Cornell University now happy to front terror?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 27, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Well, that’s way better than fronting design in nature, right?

Remember the conference on the source of biological information at Cornell? Where the papers couldn’t be published at first , due to a publisher’s disgraceful retreat in the face of a campaign by Darwin’s rags and tatters?

The Cornell conference was most enlightening. And so is this: The university has decided to support Islamic terror.

That makes sense, actually. The way a news writer friend once explained the attitude to O’Leary for News, progressives hate other people so much that they do not care what happens, as long as those others are killed, maimed, jailed, censored, or just plain shut down. They do not even think about what is going to happen to themselves.

Sounds about right.

In that line, see this also: Darwin trolls: Meet a genuinely anti-science group… (And guess who that is?)

and

What would ISIS do with Neanderthal remains?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ppolish - good one. :-)Silver Asiatic_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

News. I didn't claim they were on top of it. Perhaps I should have written "eventually exposed". In any case the Times did a lot better than the alternative media. But what on earth has this got to do with the OP or ID?Mark Frank_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

How about a headline that reads: "Is Betteridge Law of Headlines true?"ppolish_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank at 23: Nope. I am just going to call you out on your astonishing claim that the Brit twit media were on top of it. Their utter and probably irretrievable disgrace is an example of what anyone who wishes to communicate with the public on any subject today faces. U PR outfits are no different.News_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: Betteridge’s Law of Headlines: “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’.”
JWTruthInLove_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

News This is the most blatant change of subject. If you want to talk about Rotherham why don't you start a thread on the subject?Mark Frank_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Cornell happy to support Humanitarian Group. Humanitarian Group a front for Terror Group. Cornell happy to support Terror Group? Debatable for sure. Debate is good. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/video-cornell-dean-says-islamic-state-welcome-on-campusppolish_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank at #10 assures us that the Brit hacks were on top of Rotherham. No, they were not, and the world should know. It went on for 15 years and no one thought legacy media would ever be any use until everyone could smell the stink (at which point they don't matter): "On Friday I appeared on Michael Graham's radio show to discuss, among other things, the appalling revelations from Rotherham, a drab town in South Yorkshire in which over the course of a decade and a half some 1,400 girls (as young as 11) were "groomed", drugged, raped, traded and, occasionally, doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. All the while, the entire apparatus of the state, from the political class to the police to the "child protection" agencies, looked the other way - for fear of appearing "racist" or "Islamophobic". The BBC describes the predators' actions as "brazen", which it certainly was. They would turn up at children's homes, select the ones they wanted, and drive off with them: "The carer, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed staff were reluctant to intervene in some cases for fear of being classed as "racist". [And the legacy media? Where were THEY? Everyone knew not to involve them. ] "So the individuals who presided over this regime destroyed the lives of 1,400 people in their care, and have paid no price for it. Indeed, some have been promoted, and put in charge of even more children: Sonia Sharp, who was head of child services in Rotherham, is now in an equivalent position Down Under for the entire state of Victoria." http://www.steynonline.com/6543/the-reformation-of-manners Right. Congrats, Australia! You picked the exact right person for a world run by Darwin and/or the Prophet, depending.News_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

It's not obvious to you because you can imagine a hypothetical scenario in which the university would obstruct a club for reforming Islam? It sounds like you're using your preconceptions as support for your other preconceptions.Learned Hand_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Wd400, belief in "Social Darwinism" can lead to terror. Dog eat dog, man eat man, religion eat religion. Can be terrifying. Can lead to terrible actions.ppolish_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Are you a Darwin follower? There is a long history of interrelation between that and terror.
Ah.... what? You have an example of this?wd400_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Not so obvious to me Learned Hand. How about if a club wanted to encourage "Reformation of Islam". The Reform Islam Club of Cornell. Based on Dawkins new favorite book "Heretic: Why Islam needs a Reformation Now" by @Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Veritas guy needs to go undercover and ask Cornell dude that question. He would have the backing of Dawkins and his minions if Cornell said "No!"ppolish_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

But “obviously no”, Learned Hand? Yes. Very obviously. See the explicit and pointed criticisms above, and News's complete inability to respond in substance to them.Learned Hand_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

