Student fatally stabs Binghamton University professor

[brendan120678]

Source: Press & Sun Bulletin

VESTAL -- A longtime Binghamton University anthropology professor was stabbed to death inside a BU science building this afternoon. Campus police have a male suspect in custody, but had not charged him as of 5 p.m.

Professor Emeritus Richard T. Antoun, 77, of Vestal died Friday afternoon after being taken to Wilson Hospital in Johnson City, where he was rushed after being attacked inside BU’s Science 1 building.

- Snip -

Antoun was stabbed four times with a 6-inch kitchen blade inside a campus office, according to police radio transmissions.

- Snip -

Antoun, who had lived on Vestal’s Murray Hill Road for a number of years, is a published author who has written several books. He published the book Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Movements

- Snip -

His scholarly interests center on comparative religion and symbolic systems, the social organization of tradition in Islamic law and ethics, the sociology of dispute with respect to tribal law in the Middle East, local-level politics, and the impact of transnational migration on education, work, and cultural change.”

Read more: http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20091204/NEWS01/91204018/1001/

---

What the hell is happening back in my old hometown??

[wickerwoman]

1. I know, right?

My mom's from Binghamton and in 33 years I've seen it in the news twice, both in the last year.

[brendan120678]

9. Yep, twice for major things....

there's this. and there was the shooting at the Civic Association early this year that killed at least a dozen people.

Also, they made it to the NCAA Basketball tournament for the first time this past March, but before this season began half the team was suspended, the coach removed from duty, the athletic and assistant athletic director reassigned, and the school was sued for sexual harassment by an athletic department employee.

Real classy place.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. When someone is intent on murder, not having a gun doesn't stop them.

Aren't six inch knives illegal to carry on your person? Looks like the murderer didn't care for that law either.

[jgraz]

3. But having a gun makes it a helluvalot easier

And a helluvalot more likely to succeed

[GreenStormCloud]

6. And if the prof had been armed, he would have had a chance.

As it was, a 77yr old man against a young male graduate student with a knife gives very heavy odds in against the prof.

[jgraz]

10. Blah blah blah, same shit different murder

If the student had a gun he could have killed the professor and anyone standing in the way.

But sure, let's arm everyone. :eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

14. But your laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding.

The murderer was already breaking knife laws and murder laws. Your laws didn't help the prof. Only being armed would have given the prof a chance. You don't like that, but it is true. And, as usual, you refuse to discuss that.

BTW - I don't favor arming everybody. There are many people, felons and the mentally incompetent, who are correctly banned from having guns. But the bans don't work. But you refuse to see that bans don't work.

[jgraz]

17. My laws? Do I now get my own laws?

Do I have to hire my own police to enforce them?

I've never proposed a gun ban in my life. I just can't stand badly reasoned arguments.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Shorthand for the laws that you favor.

I have never seen you post anything that is favorable to the pro-RKBA stance. Your posts are always anti-gun, so I infer that you are a gun-grabber, despite your occasional protestations otherwise.

And you generally avoid discussing the points raised.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nostradammit]

37. lmfao!!!

:rofl:

[boppers]

70. "Only being armed would have given the prof a chance"?

How about screening folks for weapons, or would you like airplanes filled with guns, too?

[timeforpeace]

11. If he had been armed he likely would be alive.

[jgraz]

19. If the student had been better armed, he'd still be dead

Probably along with a few more people.

Sorry... you were making some sort of point?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Gun vs. gun still have a better chance than knife vs hands.

Especially when the hands are 77 years old and the knife is held by a young male. Further, if the prof's gun is concealed, then likely the student would have still selected a knife, in which case he would have brought a knife to a gunfight.

