposed regardless of how I proceed. I haven't a lot of time before the weekend, when Mrs. Marshal Art and I will be enjoying a brief anniversary trip for a couple of nights, so it might not be until I return before I post it all.
All in all, Khalil isn't the only Jew-hating activist who should be sent packing, but unfortunately, those like Dan are actual citizens (so far as we know) and can't be dealt with in the same manner. It would be one thing for someone to say "I think we should listen to the concerns of the Gazans" which would be fodder for debate. But to say that they are victims of Israeli oppression living in an apartheid state is an utter lie and promotes the vile anti-Semitism which remains a clear and present danger to Jews the world over, say nothing of just Israel. That cannot be tolerated, particularly from those who are enjoying the privilege of being allowed to educate themselves in our country and at our universities. Shut up, study, go home and preach your hate there. They love it there.
Art,
This is a tactic that's gotten more popular with the left. If anyone that could be credibly termed "a NAZI" showed up at any "right wing" event, folx like Dan would immediately go into guilt by association mode and denounce the event as a "NAZI rally". Likewise, Dan regularly demands that we answer for or explain things that others may or may not have done or said. He'll say something like, "Some conservatives think...why don't you ...?". It's just one more instance of the left and Dan refusing to hold themselves to the same standard as they demand of others.
If Mr Kahlil didn't agree with the pro Hamas elements of the protest/occupation, why did he make common cause with them? Why not leave and protest elsewhere? Why go along with the crowd. Dan keeps claiming that the Summer of Love riots were really just a few people who did two billion dollars in damage. Yet, if that was the case why did the majority not do anything? Stop them, walk away, condemn them, anything to demonstrate that there was no connection. Unfortunately, people are often judged by the company they keep. It's just that the left isn't used to having the same standard applied to themselves.
I say set him free, in Algeria. Expedite the wife's visa to join him. Hell, let's take up a collection for her moving expenses.
One wonders how the Algerians would treat protesters doing similar things?
It appears that he is Algerian, although his wife referred to him as palestinian.
Bring it on, I'm looking forward to it. You know that Dan will find multiple, creative yet bullshit excuses no dismiss anything you provide, don't you? Things like Truth and accuracy, not so important when the narrative is on the line.
I think part of the problem with many of these foreign protesters is that they're shocked, at first, that people can engage in these sorts of protests in the US. The notion of being able to protest, let alone vandalize, trespass, or break and enter, is so novel to them that they jump in with both feet. They likely can't act this way at home, so they go nuts here.
As a husband and a father, I can't imagine taking the risk that Kahlil took with my wife pregnant. The level of selfishness required to risk deportation for something as, relatively, unimportant as a protest is beyond my comprehension. I suspect that being Muslim has something to do with it as there is a different view of how to treat wives in that culture than in the US (generally speaking). Any culture that advocates for multiple wives, concubines, and sex slaves, doesn't seem too worried about leaving one wife alone during her pregnancy because the husband wanted to protest.
Post a Comment