It's pretty obvious that the video maker is trying to make the case that Cornell would happily front terror. Maybe the answer is "no they would not be happy". But "obviously no", Learned Hand? What would Dawkins think? Cowards at Cornell?ppolish_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Here is a story from a conservative site that clearly shows the shenanigans he plays with videos. In this case, narration introduces that NPR execs think they are meeting with the Muslim brotherhood, while the unedited video only states "Muslim Education Action Center." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/10/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/ Does "News" think this smeary misleading gotcha video is productive journalism?REC_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank at 8 had better not go anywhere near Cornell until they have straightened this out. It was pretty bad even when I was there 3.5 years ago. Your judgment on this point is incredibly suspect.Learned Hand_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Are you an American? I only ask because, as a Canadian, I am astonished at the stupidity of Americans in dealing with terrorism. Like, downplaying 9-11 (Religion o’ Peace). Renaming Fort Hood “”workplace violence,” thus abandoning the disabled veterans. Better yet, Tsarnaev, who deprived a number of American women of a leg, is featured gloriously on the cover of Rolling Stone. And the women are featured on the cover of People, proudly flaunting their amputations! Yes, which makes me do a doubletake at the idea that we “downplayed 9-11.” We created Guantanamo, rendered prisoners for torture, arguably tortured ourselves, executed citizens, and, oh yeah, went to war. You’re inaccurately characterizing exceptional positions as majority ones, consistent with your partisan rhetoric but without seriously addressing the tone of our approach to terrorism. This is pretty sloppy. The “glorious” cover of RS, for example, prominently labels Tsarnaev “THE BOMBER” and calls him a “monster” who “fell into radical Islam.” That’s “Religion o’ Peace” or “downplaying” the attack? In Canada, we shoot terrorists. How many Tsarnaev brothers are on trial? I simply do not know how any answer to a question whether ISIS would be welcome would not be a call to 9-11. That’s a very telling question. Because you don’t seem to have understood one of the primary problems with the video you’re breathlessly promoting. The hacks in it don’t talk about “ISIS.” They talk about “Islamic state,” which is not a common way to refer to ISIS colloquially in most circles. They avoid using the word “ISIS,” probably because if they did it would give the game away and the dean would spoil their fun by saying something unambiguous they couldn’t distort. By the way why are YOU an apologist for softness on terror? I think if I were Barry Arrington or Kairosfocus, steam would be shooting out of my ears and I’d furiously demand a public apology. But instead, I’ll just ask why on earth you think this? I’m not. Are you a Darwin follower? There is a long history of interrelation between that and terror. Is there? Seems like political and religious ideology is a greater leading predictor than scientific orthodoxy.Learned Hand_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank at 8 had better not go anywhere near Cornell until they have straightened this out. It was pretty bad even when I was there 3.5 years ago. I mean, for that seepy-creepy stuff where they aggress against the local campus Christian group but any kind of terrorism by approved thugs and bullies is okay.News_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

#6 News Well that is one way of avoiding the issue. The Rotherham episode was horrific and was exposed by professional journalism from the despised legacy media. It is sad that Margaret Wente uses it to make political capital against "liberals". I cannot see any relevance to this amateur video.Mark Frank_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

"Are you a Darwin follower? There is a long history of interrelation between that and terror." IRA? al-Qaeda? ISIL? No, really. There have been some pretty pathetic attempts by one religious right to link the left and a different extremist religious right. It is a bizarre worldview. I think it comes from deep hate for anyone you disagree with. We all become the same, you embrace silly smear videos with absurd edtiting from someone who had been debunked over and over. The result is you cower in Ithica, NY with your passport, fearing the world around you? Ithica.REC_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