[jgraz]

26. Really? I suppose you have some NRA studies that back up that claim.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Common sense should suffice. N/T

[jgraz]

43. Ah. Is this a new criterion for the gungeon? Common sense?

As in:

All it takes is common sense to see that Americans are too enamored of their guns.
All it takes is common sense to see that the Founding Fathers never intended for citizens to own Uzis and AK-47s.
All it takes is common sense to see that a household with a gun in it is a more dangerous household.
All it takes is common sense to see the owning a gun poses a greater risk to the owner than to any would-be criminal.
All it takes is common sense to see that the high number of DGUs is a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby to cover for the thousands of deaths their products cause.
All it takes is common sense to see to see that the Second Amendment was clearly meant to only apply to state militias, not individual owners.
All it takes is common sense to see that the pro-gun movement is driven by violent, right-wing and often racist ideologies.

You mean THAT kind of common sense? Works for me.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. Common sense to know that a gun usually beats a knife.

The rest of your post is excellent evidence that you are in favor of extremely restrictive gun control. Such an advocate is what we call a gun-grabber.

All of your points have been refuted before.

too enamored of their guns - Your opinion.

FF..AK-47. The FF allowed room for technological innovation in all areas of the BOR.

Household with a gun being more dangerous. Merely your opinion. Our guns also are available to protect us from violent criminals.

Gun greater risk to owner. No. It isn't going to jump out of the holter and start going off. It doesn't broadcast mind control rays. It is a tool for self defense and is much better than just trying to use my hands only.

DGUs. The actual number is unknown. I have posted, showing how if one gunowner uses his gun in a non-shooting DGU (Criminal runs away)only once in 200 years, in a country the size of the U.S., that still comes to well over 500K DGUs annually.

Second Amendment. Read the statements of the founding fathers, and of citizens in the early 19th century. It was clearly understood to be an individual right. And you side has lost that one, and that loss is about to be incorporated.

Violent, RW, etc. Merely an accusation. BTW - Early gun control was racist, aimed at keeping blacks disarmed.

[jgraz]

48. Oh, sorry. You meant the *pro-gun* version of "common sense"

You know, the one where no matter what the reality is, you get to keep your guns. The one where even ASKING QUESTIONS is a dire threat to your Second Amendment Binky.


Once again, show me any data besides your Rambo fantasies where a surprise attacker with ANY WEAPON is *usually* stopped because the victim owns a gun. Think about it (I know that's asking a lot). How quick and lucky would someone have to be to stop an unexpected knife attack before they were fatally wounded?


All of your points have been refuted before.

Yet somehow you can't refute them here.


too enamored of their guns - Your opinion.

Wait, you said "common sense". This is the "common" "sense" of most people around the world. The fact that it's opinion has nothing to do with it.


The rest of your post is excellent evidence that you are in favor of extremely restrictive gun control. Such an advocate is what we call a gun-grabber.

Your paranoia is showing. Someone advocating a gun ban would, um, actually advocate a gun ban. Let me show you what that would look like, cuz you seem to be unable to tell the difference for yourself:

All it takes is common sense to see that Americans are too enamored of their guns. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see that the Founding Fathers never intended for citizens to own Uzis and AK-47s. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see that a household with a gun in it is a more dangerous household. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see the owning a gun poses a greater risk to the owner than to any would-be criminal. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see that the high number of DGUs is a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby to cover for the thousands of deaths their products cause. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see to see that the Second Amendment was clearly meant to only apply to state militias, not individual owners. Therefore, we should ban all guns.
All it takes is common sense to see that the pro-gun movement is driven by violent, right-wing and often racist ideologies. Therefore, we should ban all guns.

Now, I know it's subtle, but if you stare at it long enough I bet you can figure out the difference.



FF..AK-47. The FF allowed room for technological innovation in all areas of the BOR.

Really? Show me where technical innovation is talked about in ANY area of the BOR.


Household with a gun being more dangerous. Merely your opinion. Our guns also are available to protect us from violent criminals.

Sorry, this one is proven. A household gun is more likely to be used on a member of that household than on a criminal. Look it up.


Gun greater risk to owner. No. It isn't going to jump out of the holter and start going off. It doesn't broadcast mind control rays. It is a tool for self defense and is much better than just trying to use my hands only.

Again, the stats are against you. You can probably figure out how to look this one up as well.


