You lied again in this comment too, multiple times. You went after the woman in your argument and now you’re lying about that as well.

You spent the whole day getting off to lying to me because you’re a pathological liar. I’m glad you got your fix.

I found a resource for you so you can get help. You shouldn’t have to lie to people on the internet to get your fix. People could get hurt. Maybe this will help you ditch your fascism. I know they have all the best lies, but that doesn’t make it okay.

http://www.liarsanonymous.org/

Faced with facts you just go straight to the name calling.

This is her objection.

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

This is mine.

Fuck off fascist.

Look how this fascist pretends the facts aren’t there. I led with the facts.

Just because you’re pretending you can’t read doesn’t mean other people can’t. No one is falling for the act.

https://psychcentral.com/health/signs-pathological-liar#signs-of-a-pathological-liar

lie indiscriminately about a wide range of topics

tell untruths about minor events

feel undeterred by the fear of getting caught

experience a rush when you get away with lying

continue to lie even when confronted with the truth

My gut instinct was that pathological liars must be miserable. But after looking it up I was wrong.

You must be having a great time. Go figure.

This is her objection.

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

This is mine.

Fuck off fascist.

You’re not pro-Palestinian. You’re a fascist. You managed to fool a number of unsuspecting people and you thought I would be an easy mark too.

Now you’ve tried to walk it back. You say you’re against the university while still going after the student as if this is some neutral objective viewpoint from nowhere. You bullshit in your argument and ignore what’s inconvenient in my argument. But you can’t bring yourself to stop lying.

This is the truth that is supported by the article:

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

The professor is the IDF solider. She objects to working with IDF soldiers. I object to pretending you are arguing in good faith.

Fuck off fascist!

Here’s your moment of zen.

Is Timothy Pratt pro-Palestinian? Let’s look at how he chose to end his article.

Back at Emory, Brown, Mohammad’s doctoral adviser, said she was proud of her student. “She’s doing what she’s supposed to do – holding her field accountable to its stated ideals,” Brown said, adding: “She will be Dr Mohammad, one way or the other.”

Yes. And that’s part of how he wrote an article that is true. He has a viewpoint from somewhere.

I have been more than reasonable. A good faith interpretation was that this internet discussion is not even an argument about the subject matter. I gave you a free lesson in language comprehension. You have exhausted what good faith is left to be had in this discussion.

You are now lying about the article. She objected because she was being put in a position where she could have to work with that professor in medical school. This objection is why she was suspended.

The next day, she gave an interview on the Democracy Now! news program in which she spoke of the climate on campus for protesters. She also talked about an Emory medical school professor who had recently returned from volunteering as a medic in the Israeli military. This would lead, seven months later, to her suspension from medical school for a year, after she was found to have violated the medical school’s standard of “professional conduct”.

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.

Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.

Nemenman wrote in the report that, by ignoring the committee, the school of medicine “violated not just the Policy, but, ironically, also the ‘principles of professionalism and mutual respect’, which they had aimed to enforce with this Conduct Code investigation”.

Azka Mahmood, executive director of Cair-Georgia, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Mohammad’s case was unusual because “we haven’t seen medical students targeted in this way,” she said. “You have a Palestinian medical student who specifically joined the field trying to understand inequities and the role of medicine in violence. To have to work side by side with an IDF soldier is exacerbating, and makes it uniquely painful for her.”

Your initial argument was misleading as well.

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

Again no one asserted that but you. As it turned out, this was an intentional straw man on your part and not as I had hoped a misunderstanding. You intentionally mislead people who did not read the article. IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.

You’re even lying about a fictional example I gave you. In that example I found a rock in my soup. Plain and simple. There’s a bowl on the table full of soup and in that soup I have identified a rock. If I attempt to eat that soup as is there is a chance I will eat a rock. The food inspector is shutting that place down. No one is taking you seriously.

The goal of that example was to illustrate how objections are commonly phrased.

It’s bizarre to watch a person go to bat for genocide. You’ve gone to such great lengths to twist common language to in turn twist actual events to serve your narrative of an alternate reality.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

This is the title. This is what happened. You’ve made your lies so obvious anyone who happens to read this far will spot them. I highly recommend you stop working to forward a genocide through this campaign of twisting words to legitimize silencing people. A person who in this case is both speaking out against and part of the minority targeted by that genocide.

There’s no way to have a good faith discussion with a person like yourself that is forwarding such an agenda. What you’re doing is effectively advocating for violence against Palestinians. Your goal is to silence this woman so the genocide is not derailed by her speech.

The nature of these internet discussions is that they are long, take time to read, and can in the short term be ambiguous as to what a person’s actual position is. But by discussing topics at length it becomes obvious what a person’s real position is.