I simply do not know how any answer to a question whether ISIS would be welcome would not be a call to 9-11.
At no point did the interviewer ask if ISIS would be welcome. The trick was to refer to "freedom fighters" in IS areas. This can be interpreted in many ways - perhaps he meant people fighting for their freedom against ISIS. I don't suppose the poor guy being interviewed had much idea what he was talking about.Mark Frank_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

http://nypost.com/2015/03/24/cornell-dean-says-isis-welcome-on-campus-in-undercover-video/ The point is that Cornell has absolutely no moral fiber to stand and say "NO". Instead, they are drowning in a sea of relativism, as are so many other institutions, because they either fear the backlash of taking a stand or because they truly don't understand truth. When confronted with a terrorist organization that burns captives alive and beheads children, then there is a time to unequivocally condemn evil. The response recorded in this video is illuminating and confirmation of the problem.OldArmy94_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank,when you can spell "Rotherham," get back to us. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-unspeakable-truth-about-rotherham/article20335529/News_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

This post is bizarre, even by the standards of the UD News desk.daveS_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

#2 LH Well said. To conclude from this pathetic video that "The University has decided to support Islamic terror" is absurd.Mark Frank_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand at 2: Are you an American? I only ask because, as a Canadian, I am astonished at the stupidity of Americans in dealing with terrorism. Like, downplaying 9-11 (Religion o' Peace). Renaming Fort Hood ""workplace violence," thus abandoning the disabled veterans. Better yet, Tsarnaev, who deprived a number of American women of a leg, is featured gloriously on the cover of Rolling Stone. And the women are featured on the cover of People, proudly flaunting their amputations! In Canada, we shoot terrorists. I simply do not know how any answer to a question whether ISIS would be welcome would not be a call to 9-11. No, I mean (I am a simple, backward Canadian), the REAL 9-11, that would just take creeps down. Not some call for sympathy and understanding for atrocity. I was on the Cornell campus in 2011, and it was already becoming one of those seepy-creepy sinkholes of PC/micro-aggression/trigger warning danger zones. All I had to protect me then was my passport: And, posting from my laptop in the middle of the night from my dorm room on the Cornell Conference, I never knew a thing could be so precious. "The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen ... " By the way why are YOU an apologist for softness on terror? I am plenty sick of terror, not having grown up with it. And will support any reasonable system for just throwing it off. Are you a Darwin follower? There is a long history of interrelation between that and terror.News_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Cornell University now happy to front terror? They might have to rename Betteridge’s Law of Headlines after you. Because like many of your past pieces, the answer is “no,” and it’s very obviously “no.” Does it tickle your journalistic instincts when the teaser part of the video characterizes the dean’s answers without showing you what the questions actually were? Does it seem odd to you that the interviewer never actually says, “ISIS,” just throwing in a rushed “Islamic state” now and then? And when he asks whether he’d be allowed to start a group sending humanitarian aid to families in Iraq and Syria, do you think the dean understood that to mean, “supporting ISIS?” I guess we can’t know for sure, but we can tell what the most likely answer is. I like the first response I found online, one that pops up very quickly if you actually bother to research the context of the video rather than rushing to print with partisan vitriol:
We could point out the false and misleading narration, the interviewer’s lack of explicit reference to “ISIS,” the bizarre video editing. We could point out that the person being interviewed clearly doesn’t understand what he’s being asked, or that he’s merely doing his job as a university official. But let’s go to the more fundamental question: Do even the people who made the video really believe that a Cornell assistant dean supports a student group backing ISIS? And if the videographers do believe this, why wouldn’t they ask the dean this question? Why pretend to ask the Cornell official about a “humanitarian group” helping victims in Syria and Iraq if they want to learn Cornell’s stance on the group universally known as “ISIS?” We know the answer: Because the interviewer and O’Keefe are more interested in getting a video they can use to grab attention than in actually learning what’s happening on university campuses.
I’d think a journalist would have lots of hard questions for the people who made this video. Why hasn’t the full thing been released? Why do they say they “couldn’t think of anything else to say,” but crop out whatever the dean said after the “sports team” comment? If the interview ended there, why does it jump? What was the university’s response to this sleazy pseudojournalism? News, do you think you have an ethical obligation to ask such questions, or are you merely an outlet for partisan press releases?Learned Hand_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Of related note: Here is the lecture series by Paul Dr. Giem on the book that Darwinists tried to censor, 'Biological Information': Biological Information: The Book - by Paul Giem - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg_xp0dRUdM&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ&index=1bornagain77_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply