Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Loren Pechtel]

So far we have nothing that establishes actual injury took place. Going to the hospital can be because they believed injury might have taken place.

Can we at least agree that it was an assault, if only a minor one?
That we are not just talking about some frat guys pranking one another?
Tom

I do not know the legal status. From what we have seen so far I do not believe we have proof of the specific crime cited but I do not know if there are other relevant offenses.

 

[TomC]

So far we have nothing that establishes actual injury took place. Going to the hospital can be because they believed injury might have taken place.

Can we at least agree that it was an assault, if only a minor one?
That we are not just talking about some frat guys pranking one another?
Tom

I do not know the legal status. From what we have seen so far I do not believe we have proof of the specific crime cited but I do not know if there are other relevant offenses.

I don't know either.
But if some rando sprayed me like that I would not care what it was, I'd consider it assault.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't need to try to rebut the 90%. I am telling you that your trusted source is saying there is a civilian crisis.

The issue was Israel's performance compared to other countries. They appear to be about 6x better (even before considering human shields, friendly fire, and Hamas shooting up people) than anyone else. They redefined the bar, yet you think that's not good enough.

And, yes, there is a civilian crisis--a crisis that is the result of actions those very civilians to this day support. If they think that's an acceptable price to massacre 1,200 Jews what authority do we have to tell them it's not?

 

[Arctish]

So you didn't read the Law Stack exchange or follow the link to New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 120.00 Assault in the third degree which states that

A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:

1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person;  or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person;  or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

And you didn't follow up on the students who sought medical treatment to see if any of them had received a physical injury or had an asthma attack due to the chemicals in the spray.

You just waited for me to post the relevant part of the Penal Code, didn't you? And now you're going cry about a student being suspended for violating the Columbia Code of Conduct before the investigation into his possible criminal activity has been concluded, aren't you?

So far we have nothing that establishes actual injury took place. Going to the hospital can be because they believed injury might have taken place.

I see nothing in your description that would cover fart spray. I don't think it would cover any form of odor weapon. (I do think it would cover OC spray, though.)

Well, it's a good thing we have police officers who can ask a judge to grant them the authority to see medical files as part of their investigation into this matter. Because there's no way you or I can know what medical treatments were provided at the hospital to the people who went there, or what diagnosis they were given by the doctors who examined them.

Remember back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when employees in department stores were told to 'spritz' passing shoppers with perfume? Remember when some shoppers called the cops, and the courts had to deal with the issue of persons being subjected to unwanted chemical sprays and smelly aerosols? Remember how stores were successfully sued by shoppers who had allergic reactions to stuff? No?

Maybe you should look into it.

Just because you think farts are funny doesn't mean there's no harm in spraying something marketed as 'fart spray' at, over, in close proximity to, or upwind of a group of people. Also, if it appears the reason you are spraying is to disrupt their gathering and/or to deliberately cause them discomfort, then it appears you are assaulting them as New York law defines it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't need to try to rebut the 90%. I am telling you that your trusted source is saying there is a civilian crisis.

The issue was Israel's performance compared to other countries.

I don't believe morally that is the issue nor the issue related to this thread. Indefinitely increasing slaughter and occupation of Palestinian people needs to end.

They appear to be about 6x better (even before considering human shields, friendly fire, and Hamas shooting up people) than anyone else. They redefined the bar, yet you think that's not good enough.

I don't believe your bar, nor does it matter.

And, yes, there is a civilian crisis--a crisis that is the result of actions those very civilians to this day support. If they think that's an acceptable price to massacre 1,200 Jews what authority do we have to tell them it's not?

Here's the deal. It wasn't unprovoked. There were 3 reasons for it: 1. A dumb religious reason, 2. Because of the occupation and killings, and 3. Because of imprisonments of Palestinians with no due process which itself amounts to kidnapping.

I don't justify thinking in terms of eye for an eye or 10 eyes for 1. I don't imagine one side is good and one evil.

