Re: br_tod on 04/20/2007 at 5:09 PM

By: A Cornell student on 04/23/2007 at 4:50 PM
Does anyone here know what The Cornell American is? It looks as if a few newsgroups sent this article around...

It's a conservative, satirical newspaper and this is their satire/humor page -- it's a joke. No one is pawning this off as "journalism" and your comments just make you sound completely ridiculous.

Perhaps you're the ones without any knowledge of Islam or anything going on right now. No, this "article" is not representative of the oppression Muslims face and nor does it, or any satire piece, need to "further debate" -- it's poking fun at a backwards ideology that endorses murder as its only means of communication.

You commenters are complete idiots.

Re: br_tod on 04/20/2007 at 5:09 PM

By: Sam on 04/24/2007 at 4:21 PM
Let me get this straight: By saying that the commentators are idiots, I don't see how you could have made your point. You might want to consider talking a philosophy class to help you set up arguments so you do not have to resort to name calling. Secondly, an oral and written speech class will help. Finally, I suspect that if you took whatever bothers you the most and have someone ridicule it under the guise of a "satire," you WILL be offended. Please do not even consider saying "nothing offends me" because everybody has feelings unless you're dead. This is just MY OPINION:)

Re: br_tod on 04/20/2007 at 5:09 PM

By: A Cornell student on 04/24/2007 at 6:02 PM
Learn how to form a cogent argument and then talk to me. Because you probably didn't graduate high school yet, here's my point a little clearer for you: this isn't journalism, it's satire. No one cares if it hurts your feelings, or if you don't find it funny, or if it's inconsiderate, etc. I'm not resorting to name calling, I'm calling you an idiot because you're an idiot.

Yes, I too get offended, but I'm not going to waste my time on a website crying to the world about it. But that's just MY OPINION :)

Re: Sharbari on 04/22/2007 at 3:28 PM

By: Barb on 04/24/2007 at 9:51 PM
I hear that :)

Re: Sharbari on 04/22/2007 at 3:28 PM

By: Immortal Technik on 04/25/2007 at 10:32 AM
WOW...I guess you don't know history...Slavery was justified under the banner of Christianity for centuries...what do you think the Spanish inquisition was about....how about Reverend Jones from America mass murdering 10000 people in the 70's in Guyana....what about the Crusades who apparently came to claim the holy land for Europe but killed all Christians, Muslims and Jews when they entered the city only to take Solomons gold which was their only interest...Why do you think they left...to start the European banking system on the back of every other nation because we ahd no gold...We raped almost every land of this earth and used the blacks for over 400 years to build your so call empire....so please get educated...or at least read YOUR History books...these so called ragheads knew the earth was flat 500 years before Europeans...they created Math...Astronomy....even the navigator that brought Columbus here was an Arab (he was Christian)...where do you think the 3 Kings came from...Syria....the Queens bathing beautician was a Muslim cause we didn't bathe until the turn of this century only cause soap and plumbing were created....before that it was Un-Christina like to bathe cause apparently God loves the smell of Musk.... Sir Jefferey Amhest a devout Christian carried out the first chemical attack on the Natives by given them blankets infested with small pocks..so please don't judge religions on the actions of people...the Bible has over 100 stories of murder, rape and incest....God orders them to rape the Phillistines and kill all inhabitants of villages including children and women...and so forth...but then again you probably never read the Bible in it's entirety and probably just heard the flowerey parts they preach to you the once a year you go to church...by the way I'm a son of a Christian Minister but that doesn't mean I'm going to put down people but I will state the facts..cause I only answer for what I've done. We whites have abused the world...No to say that others don't do it too...but the scale we did things like slavery...the way we screwed Latin America...Africa...the way we steal using the world banks...So wake up cause God comes first and everything comes after but we as people like those Muslims feel we need to defend our own even when they are wrong which is the biggest problem...we're still like kids trying to top the other person.

Re: AC on 04/23/2007 at 12:29 PM

By: sa on 04/25/2007 at 12:09 AM
Would your newspaper and student body have tolerated jokes and racist talk about Jews? I dare not think so. Let's not be hypocrites and treat everyone with the same high standards that all humans deserve. Shalom!

