I guess that means you whould share the podium with Muqtedar Khan...

Dr. Khan is from Hyderabad in India. He is married to Reshma and has a son Rumi, and a daughter Ruhi.
http://www.ijtihad.org/

Miguel:

Of course I'd share a podium with Dr. Khan.

Jack:

Thanks so much for the info. I should have said that this is about Arab/Muslim/leftist bigotry.

Good to know.

This is outrageous! Is anyone organizing a letter-writing protest? We need to let the U. of Delaware know that this knee-jerk acquiescence to anti-Israel sentiments won't be tolerated!

If our civilization allows itself to be crippled or destroyed, that outcome will to a signficant degree the doing of the universities.

Which is pretty ironic, given that the big influx of funding to academia beginning in the late 1950s was justified on "national security" grounds.

I guess that means you whould share the podium with Muqtedar Khan...

It doesn't speak very highly of Mr. Khan does it. If you are in the right then why would you be concerned about sharing the stage. It would be a good opportunity to make your point.

But then again if you are concerned that your position is weak you might choose to run away...

Jack

I think we all understood, but ok. I was refering to the rage that echoes in this site, just pure rage. I can understand why, it doesn't mean it doesn't stress me enough to post.
I was asking Robert if he would, and i would understand if he said no. He said yes, and i accepted it. Don't know were you're heading, Jack.

Just wondering, Miguel, does the rage and outright hatred emanating from leftist and Muslim sites stress you enough to post there? How are your messages received, if you do post any? Your remarks here have been greeted with civil rebuttals. That's not characteristic of a site that "echoes with rage."

I don't think that a blunt, clear-eyed discussion of serious matters can be construed as rage. We believe that the civilized world, and Israel especially, is under a coordinated and systematic attack from Islamic forces. People are dying in this fight to preserve our freedoms and resist the onslaught of these terrorists. The expressed aim of this enemy is to wipe a nation from the face of the earth, and forcibly convert every person on the planet to Islam. Unfortunately, many people do not yet recognize this threat (or refuse to, in the name of liberalism and multiculturalism). That makes them dangerous and gives aid and comfort to those who seek our destruction.

Now is not the time to hold hands, sing Kumbayah, and sway. Now is the time to inform each other of the encroaching threat, and to fight it at every turn. We are the raised voices shouting "Fire!" because the theater is definitely burning. It seems you would have us be silent, and watch the world be destroyed.

Don't know were you're heading, Jack.

That's ok, because I don't understand where you are heading either. I see anger and I see frustration here, but not rage.

It sounds like you are suggesting that there is no context or reason for the "rage." It sounds a bit like you are implying that the reaction to the events discussed here is overblown.

I don't always agree with everything that Robert writes, but I don't see this blog as being reactionary. More often than not there is thoughtful analysis and an opportunity for dialogue.

And dialogue is what people like Khan are afraid of. That is what I am saying. They don't really want to talk about the issues. They just want to make proclamations and hope that no one bothers to question the facts.

It is a morally bankrupt way of conducting business.

Dr Carol
That's a good comment, you got there, really. The rage i was mentioning was the one from the original post, and basically all posts i read where from Robert. I learned to respect is way of thinking because he showed he can actually maintain a conversation with passion in his believes, but without predator behavior when crossed. In short, i was referring to the posts, not the comments...

jack

"I was referring to the rage that echoes in this site, just pure rage. I can understand why,..."

So, i can see a context. Don't know what you mean.

But getting back to the issue, Khan's behavior can me seen as refusal of dialogue, i see it as a moral stand.

Seems to me if Khan has the problem with Romorowsky's prior IDF service, then Khan should be the one stepping down from the panel. After all, Israel is a sovereign nation, the IDF is her army, and the assumption is that Romirowsky served honorably. He therefor should be accorded the respect due any veteran of any country's armed forces who has so served.

PERIOD.

But getting back to the issue, Khan's behavior can me seen as refusal of dialogue, i see it as a moral stand.

Let me ask you a question. Did you support Columbia's invitation to Ahmedinjad?

"Did you support Columbia's invitation to Ahmedinjad?"

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm waiting for Miguel's "yabbut..." on tenterhooks...