DGUs. The actual number is unknown. I have posted, showing how if one gunowner uses his gun in a non-shooting DGU (Criminal runs away)only once in 200 years, in a country the size of the U.S., that still comes to well over 500K DGUs annually.

OK, I gotta see this math of yours. Let's work backwards, shall we?

If you only use a gun once every 200 years, that means that each year, one-half of one percent of gun owners use their guns in DGUs (an insanely high estimate, btw). If 0.5% equals 500,000, that comes out to 100,000,000 individual adult gun owners in the US. That's more than TWICE the number that most surveys show. The highest estimate I've seen is around 47 million.


Second Amendment. Read the statements of the founding fathers, and of citizens in the early 19th century. It was clearly understood to be an individual right. And you side has lost that one, and that loss is about to be incorporated.

Once again, gunnies are the only people on this board rooting for the Roberts court to make a crazy right-wing decision. Read the dissents to Heller for a sane interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Violent, RW, etc. Merely an accusation.

Sorry, are you saying that most Second Amendment zealots are NOT right-wing? Seriously? :rofl:


BTW - Early gun control was racist, aimed at keeping blacks disarmed.

Um... you may not realize this given your demonstrated grasp of history, but blacks were not citizens when the Second Amendment was written. None of them were allowed to own guns, even AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Part of the motivation to formalize the right to militias was so that southern states could maintain local armies to put down slave revolts. Again, look it up. It's a historical fact.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Easily refuted.

OK, I gotta see this math of yours. Let's work backwards, shall we?

If you only use a gun once every 200 years, that means that each year, one-half of one percent of gun owners use their guns in DGUs (an insanely high estimate, btw). If 0.5% equals 500,000, that comes out to 100,000,000 individual adult gun owners in the US. That's more than TWICE the number that most surveys show. The highest estimate I've seen is around 47 million.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
"Number of guns and gun owners in USA.
Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).


There are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns"
Since I was going for a ball park estimate, using 100 million is close enough. Having a DGU moment only once in two centuries per person sound like a reasonable ball park estimate.

Really? Show me where technical innovation is talked about in ANY area of the BOR.

Easy. The language used is broad in inclusive, thereby allowing room for growth. After all, the First Amendment doesn't mention computers, or electronic media, or internet discussion boards.

Sorry, this one is proven. A household gun is more likely to be used on a member of that household than on a criminal. Look it up.

Kellerman's study has been discredited. Further, your side does not distinguish between legal ownership and illegal ownership. I will readily state that households with illegally kept firearms are dangerous households. But any household with criminals in residence is a dangerous one. Households with LEGALLY owned guns are rarely involved in gun crime. The difference between legally owned and illegally kept guns is a difference that your side always ignores.

Again, the stats are against you. You can probably figure out how to look this one up as well.

Again, your side makes no attempt to distinguish between legal carry and illegal carry. I will quickly grant that an illegally armed, street level, gang-member, dope dealer is at an extremely high risk for getting shot. Legal CCW holders have much lower risk factors. There are no stats on CCW holders being shot as the various states don't keep that statistic.

Once again, gunnies are the only people on this board rooting for the Roberts court to make a crazy right-wing decision. Read the dissents to Heller for a sane interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[jgraz]

61. Nicely dodged.

Nothing to say about this, I guess:

Once again, show me any data besides your Rambo fantasies where a surprise attacker with ANY WEAPON is *usually* stopped because the victim owns a gun. Think about it (I know that's asking a lot). How quick and lucky would someone have to be to stop an unexpected knife attack before they were fatally wounded?

Got any "common sense" support for the key assertion you made?

Moving on..

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
"Number of guns and gun owners in USA.
Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).

Oh noes! An unsourced WikiAnswers link! How will I ever refute it??

Here's the study I was quoting (from memory): http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full The exact numbers they got were 42 million households and 57 million individuals.

There are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns"
Since I was going for a ball park estimate, using 100 million is close enough. Having a DGU moment only once in two centuries per person sound like a reasonable ball park estimate.

