Iran Erupts: Crowds Burn US Flags and Swear to Ayatollah

[wing2000]

Kahlil was part of the group called Columbia University Apaetheid Divest. A group that directly supports a global intifada and was central in the crimes committed at Columbia, vandalism, kidnapping, assault and take over of buildings. All of which are agai at the law and were part of supporting Hamas. It also advocates for armed resistance calling for total eradication of western civilization.

Source?

 

[rjs330]

Source?

I rarely do sources anymore. I've learned it doesn't make any difference. We see in another thread the source was completely dismissed cause it wasnt the 'correct" source for the libs. We've also seen conservative posters utterly dismiss a leftist source cause it wasnt rhe correct source.

So if you don't believe me find your own information.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Source?

I can pitch hit on this one (since I've done posts about it in the past)

Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas

Columbia University Apartheid Divest has withdrawn an apology it made last spring for a member who said “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

www.nytimes.com

Loading…

www.politico.com

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Here's 3 non-conservative sources.

The only thing in dispute was whether he was a "leader", "spokesman", or "regular old member" with regards to his position in the group, but the fact that he was in the group doesn't appear to be in any sort dispute.

The first link (the NY Times piece) delves into some of the hostile, violence-advocating statements made by the Apartheid Divest group.

 

[rjs330]

I can pitch hit on this one (since I've done posts about it in the past)

Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas

Columbia University Apartheid Divest has withdrawn an apology it made last spring for a member who said “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

www.nytimes.com

Loading…

www.politico.com

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Here's 3 non-conservative sources.

The only thing in dispute was whether he was a "leader", "spokesman", or "regular old member" with regards to his position in the group, but the fact that he was in the group doesn't appear to be in any sort dispute.

The first link (the NY Times piece) delves into some of the hostile, violence-advocating statements made by the Apartheid Divest group.

Thanks Rob. I have the sources, but dont really post them anymore. Too often have they been dismissed as if they don't matter. So I quit spending rhe time finding it in my saved stuff and posting it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While the Shah had many enemies, I think most of the people probably supported him when society was stable. His downfall was chaotic and quick and I believe wrong accusations against his dreaded SAVAK from a theater fire set by the Islamist extremists led to his fall.

Cinema Rex fire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's one aspect of the conflict timeline I wasn't aware of, thanks for posting.


I had known about some other "false flag attempts" that were geared towards influencing public sentiment and whipping people up into an anti-Shah frenzy

For instance, anti-Shah media outlets falsely reporting on "mass killings of protestors by the thousands", and the clerical rumor mills that had spread other false information like "The Shah is going to ban Muslim holy books" and the one that Khomeini himself started, which was that he had uncovered secret plans that the Shah was planning on bulldozing all of the Mosques in the country.

But I guess the Cinema Rex fire was a historical blind spot for me, I'll have to read up more on that.


I guess like many modern "revolutions", the sentiments were a combination of 20% genuine grievances; 80% weaponized myths.

 

[BCP1928]

That's one aspect of the conflict timeline I wasn't aware of, thanks for posting.


I had known about some other "false flag attempts" that were geared towards influencing public sentiment and whipping people up into an anti-Shah frenzy

For instance, anti-Shah media outlets falsely reporting on "mass killings of protestors by the thousands", and the clerical rumor mills that had spread other false information like "The Shah is going to ban Muslim holy books" and the one that Khomeini himself started, which was that he had uncovered secret plans that the Shah was planning on bulldozing all of the Mosques in the country.

But I guess the Cinema Rex fire was a historical blind spot for me, I'll have to read up more on that.


I guess like many modern "revolutions", the sentiments were a combination of 20% genuine grievances; 80% weaponized myths.

Only 20% grievnances? Well, clearly we can blow that off. Those Iranians must be really evil. We've always tried to act in their own best interests and still they hate us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Only 20% grievnances?

Yeah...

The legitimate grievances were
- Lack of participation in in the governing process (due to it being a monarchy)
- Limited small-scope censorship
- The presence of a small-scale secret police force

However, the sentiments of
- The Shah is hammering the middle-class in favor of the wealthy elite Americans and Brits (false, the middle class in Iran during that time was the fastest growing in the region, and they had a wealth inequality index score on par with US circa 1950s, and they were actually make more revenue for domestic use via that partnership)
- The Shah is planning on banning Islam
- The Shah is killing protestors by the thousands
- The Shah is planning on bulldozing every mosque in the country
- The False Flag activities that were conducted by the Tudeh party and Islamists, and then blamed on the Shah
- The Shah is secretly working for the freemasons

...those were all meritless claims that spread like wildfire.


That's why the author I quoted before (the Iranian woman who was the Nobel winner), stated that "In hindsight, knowing what we know now, what we needed was reforms and not total destruction of the system we had"

And those legitimate grievances (and the reforms needed to correct them) were in the process of being addressed by way of the Shah appointing a PM who was from their center-left party (who was part of Mossadegh's administration previously), and tasking them with setting up a civilian government, lifting all censorship, and dismantling the SAVAK.

However, the impassioned "revolutionaries" were so whipped up into a frenzy because they believed the items on that 2nd list were true, that they didn't even give it a chance and labelled him a traitor and sent him into exile.


Modern Day Equivalent:
Pretend that Donald Trump finally came to terms with the fact that there were grievances about his administration that were legitimate, and in order to soften his approach and extend an olive branch, he appointed Bernie Sanders to a high ranking position, and tasked him with making the reforms needed to address those issues.

...but, instead of giving Bernie a chance, agitators from groups like Antifa, BLM, etc... circulated a bunch of false rumors about Trump murdering people and planning on bulldozing places of worship, labelled Bernie a traitor for agreeing to work with him, and exiling him to Canada.