They both practice tyranny. The Israeli govt is not my ally, nor is Hamas. It is possible the Israeli left is my ally, maybe. And the Palestinian Authority is not my ally, but is at least better than Hamas.

And in some universe when the extremist Hamas is ordered to stand down upon condition of a free recognized Palestine and Israel is also forced to stand down there is a better future.

In the mean time, I don't care if a bunch of radical college kids draw attention to the reality of de facto, if not deliberate, ethnic cleansing and its need to end. Doing so CAN lead to a better world.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Jewish Democrat on voting against bill: Anti-Zionism not ‘inherently’ antisemitism

Jewish Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said she voted against the bill that would crack down on antisemitism on college campuses because, in her view, anti-Zionism is not “inherently” antisemitism, and…

thehill.com

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

So criticism of the Israeli govt?

 

[bilby]

FTFY. That behaviour isn't evil, or even manipulative. It's a rational response to an existential threat.

What existential threat was Gaza facing during the build up to and launching of the October 7 terrorist attack?
Tom

None. And I never so much as hinted that they were.

Perhaps you could read back and find out what behaviour it was to which I was referring in that post, before making a fool of yourself with further non-sequiturs (Hint: It wasn't the October 7 attack).

 

[TomC]

FTFY. That behaviour isn't evil, or even manipulative. It's a rational response to an existential threat.

What existential threat was Gaza facing during the build up to and launching of the October 7 terrorist attack?
Tom

None. And I never so much as hinted that they were.

Perhaps you could read back and find out what behaviour it was to which I was referring in that post, before making a fool of yourself with further non-sequiturs (Hint: It wasn't the October 7 attack).

I just did.
You changed LP post and then referred to Hamas' use of embedding military installations amongst civilians as "a rational response to an existential threat".
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Until Israel pulverizes the ability to launch attacks from Gaza,

You know that's impossible, right?

Yes I do. Which has a lot to do with dismissing claims about genocide.

What Israel can do is pound the Gazan military installations so hard that the rebuilding process takes more years to get done.
Which is really the goal. Possibly long enough for Muslim neighbors to get over the idea that violence is in their own best interests.
Tom

How can this be achieved without genocide?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Renowned Columbia Film Professor on Israel-Gaza Campus Unrest: “The Media Has Blown the Situation Out of Proportion” (Guest Column)

Annette Insdorf, who has taught at Columbia since 1987 and served as the university's director of undergraduate film studies for decades, shares her perspective in the aftermath of the NYPD's raid of the university's Hamilton Hall.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[TomC]

Until Israel pulverizes the ability to launch attacks from Gaza,

You know that's impossible, right?

Yes I do. Which has a lot to do with dismissing claims about genocide.

What Israel can do is pound the Gazan military installations so hard that the rebuilding process takes more years to get done.
Which is really the goal. Possibly long enough for Muslim neighbors to get over the idea that violence is in their own best interests.
Tom

How can this be achieved without genocide?

It's happening right now.
Much of the threat is pulverized and with less than 40K Gazan casualties.
Given Hamas' use of human shields, I think IDF is doing pretty well.

That's nothing like genocidal vengeance or any of the nonsensical assertions commonly made.
Tom

 

[bilby]

FTFY. That behaviour isn't evil, or even manipulative. It's a rational response to an existential threat.

What existential threat was Gaza facing during the build up to and launching of the October 7 terrorist attack?
Tom

None. And I never so much as hinted that they were.

Perhaps you could read back and find out what behaviour it was to which I was referring in that post, before making a fool of yourself with further non-sequiturs (Hint: It wasn't the October 7 attack).

I just did.
You changed LP post and then referred to Hamas' use of embedding military installations amongst civilians as "a rational response to an existential threat".
Tom

So... nothing to do with the build up to, or launching of, the October 7 attack then. And in reference to Hamas, and not Gaza.

Glad to hear you admit your mistakes.

 

[TomC]

FTFY. That behaviour isn't evil, or even manipulative. It's a rational response to an existential threat.