Convenient how your "ball park estimate" upped your already inflated number by another 20 million.

Really? Show me where technical innovation is talked about in ANY area of the BOR.

Easy. The language used is broad in inclusive, thereby allowing room for growth. After all, the First Amendment doesn't mention computers, or electronic media, or internet discussion boards.

Funny how the Constitution is always a "living document" until the topic of reasonable allowances for public safety comes up. If the language is broad enough to allow for any and all technical innovations, then it's broad enough to allow for "common sense" adaptations to those innovations with the goal of preserving public health and safety.

Kellerman's study has been discredited. Further, your side does not distinguish between legal ownership and illegal ownership. I will readily state that households with illegally kept firearms are dangerous households. But any household with criminals in residence is a dangerous one. Households with LEGALLY owned guns are rarely involved in gun crime. The difference between legally owned and illegally kept guns is a difference that your side always ignores.

Kellerman's study has NOT been discredited. Kellerman's multiple studies provided good data and raised further questions (and some legitimate criticisms). Before those questions could be answered, http://qurl.com/v6t8c">the cowards at the NRA stepped in and got Congress to shut down all funding for studies of firearm injuries.

I wonder what they were so afraid of?

And off course, Kellerman isn't the only researcher producing data on the risks of firearm ownership. Here's a study on suicide rates for *legal* gun owners: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989

Note how the suicide rates for other means stay flat while gun suicides skyrocket in high-gun-ownership states.

Um... you may not realize this given your demonstrated grasp of history, but blacks were not citizens when the Second Amendment was written. None of them were allowed to own guns, even AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified.

You are trying to distort what I said. The BOR was not a limit on guns, it was a restriction on the government. Later, when guns began to be restricted, the restrictions were aimed at blacks.

Nope, just trying to un-distort your distortions. The subject of race is always cynically exploited by the pro-gun crowd, mostly because they think it will somehow get the libs on their side. The full picture is much more complex, but somehow your side always leaves that out.

Sorry, are you saying that most Second Amendment zealots are NOT right-wing? Seriously?

Some are, some aren't. The NRA takes no stand on any issue except guns and issues directly relating to guns. The NRA will readily endorse Democrats if they are pro-gun.

No, MOST are, A FEW aren't. Gun love is a Republican issue and a right-wing issue. Always has been. (Again, there's that "common sense" you seem to love so much.)

All of your posts always support the gun-grabber side of the argument, so it is reasonable to infer, despite your protestations otherwise, that you are a gun-grabber.

And your posts always support the far-right, Sarah-Palin-worshipping Freeptard side of the argument. Are you trying to tell us something?

[GreenStormCloud]

67. And again.

Kellerman's study, and all of the so-called studies on your side do not distinquish between legal and illegal gun ownership. Further, Kellerman's study counted a gun brought into a home by a robber in the same status as a gun owned by the resident, as being a gun in the house. Kellerman counted only dead criminals for DGUs, completely ignoring those cases in which the bad guy retreated in the face of an armed resident. I could keep on, but you are well aware of those and other criticism of Kellerman. You chose to ignore them.

There are no valid stastics on precise gun ownership in America, only estimates. You choose to use the lowest numbers because it suits your agenda. I use the moderate estimate of about 35%. Some estimates are 50%. Telephone surveys on gun ownership are useless because many people have a strong motivation to lie to the surveyor.

My posts on guns do always support RKBA. So do many Democrats. In fact, on Nov 23, 58 Senator and 251 Representatives filed and amicus curaie brief with the Supreme Court urging it to incorporate the 2nd under the 14th so that it will apply to the states. That includes 17 Democratic Senators and 82 Democratic Congresspersons. So I proudly stand among many other Democrats in supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Suicide? Do you think that guns give off a mind control ray that commands the owner to commit suicide? A suicidal person will simply find another way if a gun is not available. There are numerous countries with strict gun control AND a higher suicide rate the the U.S.

FBI crime stats show a sharp downward trend for the last 20 years. Yet guns sales have been at record highs for the last 20 years. So we have a situation of MORE guns, and LESS crime.