Re: AJ on 04/23/2007 at 1:06 PM

By: woody berch on 04/23/2007 at 2:33 PM
This "good natured ribbing" is the ideological groundwork for "liberatory bombing", "enlightened plunder", and even genocides. Wake up to the oppression that Muslims face on the daily. Don't ask anyone to lighten up brother, for most around the world this sort of article is representative of the real violence coming down -- it might not be for you, but that doesn't mean your privilege and money will get you out of it when the screws turn tighter.

Re: AJ on 04/23/2007 at 1:06 PM

By: Barb on 04/24/2007 at 9:57 PM
Please stop using "us" and "our" as if your opinion is shared by me and other muslims...please

Re: Iman on 04/23/2007 at 6:04 PM

By: William P. Lane, Jr. on 04/24/2007 at 1:16 AM
Learned, admittedly, was a poor word choice. Let me change it to "serious", "earnest," "bona fide," if you will.

The point still stands that this was not meant at all to indict all Muslims for the failings of a few, to berate their religion or their culture for extremists' flaws, or to throw out a legitimate opinion regarding Islam. This is no serious satire of Middle Eastern politics, no awareness-raising expose on Islamic fundamentalism. Would they earnestly advocate an "armed march" at the Center for Jewish Living? The use of the chemistry buildings as explosives workshops? The "public execution" of their ex-editor-in-chief? Of course not, it's supposed to be a racist rant with pretenses of logical argument. Except I don't see a thesis, cited sources, a single fact, or any but the most rudimentary organization-- in short, anything that might suggest an attaIf, Iman, "it's always the intention of the writer" that the reader takes away with them, then there should be a few irate crazies in a sea of readers at least acknowledging the humorous context of the piece despite its bad taste and arguable racism.

I do not deny, nonetheless, that The American was certainly aware of this sort of backlash when it allowed this to go to press. It knew what was published would likely incense quite a few and garner it a lot more accusations of racism. However, that having been said, I must agree with OJ that the American's writers have said NOTHING that has not been covered in the media recently. These shameful acts are, regrettably, skeletons in Islam's closet which need to be aired out and addressed. What the American has done here is nothing that has not been done at some other point to every other religion, and nothing that will not be done again. And, should something warrant grievances both old and new to be aired out once more for these religions, I will defend their right to speak freely and (should they find actual fault) truly. If another paper, for instance Turn L...The Cornell Progressive, I mean, wished to make a similar attack on Middle-Ages Catholicism's crusades and Inquisitions, or the extremist actions of more recent evangelicals tied into the Klan or abortion-bombing, the same standard would apply. I (a strongly conservative Irish-German Catholic) wouldn't be happy to hear it one bit, particularly if the allegations were made broadly to my race and religion. But my protests and allegations of racism would hardly alter the facts as the writers saw them. Wrong or right as they might be in their portrayal, they did not write anything which they have not heard broadcast over the airwaves or read in the pages of their newspapers.

Looking one more time at the introduction to this piece, I do recognize its failure to explicitly differentiate between Islamism and the generally peaceful religion of Islam. I recognize that some of the items can potentially apply to any religion or nation besieged as Iraq is (namely the IEDs and al-Sadr). However, there is something wrong with a group of people who willingly condone, nay, encourage the practice of suicide in the midst of innocents (i.e. noncombatants, bystanders, civilians) as a resistance tactic, who resort to widespread kidnapping and videotaped beheadings of in-country enemy civilians, and who believe so firmly in the subjugation of women that rape and complete bodily covering are accepted as natural. If that element of society, be it a terrorist group, a militarist sect, or a fundamentalist government, is related to another larger group, even if they do not share the same ideals, unfortunately that larger segment will catch flak, sometimes justly, sometimes not. Adequate differentiation will minimize that, but prefaces and excuses will no more unoffend the offended, console the wounded, and soothe the injured than they will undo the damage done by the perpetrators of the acts to which the writer responded.

