Bergen talks international, homegrown terrorism
International terrorism is a lesser threat to America than homegrown violent extremism, said Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst, at a public lecture Thursday.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Princetonian's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
4 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
International terrorism is a lesser threat to America than homegrown violent extremism, said Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst, at a public lecture Thursday.
University and community members gathered in Richardson Auditorium on the evening of Sept. 26 to watch the first Presidential debate of the 2016 contest.Throughout the debate, audience members laughed, clapped, snapped, booed, and shouted in the auditorium. Some students expressed outrage or shock at comments made during the debate.At the outset of the debate, both candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton — shook hands, as is tradition.The debate opened up with questions pertaining to the economy, an issue at the forefront of many voters’ concerns. Hillary immediately set the tone of the debate, terming Trump’s proposed policies “Trumped-up trickle-down economics”, a move that elicited laughter and applause from the crowd. After some back-and-forth regarding the effectiveness of NAFTA, the economic conversation quickly turned to the classically partisan issues of taxes, with Trump promising to “cut taxes bigly.”Audience member Mike Rahimzadeh ‘19 noted that the debate touched on a “big range” of topics including immigration and the Middle East. He called the varied tones during the debate both “comedic” and “fearful.”Another audience member said that Clinton delivered a successful performance.“Hillary succeeded in a captivating performance,” said Caleb Visser ‘20. “Her patient demeanor was both firm, yet reserved, and I thought that was a strong counterbalance to the radical sensationalism that Trump presented.”He said that he’s “excited” to see what kind of impact the debate has on the campaign.Clinton turned the tax discussion on its head, bringing up Trump’s reluctance to release his tax returns, stating that she doesn’t “believe he's ever going to release his tax returns because there's something he's hiding”. While Trump tried to defend his decision by claiming he cannot release tax information that is under audit, Clinton drew attention to his multiple business bankruptcies, another sore spot for Trump, who bases much of his qualification for the presidency on his business background.The latter portion of the debate was devoted to issues of violence, both domestic and international. Trump and Clinton, in a rare moment, both agreed that guns should stay out of the hands of those with malicious intentions. Clinton, in an appeal to minority groups, was sure to mention her disapproval of implicit bias present in arrests.As the debate turned to the violence present in the international community, particularly in the Middle East, each candidate presented simplified versions of plans for success against ISIS. Clinton called for “an intelligence surge” while Trump argued that “we have to knock the hell out of ISIS and we have to do it fast.” After briefly dabbling in the topic of nuclear disarmament, specifically a first strike policy, both candidates wrapped up their performances for the night, marking the end of the first of three presidential debates.One audience member, Ciara Corbeil ‘17, who plans to write her thesis on presidential debates, said that she was “surprised that the gloves came off a bit.” For her thesis, she said she is still refining the topic but focusing on the intersection of mass media and the political process with special attention to the role political theater plays in televised presidential debates.“I’ve actually been in touch with some members of the commission on presidential debates and they were afraid that the candidates would be like playing on the safe side, but I was happy to see that some real issues did come out,” Corbeil said.“I think that a lot of people thought that Hillary was out to prove to people that she was trustworthy and that Trump was out to prove that he had the political chops and the skills,” Corbeil said. “So I think that they both tried to hammer home those points and that didn’t surprise me.”
Before the first Presidential debate of the 2016 contest, the University hosted a panel discussion of six University affiliates in Richardson Auditorium to provide the University community with a better context for the debate.
American Islamic scholar Sheikh Hamza Yusuf held a conversation with McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George at the University Chapel on Sept. 26 on philosophy and faith.Throughout the two hours of discussion, Yusuf and George endeavored to spur the audience to reflect on the future of religion and believers in an ever-changing modern world.Yusuf is the co-founder of Zaytuna College, the first four-year accredited Muslim liberal arts college in the United States. People of all faiths, from both the University and surrounding community, gathered to hear a dialogue regarding “Abrahamic Faith in The Age of Feeling.”At the start, George defined “the age of feeling” for the audience, stating that it is an age “when the criterion of truth, of goodness, of rightness, is in a certain sense neither faith nor reason, but is something subjective: feelings.”Over the course of two hours, Yusuf and George discussed philosophy and faith in an attempt to bring clarity to the place of Abrahamic beliefs in current times. One of the central issues discussed was the place of transhumanism and scientism in today’s society.During the discussion of reality and thought, Yusuf said that “science today is the only acceptable methodology to examine reality.” Both agreed that the issue with this current norm lies in the fact that consciousness, the very essence of a human experience, has an immaterial base and cannot be subjected to a scientism methodology.Yusuf and George then transitioned to discussing more concrete issues regarding religion in the modern world, specifically the misuse of religion as a validation for violence. Regarding the rise of groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, Yusuf noted that such groups carry out their violent acts under the guise of Islam, and such violence has “very little to do with religion unless you define religion as ideology,” a definition that he said was incorrect.The conversation ended with statements regarding the purpose of religion and its relevance even in this advanced “age of feeling.” Yusuf said that “religion is a way of numbing the pain of the world,” while George discussed what he believed to be the role of religion in personal growth.Both scholars left the audience with much to think about regarding faith and philosophy, and the place of such abstract concepts in a world of concrete science and materialism.“I thought that the talk between Dr. Robert and Sheikh Hamza Yusuf was a very enlightening and intellectually engaging conversation about spirituality in the modern day,” Shamailah Azam ’20 said.The event, titled "Abrahamic Faith in the Age of Feeling," was co-sponsored by the Office of Religious Life and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.