Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference

[HistoryBefore67]

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

Seal will never accept the truth.

 

[Trajan]

NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine

Glad I'm not a Jets fan. I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster. I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line. And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.

you got a better source? FrontPage? FRONTPAGE?!!!

ok, so, what do you object to in the article?


I have one; they didn't say that there was in fact families in Jerusalem moved from their homes and their things were put in the street as they refused eviction orders, they should have said that when they were describing one of the pics he out up.


your turn...........

 

[sealadaigh]

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

you people really do have to learn how to read.

first of all she went all leagal eagle on me.

then she presents what she claims as facts.

i am not, not have i disputed the logo. what i dispute is that the opinion that the logo "strongly suggests" the destruction of israel is a fact. that is an opinion even, as i have said, it may be an accurate opinion. it may also be an inaccuraate opinion.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Who's "she"?

 

[MHunterB]

I see I need to repeat myself: It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I think there is a huge difference: the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former. They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?

because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

I did not say any such thing. What I did state was that calling for the destruction of a nation is *inexcusable* behavior because it is so very hateful and despicable, no matter which nation. If you want to hold the POV that calling for the destruction of a nation is NOT 'wrong', that's your business. Constitutionality has nothing to do with it, either.

One idea is 'legitimate support', as it were: the other is homicidal/genocidal in nature.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.Really? An where do you hear this? I've heard a lot of PO'd Americans make such comments, but not any more often from 'Zionists' than 'non-Zionists'.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.
If someone is advocating 'Palestine from the River to the Sea' - just where would that leave Israel on the map? Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not going on. Do you seriously imagine that folks who want 'Palestine' to cover every inch of 'Israel' are proposing anything resembling 'peaceful coexistance'?

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply. You shouldn't: nobody should. They should check out the claims made for themselves. ALL media outlets should be checked.

And incidentally, ANY media outlet has some bias or other. I think it's a bit extreme to keep calling stuff propaganda.

.

 

[sealadaigh]

Who's "she"?

if you are not a "she" i apologise. i have seen you referred to as both. it was not meant as an insult at all.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Who's "she"?

if you are not a "she" i apologise. i have seen you referred to as both. it was not meant as an insult at all.

No offense taken.

Though, this does provide a nice example of what happens when you make assumptions.

 

[sealadaigh]

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

Seal will never accept the truth.

i am not nor have i ever disputed the logo. nor do i dispute that it is "offensive to (insert a qualifying word here that you have become so fond raggin' on me about for not doing, marg) israelis."

now, it may be a fact that the el-bireh logo strongly suggests to you or a select group that el-bireh advocates the destruction of israel but to make a blank statement that it is a fact is false. it is your opinion.

you, with your illustrious resume, that remains illusive due to your humility, should be aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

Seal will never accept the truth.

i am not nor have i ever disputed the logo. nor do i dispute that it is "offensive to (insert a qualifying word here that you have become so fond raggin' on me about for not doing, marg) israelis."

now, it may be a fact that the el-bireh logo strongly suggests to you or a select group that el-bireh advocates the destruction of israel but to make a blank statement that it is a fact is false. it is your opinion.

you, with your illustrious resume, that remains illusive due to your humility, should be aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Is this your not exactly subtle way of trying to get me to reveal personal details about myself? If so, don't bother. I know better than to do so on a message board. Not that there are crazy whackadoodles here or who might take things too far or anything...

Or maybe there are.

 

[sealadaigh]

Who's "she"?

if you are not a "she" i apologise. i have seen you referred to as both. it was not meant as an insult at all.

No offense taken.

Though, this does provide a nice example of what happens when you make assumptions.

most of us make assumptions. i do so rarely. i did in this case but, as i said, i saw you referred to as she. you still haven't told me your gender.

perhaps, in the future, you might want to correct people who make that assumption if it bothers you. it doesn't bother me one way or another what people think i am...genderwise.

 

[sealadaigh]

Seal will never accept the truth.

i am not nor have i ever disputed the logo. nor do i dispute that it is "offensive to (insert a qualifying word here that you have become so fond raggin' on me about for not doing, marg) israelis."

now, it may be a fact that the el-bireh logo strongly suggests to you or a select group that el-bireh advocates the destruction of israel but to make a blank statement that it is a fact is false. it is your opinion.

you, with your illustrious resume, that remains illusive due to your humility, should be aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Is this your not exactly subtle way of trying to get me to reveal personal details about myself? If so, don't bother. I know better than to do so on a message board. Not that there are crazy whackadoodles here or who might take things too far or anything...

Or maybe there are.

well, that is a leap. i don't care one single damn about your personal details. you were the one who brought up your legal expertise in an attempt to proclaim what you perceived to be my complete ignorance on a matter.

i was not attempting to glean any personal information at all. i was merely mocking your arrogance and conceit and your lack of reason and logic.

 

[Roudy]

Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.

Naw, the muslim birth rate will soon over take the immigration rate.

And no country is going to expel their natural born citizens. ..

Ants and cockroaches reproduce at a higher rate, doesn't make them dominant.

 

[Roudy]

I see I need to repeat myself: It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I think there is a huge difference: the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former. They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?

because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply.

Stop lying. Zionists have never called for the destruction of Iran or Syria. If anything, they call for the people of Iran to be freed from these tyrannical Islamist animals.

 

[Hossfly]

yes, but there is a difference between firing a person for no reason and firing a person for the wrong reason.