Therefore, I take upon myself partial authorship of this article. I was not the one who wrote the introduction: those among you who find it racist cannot look to me for satisfying justification. I merely wrote some of the parts about which you are most incensed-- the agenda items. It was not my intention at the time to say "All Muslims are x" or "Middle Easterners are y". I merely wished to claim that, while the Cornell campus and the non-Danish world are all bending over backwards to ensure that we give Islam the olive branch, the religion is by no means clean of a history of violence. No religion is, for the moment that any man-- insane, overzealous, deluded, or otherwise-- commits an act of violence in the name of his god, the religion has that taint upon it. I do not apologize for any thing I have written, for in fact I take a decent pride in the fact that I struck a very tender nerve in so many of you. Political correctness has never been my strong point; as the case may be, it may not figure as a point at all. I may have said some things which caused many of you pain to hear, but I said them with the earnest conviction that I was not painting with a broad brush, but merely making note of the errant strokes. I say now as I said then to myself as I submitted my share:

GOSH DARN IT, I'M UNDERSIGNED!

--William P. Lane, Jr. '10

Re: Iman on 04/23/2007 at 6:04 PM

By: AJ on 04/24/2007 at 5:26 AM
Iman - "I would say the "journalists" who wrote this article knew full well and intended on stirring something up..."

Why is that we [ Muslims] get "stirred up" so easily? Now, that is the sixty four million dollar question.

Re: Szego on 04/24/2007 at 10:18 AM

By: William P. Lane, Jr. on 04/24/2007 at 2:13 PM
Szego--

Thank you for your detailed analysis-- it's just about the first at least quasi-reasonable thing I've heard all day.

As to your quote of mine, you have omitted the next sentence, which contextualizes my remarks and places me squarely outside the "Islamophobic echo-chamber"--aptly and wittily put, by the way-- to which you refer. I do identify this element who suicide bombs restaurants, marketplaces, and the like, and refer to them as a fringe subset of "a larger group [who] do not share the same ideals." I don't want to paint all or most Muslims with this, by any means; I merely wish to identify a very present piece of this culture that gives the rest the reputation it gets, be it a fair or unfair analysis. We can't ostrich our way out of the existence of these loons (and, lest this too be misinterpreted, I mean violent and oppressive Muslim groups or governments, not the members of the Islamic religion), and what this piece does is call them out as the "Islam" of which so much of our nation is already aware. (I can't believe I'm deconstructing and philosophizing my own comedy.) I am well aware of the five pillars of Islam (acknowledgement of Allah as supreme, constant prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and the hajj), and recognize that violence is neither preached nor commonly accepted. Lamentably, some have twisted the Qur'an to justify violence (as some have the Bible) and should be mocked and chastised for it-- hence the article.

Re: Szego on 04/24/2007 at 10:18 AM

By: Andrenaid Cook on 04/24/2007 at 5:45 PM
Given the fact that the conduct of any war goes hand-in-hand with the murder of non-combatants, why does suicide-bombing elicit such moral revulsion, whereas war as a means of furthering national interests does not ? And, by the way, on the issue of non-combatant casualties:

(a) Recent propaganda by the Pentagon notwithstanding, rigorously peer-reviewed statistics (I can't recollect the references at this moment) show that levels of non-combatant casualties have not been dramatically brought down by U.S.-made precision munitions; and

(b) Deliberately inflicting non-combatant casualties -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the firebombing of Dresden, or the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the '80s are good recent examples -- has been a time-honored item in the tactical handbook of war.

Until such time that non-combatant casualties cease to be a part of war, suicide-bombings is, within a logical, objective and unemotional moral calculus, actually about as morally repulsive as making war. A suicide-bomber is, speaking cold-bloodedly, a highly effective, asymmetric response of a rag-tag army. And, until such time that non-combatant casualties cease to be a part of war, the revulsion for suicide-bombings will always carry the whiff of a certain hypocrisy affordable to those people who can afford expensive instruments of war.

Well written Szego, to have shaken Mr. Lane out of his racist hangover for a moment. The arguments that you and others have put forth are worth a serious discussion, at least. People, who dismiss these valid arguments as unreasonable or quasi-reasonable, by doing so, only magnify their lunacy (Ah, I remember, Mr. Lane wrote something about ”ostriching” one’s way out).

As for Mr. Lane, I have an advice. To be capable of analysis requires at least two qualifications, an open mind and an ability to recognize the many facets of an issue. Since you lack both, your circuitous reply was as empty and worthless as the malicious piece of work published earlier.

Andrenaid

Re: K. Anderson on 04/24/2007 at 6:31 PM

By: Marco Polo on 04/24/2007 at 6:47 PM
Has anyone's liberty or justice been taken away by the words of this article?