I believe anyone who reads this far will see through what you are doing and object to it. Supporting genocide is wrong even if it is done in one of the most obtuse ways possible.

It seems we can agree that we are both reading the title and interpreting it differently. I don’t think either of us will concede our interpretation at this point, so we can just leave it to others to look at this on their own.

There is no good faith discussion to be had about the subject matter when you are operating from an alternate reality based on misreading the title and the article. There is no alternate interpretation, you are reading it incorrectly. It does not say what you claim it says.

“Probably”. Meaning: you. don’t. know. this.

You have to make up the hypothetical yourself to explain the title, because it’s not there in the article. You’re trying to explain how the title is accurate yet you have to create the story for them.

No, I pointed out there are probably additional IDF soldiers on that campus. If there are no additional IDF soldiers on that campus, she still objects to working with IDF soldiers plural. You are conflating her one example singular, with a perceived mistake, that is not there, in the title where it is uses a plural.

The use of a plural word is a non-issue. She objects to working with IDF soldiers broadly. Her objection was never intended to be limited to one professor, it was the only example she had. This is not a clever gotcha, you are misreading the title.

This is not a fantasy novel that’s left to the imagination, it’s a news article.

Speaking of fantasy, here’s a fictional example. Where I object to eating rocks. I find one rock in my soup and I refuse to eat it. I say, “There is a rock in my soup!” You go, “Aha! There was only one rock in your soup. So you do not object to eating rocks do you?”. While it’s true I only found one rock, I still objected to eating rocks, plural. My objection is not limited to that one rock in particular.

A Palestinian American was tasked to work with IDF soldiers but refused and was punished for it.

This is not a different interpretation of the title. This is a different title. These words in this alternate title mean something different than what the title says. You have superimposed this onto the article.

Here is an example.

I objected to eating rocks.

I was told to eat rocks and I objected to eating those rocks.

These are not different interpretations of the same sentence. They are two different sentences. In the first I stated an objection without prompting. In the second I was prompted to a task and I objected to it. It is possible to object to an action no one has told a person to do. An objection does not imply a prompt.

she was never asked to work with IDF soldiers

No one is saying that she was. The point is that while attending medical school she could be put in a situation where she could have to work with IDF soldiers.

she was not punished for objecting to work with IDF soldiers.

Her objection was in the Democracy Now! interview. Her objection was working with IDF soldiers. She was punished for giving this objection.

She was punished for calling out a professor and potentially opening him up for harassment.

Mohammad’s remarks on the program drew complaints from the professor – who she did not name – and a dean, who has since left Emory.

She didn’t even name the professor. She was well within her rights as per campus regulations to do this.

Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.

But regardless, her objection in that interview, is what got her suspended. She objected to working with that professor because he is an IDF solider. Reframing the objection as a call out, regardless if the objection could potentially lead to harassment or not, does not change that fact it was an objection.

“I refuse to work with Nazis.”

Except she didn’t call the professor something that he is not. She said he volunteered in the IDF as a soldier. No one is claiming that is not the case.

“There’s a Nazi in our faculty.” And the university was like yea you can’t call our staff Nazis. Now people are going to witch hunt. Suspended.

She said a member of the IDF is in our faculty. The faculty said “You can’t say that.”, even though it is true and not being disputed by anyone. The truth could open the professor to harassment. Suspended.

The actual dispute seems to be:

“Who are you to decide what’s a genocide?”

This dispute is what we would be arguing about if we were both reading what the article actually said.

The suspension is still dubious, but can you at least see where I’m coming from?

The suspension is incorrect even by the university’s own standards. Yes, when you read the article you did not comprehend it properly. Reread the article.

The most generous reading of your interpretation requires accepting another generous interpretation of the reason for suspension (that the official reason for her suspension is not the real one)

This is again making a distinction where there is none. The official reason she was suspended is she made an objection in an interview with Democracy Now!. In that interview she objected to working with IDF soldiers. She brought up the professor who served in the IDF to make that objection. Regardless of how the school framed her objection she got suspended because of that objection.

In my example, I objected to eating rocks. What you are saying is, “You didn’t object to eating rocks, you called out a specific rock for being a rock.” In my example, I did call out the rock for being a rock. The statement, “There is a rock in my soup!” is an objection to having to eat rocks.

You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn’t say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc… but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.

There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.

So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.

She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.

Read the title again.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

No one is trying to mislead anyone. Not me, not this article, not the Guardian.

I’ve been trying to point this out subtly, but I think I need to be explicit.