When people believe falsehoods of that extreme nature, they're not going to think clearly.

If one actually thought their current administration was doing those types of things, naturally they're going to think "this is messed up beyond repair and not salvageable, not even Bernie could save it"... where as, if their mindset was more grounded in reality, they'd be more likely to give reforms a chance.

 

[wing2000]

I rarely do sources anymore. I've learned it doesn't make any difference. We see in another thread the source was completely dismissed cause it wasnt the 'correct" source for the libs. We've also seen conservative posters utterly dismiss a leftist source cause it wasnt rhe correct source.

So if you don't believe me find your own information.

That's quite the stance for a CW staff member to take...the byline of this section indicates: "Articles Required"

 

[wing2000]

Says who? You?




Support for terrorist? Name one of his alleged activities that is "directly involved with terrorist supporters"?

"Khalil was a lead negotiator representing the student protesters to the Columbia administration during the school’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” last spring. The student group behind the encampment — Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD — had two main demands: that Columbia cut all its ties to Israel, including divesting and halting plans to build a “global center” in Tel Aviv, and that the protesters themselves receive amnesty for their actions. During the whole political firestorm, Khalil and administrators, including at least two deans, were literally at the negotiating table day and night, though they never came to an agreement."

Loading…

www.politico.com

This activity makes him a "terrorist'?

 

[Landon Caeli]

This activity makes him a "terrorist'?

I'd vote 'yes' on that... I mean, if we're deciding by votes.

 

[rjs330]

That's quite the stance for a CW staff member to take...the byline of this section indicates: "Articles Required"

That refers to starting a thread. If I start one I will use a source.

 

[rjs330]

"Khalil was a lead negotiator representing the student protesters to the Columbia administration during the school’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” last spring. The student group behind the encampment — Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD — had two main demands: that Columbia cut all its ties to Israel, including divesting and halting plans to build a “global center” in Tel Aviv, and that the protesters themselves receive amnesty for their actions. During the whole political firestorm, Khalil and administrators, including at least two deans, were literally at the negotiating table day and night, though they never came to an agreement."

Loading…

www.politico.com

This activity makes him a "terrorist'?

It makes him a supporter of terrorists and thus not eligible to maintain his visa.

 

[wing2000]

It makes him a supporter of terrorists and thus not eligible to maintain his visa.

Demanding Colombia University to divest in Israel is terrorism?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Demanding Colombia University to divest in Israel is terrorism?

When there's an ultimatum, such as destroying property, and disrupting others education, for non-compliance... kinda.

I'd call ot terrorism lite, because it's the same thing minus the killing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Demanding Colombia University to divest in Israel is terrorism?

I think the point of contention is that he was affiliated with a group that's directly called for violence and has given endorsements of them and praised their actions.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen (including a green card holder) can be deported if they provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This includes financial support, training, services, or certain forms of advocacy. If a green card holder is found to have incited, endorsed, or recruited for terrorism, that could also be grounds for removal.

"Certain forms of advocacy" is the part that's in question, and that the laws probably should've spelled out in more detail.

Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas

Columbia University Apartheid Divest has withdrawn an apology it made last spring for a member who said “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

www.nytimes.com

Per the NY Times article:
The group marked the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by distributing a newspaper with a headline that used Hamas’s name for it: “One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,” it read, over a picture of Hamas fighters breaching the security fence to Israel. And the group posted an essay calling the attack a “moral, military and political victory” and quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the assassinated former political leader of Hamas.
“The Palestinian resistance is moving their struggle to a new phase of escalation and it is our duty to meet them there,” the group wrote on Oct. 7

Since then, the group has praised a Tel Aviv attack by Palestinian militants that killed seven people at a light rail station on Oct. 1, including a mother who died while shielding her 9-month-old baby. It also praised Iran’s missile attack on the Jewish state that began that evening

 

[wing2000]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen (including a green card holder) can be deported if they provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This includes financial support, training, services, or certain forms of advocacy. If a green card holder is found to have incited, endorsed, or recruited for terrorism, that could also be grounds for removal.

Has Kahlil provided "material support" to a FTO?
If so, those action could be prosecuted by the DOJ. To date, the US government has not charged him and refused to provide the basis for the decision to revoke his visa.

 

[rjs330]

Demanding Colombia University to divest in Israel is terrorism?

Or what? Why were they supporting the terrorists? Shouting from the River to the Sea and Free free Palistine? Why were they raking over buildings, damaging property, injuring people, and taking hostages? Being part of a terrorist supporting group and negotiating for those people should disqualify you from having a Visa.

 

[Lukaris]

I came across a report from an Iranian dissident group that claims to expose Iranian infiltration within US negotiators over Iran’s nuclear program. At this point, I am just passing this along although my instinct is that it is probably correct. Iran International dissident group has not supported the strikes on the Iran facilities or the Iranian nuclear program ( which seems sensible to me, fwiw).

Inside Tehran’s Soft War

How Iran Gained Influence In US Policy Centers

content.iranintl.com

 

[BCP1928]

Or what? Why were they supporting the terrorists? Shouting from the River to the Sea and Free free Palistine? Why were they raking over buildings, damaging property, injuring people, and taking hostages? Being part of a terrorist supporting group and negotiating for those people should disqualify you from having a Visa.

Vandalism and violence are illegal. Having and voicing those opinions is not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Has Kahlil provided "material support" to a FTO?
If so, those action could be prosecuted by the DOJ. To date, the US government has not charged him and refused to provide the basis for the decision to revoke his visa.

I think the "certain forms of advocacy" and "endorsement" criteria have certainly been met via his membership in the group in question.


As far as the second part, were there any former revocations proceedings filed? Or is the point of contention the the fact that he was detained for an extended period and the administration's announcing that they were going to try to start the deportation process for him under INA 237 provisions?