Re: K. Anderson on 04/24/2007 at 6:31 PM

By: resp to Marco Polo on 05/6/2007 at 12:15 PM
Yes—liberty and justice are taken away in democracy when the majority deepens its attacks on a small and underrepresented minority. That is known as tyranny, rule without right. As Americans we do have an obligation to protect and cultivate minority voices: if we can raise the reasonable ones and not create radicals, so much the better. You, sirs, shortly put, are bullies. Bullies do no good, and verbal bullying, whether it appeals to our innate tendency for belly-laughs and schadenfreude or not, is the same game.

Finally, this publication would do better to be on the cutting edge of conservatism (or for what else are you studying?) than to holler incoherently in unison with the masses. Learn to be leaders; sheep don't lead the flock.

Re: Szego on 04/26/2007 at 9:53 AM

By: A Cornell student on 04/26/2007 at 1:49 PM
Look, I don't care how many technical definitions of journalism you can come up, this isn't journalism. Are cartoons journalism? Almost all writing is "writing designed to appeal to current popular taste"; that's ridiculously vague and not to mention far beside the point.

I have no idea why the authors didn't put their names there -- perhaps simply to avoid any death threats or personal attacks by the commenters here, which is sadly realistic.

What is the purpose of your post? To argue over a better definition of the term "journalism"? To point out the irrelevant fact that no names were, for obvious reasons, attributed to this? Or to call me an idiot? All are very good reasons to further waste your time...

And though it would be very convenient for you, no I am not a "legacy admit." Also, I'm not an "affirmative action admit" or the result of any extra help :) It's called merit, I'd advise you to look it up but you've proven that task to be too difficult for you.

Re: Fatma Tuba Kaya on 05/1/2007 at 12:03 PM

By: Kudos for proving their point on 05/3/2007 at 5:15 PM
Fatma Tubu Kaya said:

"Dear Friends who are really offended by this article and carry the responsibility of doing something. I call all of you to take an action against to this. Please send an email to the president, David J. Skorton or sue this guy and Cornell American. Because he has attacked our personal and religious rights as Muslims. This cannot be tolerated or ignored. Please send your issues to the President. I personally believe that the President will do something as he carries the responsibility of all of us."


That's real good. Best of luck to you with your censorship mission, but forgive me for pointing out that state-sponsored censorship is one of the foremost complaints Western societies have against Islamic states. In this country, you have no right not to be offended. Were it that way, we would have a serious problem, what with people like you claiming offense at harmless satire.

Re: Fatma Tuba Kaya on 05/1/2007 at 12:03 PM

By: Kudos for proving their point on 05/3/2007 at 5:15 PM
Fatma Tubu Kaya said:

"Dear Friends who are really offended by this article and carry the responsibility of doing something. I call all of you to take an action against to this. Please send an email to the president, David J. Skorton or sue this guy and Cornell American. Because he has attacked our personal and religious rights as Muslims. This cannot be tolerated or ignored. Please send your issues to the President. I personally believe that the President will do something as he carries the responsibility of all of us."


That's real good. Best of luck to you with your censorship mission, but forgive me for pointing out that state-sponsored censorship is one of the foremost complaints Western societies have against Islamic states. In this country, you have no right not to be offended. Were it that way, we would have a serious problem, what with people like you claiming offense at harmless satire.

Re: Jeremy F on 05/2/2007 at 11:08 PM

By: a Columbia student on 05/6/2007 at 11:41 AM
You know, it might be difficult to sue them but Cornell could still pull the plug. It's difficult to get money from alienated alumni.

Re: I\'m glad I picked Harvard. on 05/3/2007 at 1:11 AM

By: AB420 on 05/4/2007 at 4:27 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: Sharon on 05/4/2007 at 6:00 PM

By: To which Islam are you referring? on 05/6/2007 at 4:43 PM
Seriously? Religions don't teach these things; either an individual has self-control or he doesn't. It's not necessarily true that he has self-control because he is Muslim and lacks it because he isn't. But if self-control is just a fundamental teaching of Islam, as you say, where was the self-control during the French car-burning orgies? How about the reactions to the Danish cartoons? I know, I know -- they were "offensive," and the offenders obviously need to be "taught a lesson" Islam-style. But public rioting and fire-setting don't exude self-control to this cynic.