What existential threat was Gaza facing during the build up to and launching of the October 7 terrorist attack?
Tom

None. And I never so much as hinted that they were.

Perhaps you could read back and find out what behaviour it was to which I was referring in that post, before making a fool of yourself with further non-sequiturs (Hint: It wasn't the October 7 attack).

I just did.
You changed LP post and then referred to Hamas' use of embedding military installations amongst civilians as "a rational response to an existential threat".
Tom

So... nothing to do with the October 7 attack then.

Glad to hear you admit your mistake.

No mistake. Hamas was doing it long before October 7.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Until Israel pulverizes the ability to launch attacks from Gaza,

You know that's impossible, right?

Yes I do. Which has a lot to do with dismissing claims about genocide.

What Israel can do is pound the Gazan military installations so hard that the rebuilding process takes more years to get done.
Which is really the goal. Possibly long enough for Muslim neighbors to get over the idea that violence is in their own best interests.
Tom

How can this be achieved without genocide?

It's happening right now.
Much of the threat is pulverized and with less than 40K Gazan casualties.
Given Hamas' use of human shields, I think IDF is doing pretty well.

That's nothing like genocidal vengeance or any of the nonsensical assertions commonly made.
Tom

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

 

[TomC]

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

Perhaps you have your own meaning for genocide.
I don't think that 2% of a population, which is being used as human shields, remotely qualifies.
It is insanity, I'll agree. Too bad Gazans chose insanity over peace and prosperity.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

Perhaps you have your own meaning for genocide.
I don't think that 2% of a population, which is being used as human shields, remotely qualifies.
It is insanity, I'll agree. Too bad Gazans chose insanity over peace and prosperity.
Tom

Yeah, too bad all those babies chose to be born in Gaza after Hamas took over 18 years ago, instead of making the sensible, mature choice to the born in Canada or New Zealand.

It's like those silly Jewish kids who chose to be born in Germany and Poland during the 1920s and 1930s. What were they thinking?

Anyway, this thread is about those college students who think Israel shouldn't be killing tens of thousands of civilians, and are willing to openly say so in a group demonstration on campus. You know, the ones who decry things like this:

Israeli airstrike on Rafah refugee camp in Gaza kills boy, 4, and his sister, 2

And before anyone starts kicking the stuffing out of that poor straw man again, that is not the same thing as supporting Hamas, or being pro-terrorism, or anti-Semitic, or any of that ridiculous Excluded Middle fallacy nonsense.

Being opposed to the slaughter of civilians does not mean being in favor of the slaughter of other civilians, although some posters do seem to think that way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In other news, USA fought the Nazis for nothing. Well done America and it's fight for freedom

 

[lostone]

Both sides have committed shameful atrocities and will continue to do so, with no end in sight. It's hard to find an innocent party. A win would be for at least one side to begin behaving with basic human decency. That seems very unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other news, USA fought the Nazis for nothing. Well done America and it's fight for freedom

The US fought the Nazis because they tried to take over Europe (...after Pearl Harbor was bombed). The US rejected entry to many Jewish refugees in the run up to WWII. The US and Israel weren't much in the way of allies early on either.

Currently, we have people in this very thread saying the death of 40,000 Gazans to killed a minority of Hamas and infrastructure is "doing pretty well". As a reminder, 1,200 or so were slaughtered by Hamas on October 7th. Hundreds taken hostages. A huge sum, but well below a magnitude lower than the Gazan losses.

I'm curious what an acceptable death toll in Gaza would be for the elimination of Hamas... ignoring the irony of Hamas growing in its destruction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

Perhaps you have your own meaning for genocide.
I don't think that 2% of a population, which is being used as human shields, remotely qualifies.
It is insanity, I'll agree. Too bad Gazans chose insanity over peace and prosperity.
Tom

It doesn't have to be genocide to be a war crime. I agree, Politese is using the word genocide inappropriately. Much like I think you are inappropriately handwaving the significance of the loss of 40,000 people. As if that won't have consequences down the road regarding Israeli security.