You aren’t understanding the title or the article because you aren’t reading it properly. This has nothing to do with the topics being discussed. This is an issue with reading comprehension. Read the through the whole thing again, from start to finish.

This isn’t a comment on you as a person. You have made a mistake. It is impacting your ability to discuss the topic and the quality of your argument. There’s really no way to proceed in this discussion in good faith until you do.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it’s the truth. Hope that helps.

Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who organized trains to the deaths camps. People with desk jobs are non-combatants but that doesn’t absolve them from actively contributing to a genocide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdufLc3QSA

these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with

At least two professors at US universities have faced consequences in recent months after publicly expressing concern about former IDF soldiers on campus. The Columbia University law professor Katherine Franke said she was forced out of the school in January after bringing up the issue of Israeli students “right out of their military service … [who have] been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus”. She had also been speaking on Democracy Now!

Dr Rupa Marya, a professor of medicine and a physician, was banned from campus at the University of California, San Francisco, for posting on X about the presence of former IDF soldiers at medical schools specifically: “Med students at UCSF are concerned that a first year student from Israel is in their class. They’re asking if he participated in the genocide of Palestinians in the IDF before matriculating.”

the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them?

No.

Did she have to do research with them?

The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.

In response to her interview, which was protected speech under school policy, the medical school backed up the professor and not her. So yes, she could end up working with IDF soldiers at her medical school, conducting research even, if she wants to finish her degree.

Mohammad’s remarks on the program drew complaints from the professor – who she did not name – and a dean, who has since left Emory. The professor told the medical school he didn’t feel safe, as Mohammad’s interview could expose him and his family to harassment. He asked medical school administrators to investigate her for violating the school’s code of conduct.

Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.

Nemenman wrote in the report that, by ignoring the committee, the school of medicine “violated not just the Policy, but, ironically, also the ‘principles of professionalism and mutual respect’, which they had aimed to enforce with this Conduct Code investigation”.

Was she threatened somehow?

Caught between these two conflicting interpretations, Mohammad faced her hearing on 12 November. The professor and the dean who had accused her, together with a faculty adviser of the professor, “testified for my expulsion”, she said. “They wanted me to never be able to practice medicine … [and] one was spitting across the table, his face red, yelling a lot,” she recalled. They demanded she provide evidence to support her claims about the professor. At one point, the adviser screamed: “Who are you to decide what’s a genocide?”

Mohammad said she felt outmatched and that attempts to argue her case fell on deaf ears. She described the hearing as “one of the most dehumanizing two hours of my life”.

As Mohammad’s PhD adviser, the sociology professor Karida L Brown, was allowed to accompany her in the hearing. Brown, whose research centers on race and racism, echoed Mohammad’s description. It was “like a Jim Crow court”, she said. “It never felt fair, from the beginning,” she said, citing the school of medicine’s refusal to engage the open expression committee or consider its report.

how she got suspended for refusing the above

Seven days after the hearing, Mohammad was informed that she had been suspended from the medical school for one academic year, and would be on probation from the time she returned until she graduated. Her appeal of the suspension was denied.

Your argument started off with an accusation that people didn’t read the article, but it seems that your argument wasn’t informed by a reading of the article.

The only one unhinged is that professor. He directly committed to a genocide. He should be in prison.

Your argument is to blatantly lie. The professor of medicine volunteered as a medic in the IDF.

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

We can read the article. You aren’t fooling anyone.

This professor of medicine chose to volunteer. Anyone actively contributing to genocide is at fault regardless of their role. Patching someone up so they can butcher more civilians is deplorable. The most heinous Nazis ordered mass killings from behind desks.

I’m glad she was suspended. Bye bye!

What an awful opinion. Why would you support silencing people who speak out against genocide? Do you support Israel’s genocide?

Is the title implying or not implying that her suspension is related to the fact that objected to working alongside IDF?

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

The title says working alongside IDF soldiers. It’s not implying anything.

Explain to me how being a student is considered “working alongside” with a professor simply because they are both at the same school?

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

Because she is a medical student and he is a professor of medicine.

Look through my comment history. I want my fat check. Who is paying me for my hot takes and arguments?

Also, an ad hominem in response to a request for evidence and refutation of your argument’s central point? That’s not convincing anyone.

That said, the real tragedy is how any family and friends surviving her have to watch her death get instantly politicized.

Yes, this is the problem with pretending there is any chance of a conspiracy being here. This is anger that should be directed at the healthcare system.

The problem is simple. We’ll never actually know.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not on me to prove a negative. The evidence we do have suggests she died from an underlying medical condition. That’s what we know, right now. If you want to support a different theory find some evidence to support it.