Wrong reason? I've seen people get fired because the person doing the firing didn't like the color of their mustasche or the part of their hair. Makes no difference one way or the other.

well, it doesn't surprise me to see you have no problem with people being fired because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, mustache colour, and hair part. i myself have spent almost my entire life fighting agaisnst such discrimination but carry on...and good luck, troop.

you know what though. when i took that oath to protect and defend the constitution, i was serious. was there somfin in the c-rats they gave to you air-mobile cav fooks that makes you cut and run when the heats on or when god bangs his book in your direction.

That last statement of yours is totaly false and gives me a different opinion about your character, Redleg..

 

[P F Tinmore]

I agree with that part - however, the smear tactics in the OP, and the lack of any real evidence for their claims that he is a "radical muslim" are disgusting and largely false. To take it seriously - to support it - is to give it a credability it doesn't deserve. Would you give Stormfront credibility?

There are no "smear tactics" in the article. The article presents FACTS regarding: (1) Oboushi's participation in the conference, and (2) the nature of the organization that sponsored the conference. It then draws conclusions from those facts. Just because you don't agree with those conclusions or believe them to be overreaching does not mean the article must be discarded. Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article.

I don't read Stormfront, so I have no comment on that site.

If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "he’s a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".

Perhaps you might consider your words here: "Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article" in light of other conversations where you summarily dismissed sources and "facts" without "contesting them".

I find this OP makes many allegations and provides next to no supporting material and contested what they've claimed about him being a "Muslim extremist".

Perhaps you can offer up some first hand evidence of this "Muslim extremism" in this young man - some quotes, behavior etc to support that. The kind of evidence you, yourself, would demand were this a criticism levied at Israel.

FYI - You don't need to read Stormfront to know what it is.

If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "he’s a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".

Who decided that this was a radical Muslim conference? Was that how it was advertised?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "he’s a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".

I guess so.

Perhaps you might consider your words here: "Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article" in light of other conversations where you summarily dismissed sources and "facts" without "contesting them".

Only I have not done so. What I have done is reject the idea that one person's accusation is to be deemed a "fact." Here, there is no dispute. He did speak at the conference, the conference is sponsored by an organization that advocates a "Palestine from river to sea" concept, the organization has connections to terrorist organizations, and it has published anti-Semitic materials. These are all facts that are not contested by anyone. If Aboushi claimed that he was not at the conference, then I'd have to consider the source that is saying he was there. But that's not the case.



I don't really like the term "Muslim extremist" either, but I do think he is "Palestinian extremist" in that he takes his support of "Palestine" to an extreme level that questions Israel's right to exist.

Perhaps you can offer up some first hand evidence of this "Muslim extremism" in this young man - some quotes, behavior etc to support that. The kind of evidence you, yourself, would demand were this a criticism levied at Israel.

In my book, anyone who would agree to speak at such a conference is guilty of extremist behavior.

FYI - You don't need to read Stormfront to know what it is.

Actually, before joining this forum, I had never heard of Stormfront.

I don't really like the term "Muslim extremist" either, but I do think he is "Palestinian extremist" in that he takes his support of "Palestine" to an extreme level that questions Israel's right to exist.

Why do you consider that extreme? It is a legitimate question under the circumstances.

 

[MJB12741]

And we don't let YOU run your Jew hatred unanswered.

because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply.

Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?

lolol...well, there sure is a lotta histrionic babblin' that seems to be trying to convince somebody of something. perhaps you are just angry because i, among others, don't let you run your and david horowitz's rhetoric and propaganda unanswered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "he’s a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".

I guess so.



Only I have not done so. What I have done is reject the idea that one person's accusation is to be deemed a "fact." Here, there is no dispute. He did speak at the conference, the conference is sponsored by an organization that advocates a "Palestine from river to sea" concept, the organization has connections to terrorist organizations, and it has published anti-Semitic materials. These are all facts that are not contested by anyone. If Aboushi claimed that he was not at the conference, then I'd have to consider the source that is saying he was there. But that's not the case.



I don't really like the term "Muslim extremist" either, but I do think he is "Palestinian extremist" in that he takes his support of "Palestine" to an extreme level that questions Israel's right to exist.



In my book, anyone who would agree to speak at such a conference is guilty of extremist behavior.

FYI - You don't need to read Stormfront to know what it is.

Actually, before joining this forum, I had never heard of Stormfront.

I think, honestly - you could have chosen a better source to make your point with. The only fact that is accurate is he spoke at the conference - even the accusation that the group itself is extremist is hardly well supported. The intent of the article is clearly defammatory - in fact, did any of them make an attempt to find talk to him? Find out what his views were? What he talked about? No. They wrote up an article full of innuendo and guilt by association. I find that disgusting regardless of who it's directed against.

It is the same slime that kind dumps on anyone who does not suck up to Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The facts are the facts:

1. Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2. The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3. The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4. The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5. The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team. I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues. I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team. Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors. If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.

here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.

Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing. What do you think that's a map of? Is that a two-state solution map?

The map is geographically correct. Why do you have a problem with an accurate map?

 

[Hossfly]

i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.

Check the logo on the conference page: it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW. It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.

you people really do have to learn how to read.

first of all she went all leagal eagle on me.

then she presents what she claims as facts.

i am not, not have i disputed the logo. what i dispute is that the opinion that the logo "strongly suggests" the destruction of israel is a fact. that is an opinion even, as i have said, it may be an accurate opinion. it may also be an inaccuraate opinion.

I wonder if Seal can tell us which Muslim countries actually show Israel on their maps. If anyone should know, it would be Seal since he is so well informed..