[Thickasabrick]

69. Not really - and I don't think common sense is at work here. nt

[Gore1FL]

32. If they both would have had nukes

Everyone would still be alive!

[jgraz]

44. Hey, what's wrong with a little mutually assured destruction?

(That's the NRA's unofficial motto, BTW)

[xocet]

38. Blustery Storm Winds Blow through DU...Green Band Sighted in Cloud...Hail of Bullets Predicted...

Oh, master of law and weaponry, too bad that you were not there to protect him or to arm him quickly.

It certainly would have supported the Gun Baggers points of contention.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. The police didn't protect him either, did they?

People need to protect themselves.

BTW - I must applaud your originality and wit in your post. It is a pleasure to see something beside the usual sexual insults that are hurled at our side.

[quakerboy]

49. And if the proff had ninja training

he could have just vanished in a puff of smoke.

Alternately, if we made smoking massive amounts of pot daily mandatory for all citizens, I doubt the student would have had the drive to kill. An ounce of prevention, and all that.

What? If we are going the "if" route, why not explore all the posabilities. Pepper spray, a stun gun, or self defense training would have served the prof as well as a gun, and left him with a much lower likelyhood of feeling guilt over having killed someone later.

[booley]

52. Oh obviously

Seeing as how when someone tries to kill another with a knife, they always signal their intention well in advance so the victim has a chance to pull out his gun.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, can we just take in the tragedy without seeing a need to score political points in either direction?

A man is dead. No a gun would not have saved him. No, no particular law on guns would have saved him.

:rant:

[harmonicon]

31. come on, have some taste - don't co-opt this thread

This has nothing to do with guns, and you know it - don't inject that into the discussion just to push an agenda. You're serving no purpose by doing so.

A man has been murdered, and you would use that as a way to play politics?

[mike_c]

47. you're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't you....

You're the DUer who gave me a bunch of grief yesterday for telling a gun related story without a clear political agenda in the gun forum, right? Now you come over here and try to transform a story about a campus stabbing into a gun issue.

[JonQ]

4. How was a deranged person like this

able to get ahold of a knife, didn't the seller screen him before hand?

[Exultant Democracy]

5. Well at least he didn't have a gun, he would have been able to kill a lot more people.

[JonQ]

8. Yeah, and then they'd be really dead

instead of just kinda dead, like this guy.

[jgraz]

12. Never let a good murder go to waste, eh?

Especially when you can use it to push your own personal fetish on everyone else.

[JonQ]

16. Oh right, sorry

I meant: we should ban all guns in response to this outrageous crime.

There, not using it for a political reason.

[jgraz]

18. Oh FFS, give it a rest

Or, better yet, go bother someone who actually wants to ban all guns (hint: that isn't me).

[JonQ]

33. Yawn

had this been done with a firearm can you deny the grabber-brigade would have been out in force? Of course not.

[Paladin]

46. Check Out Post #2, Chauncey.

Your side steered this thread into the political, not the "grabber-brigade."

[JonQ]

62. Of course

because this was about a knife, not a gun.
It hurts their cause so they will be quiet for this round. You don't understand that?

[Paladin]

65. Both Sides Of The Gun Argument Exploit Tragedies Like This One.

Neither you nor I have clean hands on this.....

[JonQ]

66. One side does it to limit freedoms

the other side throws it back in their faces to discredit them and protect our freedoms.

Other than that, yeah, identical.

[Paladin]

68. One Side Gives A Shit About Dealing With An Appalling Violence Problem.

The other side sees that violence as a completely acceptable trade-off for their precious, chock-full gun safes. That pretty much defines the only "freedoms" they're really concerned with.

Other than that, yeah, identical.

[depakid]

60. Impressive isn't it?

Compulsion and cowardice at work... grasping for whatever meager straws they might find to justify their obsession.

[JonQ]

63. That's funny

As I've seen you on threads where the weapon was a gun use that as proof for the need for stringent gun control.