And, for all your very eloquent arguments, the fuckwits at the top are kinda, well, fucking idiots, so no, the fact she isn’t a very logical target does not provide a convincing argument against foul play.

It does though. By your argument’s reasoning, they cannot be so dumb to have chosen her as a target and so smart to have covered it up. If they were smart enough cover it up they would never have picked her in the first place and would definitely have gone for these federal judges. But since SCOTUS is stacked and they think they can ignore the courts they don’t seem to feel the need.

In fact, the painted turd pretending to run the show clearly has a revenge fetish.

It’s not clear that she had anything to do with any of Trump’s cases. Her wiki page lists these four:

Prosecution of an MS-13 leader for multiple murders.[6]

Indictments against Russian nationals for operating illicit cryptocurrency exchanges.[7]

Historic war crimes charges against Russian soldiers for actions in Ukraine.[8]

Israeli retaliation leak: Conviction of a former CIA analyst for leaking classified information.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Aber

This administration isn’t capable of covering up a murder this convincingly and she isn’t even the kind of person Trump would want revenge against. She did nothing against him personally, which is his primary concern. edit: typo

According to users in this thread apparently. This national origin rhetoric is absurd. Fuck that and fuck the KKK.

To everyone not reading this article title: “A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her”

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

Reread the title, it does not say that.

She refused to work with a person who contributed to the genocide against her own people. He chose to be complicit in genocide. IDF soldiers are monsters and can fuck off. We should hand this guy over to the Hague. edit: typo

I know. That’s my entire argument. She voluntarily stepped down in January, there is no conspiracy here.

Death to them all, the satanic scum on Earth.

I was debating whether this rhetoric was effective or to easily misconstrued as antisemitic and then this other user writes:

In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.

Dude, you don’t go hard enough with your rhetoric. People unironically believe that if a fascist government drafts you into the military you simply have no choice but to genocide as many people as possible.

Fuck me, I am Jewish. Not in my name! The IDF is committing genocide. Fuck the IDF. Do not let them slide because they were just following orders. Holy shit!

So your argument is that Israeli nationals should be absolved from any war crimes and/or genocide they participate in because they were just following orders?

Using national origin as an excuse for participating in genocide is peak genocide denial.

In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.

This is the same as equating protesting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as xenophobia against Russians.

I highly recommend reassessing your world view. Your arguments are a one to one match with fascists arguments.

TLDR The point of killing people at this stage is to remove obstacles to the fascist administration. A person who resigned on inauguration day isn’t an obstacle.

I do not get where the users commenting about conspiracies and upvoting them are coming from with this line of reasoning. US doctors are notoriously bad at diagnosing women’s health problems as they are trained on almost exclusively male patients.

It’s not a conspiracy. We are overpaying for the worst healthcare system in developed countries. The healthcare system is killing us.

Not to mention this month’s bombing operation in Yemen was leaked to the Atlantic via the chief editor being invited to the Signal group. This administration doesn’t have the wherewithal to target people who resigned voluntarily or the ability to keep it secret in real time.

https://archive.is/2025.03.24-164629/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

This person resigned. That’s what the fascists want. They want everyone who disagrees with them to exit the government so they can replace them with loyalists. Her resignation is not some bold act of resistance, it was more of the same, complying in advance.

If a person stays in their position, openly defies the administration, appeals illegal attempts to have her removed, and then is killed that’s when we all need to be pointing out a potential conspiracy.

This person got out of the way for fascists and then died because she was receiving substandard care for a known health condition because Republicans have been allowed to privatize everything at our expense for decades.

She did great work as an US attorney. But she didn’t provide any resistance to the incoming administration. The bulk of meaningful resistance from inside the government has been from federal judges. These federal judges are the only ones would even merit this kind of treatment. They are the ones whose court orders are slowing down this administration.

The Trump administration has already ignored one judge’s order to turn around planes to El Salvador. The Trump administration is trying to appeal to the Supreme Court to get these court orders overturned. If that doesn’t work they will likely ignore them.

In fact, the Trump administration wants to remove universal injunction all together, so the courts will lose a crucial check on the executive branch.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-step-in-on-birthright-citizenship/

Harris characterized the district courts’ orders in the three birthright citizenship cases as “part of a broader trend.” Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, she complained, “district courts have repeatedly issued orders that superintend the internal operations of the Executive Branch by prohibiting the formulation of new policies.” But “[y]ears of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere. The sooner universal injunctions are ‘eliminated root and branch,’” she concluded, “the better.”

These federal judges are the people this administration would want killed because they are actively resisting the fascists in an impactful way. And they probably won’t bother to kill any judges in the short term. If the Supreme Court doesn’t make this problem go away the fascists will ignore the courts. edit: typos