Hehe, so you actually using murders to push your agenda makes you superior to those who mock you for doing so?

[bluestateguy]

7. Disgusting

and it looks like it was a graduate student driven to insanity.

Something very similar happened at Stanford in 1978.

[Lionel Mandrake]

29. What happened at Stanford in 1978 ...

was that an aging graduate student killed a math professor who had been his advisor.

The perpetrator, Theodore Streleski, had been a graduate student for 19 years. He didn't have what it takes to get a Ph. D. in math. This was obvious to everyone else at the time, but Streleski believed that his difficulties were all Professor De Leeuw's fault. After killing De Leeuw with a hammer, Streleski admitted everything, never showed any remorse, and went to prison for all of 7 years.

The victim, Karel de Leeuw, was a nice guy. I took some classes from him in the 1960s, and he was my advisor for a while. He was always willing to spend time with students, always courteous, and always helpful.

R. I. P. Karel de Leeuw

[struggle4progress]

36. I remember when Streleski was released: one of my fellow math grad students posted

a news article on his office door.

[Odin2005]

13. OMG, I feel so sorry for his family, colleges, and students.

:(

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Yeah, I do too. :^(

[joshcryer]

21. Wonder if religion played a role here.

[jgraz]

28. The pro/anti religion people here are sad

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[joshcryer]

50. I'm neither.

:hi:

[notesdev]

53. It looks like it did

Apparently the killer was from Saudi Arabia... and the victim was a convert from Islam to Judaism.

Puts a whole new light on the situation.

[alp227]

54. Uh oh. Here come the Islamophobes

Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and the other anti-Islam bigots of those types will use this to get universities not to admit students from Arab nations.

[woo me with science]

56. I wonder what your response would have been

had the murderer been a fundamentalist Christian.

[alp227]

57. If so that might inspire a future Law & Order episode

Because I've seen episodes of the show that have negatively cast religious right types as the criminals. Usually those episodes are based on real-life cases.

At least according to the right wing...radical Islam's threat>radical Christianity's threat, right?

But seriously, some people have trouble understanding that one person's transgressions don't reflect on everyone else in that person's particular group.

[marshall]

64. They'll probably wrap it in with the girl who converted to Christianity and fled her family

An inexplicable rise in alleged "honor killings" involving recent converts--the episode will write itself.

[joshcryer]

20. The pro/anti gun people here are sad.

Yes I am aware of which side instigated, don't call me on it. This sort of irreverence needs to stop on every single fucking news story about a murder.

Every.single.fucking.one.

[chrisa]

30. Agreed.

[jgraz]

34. OMG, a somehow a political discussion broke out on a political discussion board

What are the odds?

[joshcryer]

51. You're right. drones tend to do the same thing over and over again.

Every single murder story.

[Trillo]

24. How sad.

May his family find some peace.

This story reminded me of the story several weeks, maybe a month or two ago, about a student at a UCLA school lab who knifed a fellow student.

[RedCloud]

27. A man dedicated his life to showing us how we were human

and is killed by someone acting inhumane.

[Hekate]

59. Nominated as one of the best posts in this thread.

RIP, Professor Antoun.

Hekate

[mrbarber]

35. I raise my glass to the professor.

May he rest in peace.

[SteveM]

42. Hear, hear (nt)

[proteus_lives]

39. RIP Professor Richard T. Antoun.

[struggle4progress]

58. Student charged in Binghamton U. professor's death

VESTAL, N.Y. — A graduate student has been accused of fatally stabbing a 77-year-old Binghamton University anthropology professor.

Authorities say Abdulsalam al-Zahrani (ab-DUHL'-sah-lam al-zah-RAH'-nee) was charged with murder Saturday in the death of Richard T. Antoun on Friday ...

Mollen says he didn't know whether al-Zahrani has an attorney. There was no phone listing in Binghamton for the 46-year-old Saudi national.

Antoun has written several books, including "Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Movements" ...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVlYAAy7XqbwXQMXNWv0Vqjh8rYQD9CDHF7G2