kraychik

Michael Hardner is a bigot, of course, because when discussions involving culture/ethnicity arise, he is accusing his detractors of "racism" within about two seconds. And as you've said, he has such contempt for Muslims that he believes they should be judged by a different standard and given more leeway to be criminals. It's pathetic.

It was one of the rare moments of honest camerawork from the mainstream media, in this instance: C-SPAN.

At the end of the day, Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government whether leftists "recognise" it or not. Israeli sovereignty is exerted across all of Jerusalem, and the Knesset and Supreme Court are located in Jerusalem.

Leftists like BC_chick and bud don't even know what international law entails, they just use it as a catch phrase when trying to slander Israel. "International law" is a nebulous and generally nonsensical term. And even if we invoke "international law", it is th eso-called "Palestinians" that are in violation of it left, right, and centre.

You don't understand that democracy has many iterations any more than you understand that conservatism does.

Bud refuses to recognise the difference between the liquidation of Osama Bin Laden (his "human rights" were violated, according to Navi Pillay, head of the ridiculously named UN Human Rights Council) and suicide bombers detonating themselves in crowded markets.

This is happening everywhere. I can recall a few examples off the top of my head. In NYC, for example, there were accusations from the left, including certain Islamic public relations organisations such as CAIR, which accused the NYPD of using an "Islamophobic" training video. Let's look at how the TSA is searching infants, grannies, and disabled individuals. And, as I've already stated, the case of Nidal Hassan. Granted, these are all American stories, but similar events have also occurred in Canada where "political correctness" impedes the abilities of all levels of government, most frighteningly those involved with security and justice, of effectively fulfilling their obligations.

There's validity to what he's saying. Let's look at contemporary immigration policies, as an example. The left prefers to import people who have much lower likelihoods of successful integration into our society. Some argue that this is simply a consequence of stupid policies which refuse to set standards for admission based on culture/values, which I find likely. Other argue that this is by design and done through malice, with the intention of bolstering the number of people dependent on so-called government welfare programs to boost its voter base. This scenario is related to what Shady is getting at, where he wants some sort of standard for voting. A part of me sympathises with his position, but I certainly wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but ownership of property isn't the standard to set. Property owners can still be racked with debt, and can be economic liabilities on the public purse. There's no question that a large swathe of the electorate subscribes to this mindset: "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." – Frederic Bastiat That Howard Stern clip is priceless, and encapsulates the contemporary leftist in America or Canada.

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “Fuck Off” And “Have A Good Life” (emphasis mine) From: Michael Hastings 
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
 Subject: Request for comment 

Hey Philippe: A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked? Let me know if you have a second.Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 Good morning Michael I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic. But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary: • You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first. • On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about. • In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep. If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on. I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge. I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying. More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard. I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage. Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it. 
I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind? If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine. If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN? And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't. Philippe ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Philippe: Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive. From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism. I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN. The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.
 All the best, 
Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to? ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment 

 Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change? ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole. How's that for a non-bullshit response? Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fuck Off Wow, did the leftist Buzzfeed just have a contentious exchange with an Obama administration low-level aide in pursuit of a real scandal? Most of the media has been doing everything possible to downplay the incompetence of the Obama administration in its security preparations (virtually none) and ridiculous response (it wasn't premeditated! we promise!), while pretending that Romney "spoke too soon" and "politicized" the events. Surprisingly, this story is actually on Buzzfeed's politics homepage. In the words of Ben Shapiro, "This is how tough questions from the press are answered by the Obama administration. No wonder they don’t like doing press conferences."

Do you not realise that many people have been murdered as a result of "political correctness"? Nidal Hassan is a prime example of this leftist behaviour at work. This is a systemic problem that infects all levels of government in Canada, the USA, and the UK (as well as many other countries). There is nothing that is hard to believe about this story.

The fact is exactly the opposite, of course, where Muslims are demanding that we adjust OUR freedoms of speech and expression to conform to THEIR standards. They are doing this through terrorism, and they are being enabled by those in our society who engage in apologism and tacit support for their behaviour. I am certainly not imposing anything on anyone.

Who is imposing what on who?

It's already happening in Canada. There was a story of a couple of Carleton University students, one involved with pro-Israel work on campus and the other a Jewish exchange student from Israel, who were chased and almost murdered by a bunch of Muslims with machetes in Hull. Jewish cemeteries and synagogues have been vandalised by these people. All sorts of stories. And those are only a couple of stories that actually made it to the news. Irresponsible immigration policies, combined with leftist "political correctness", is what's causing all this. And this is directly connected to the theme from your original post.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Many of these Muslim majority countries have horrible educational opportunities and don't realise that there are societies out there where media outlets AREN'T under complete government control. Libya should be held accountable for not providing sufficient security to the consulate. If the Libyan government wanted to shut down the terrorist attack and violent riots at the consulate, they could've done so. More importantly, however, the blame lies at the feet of Hillary Clinton, and to a slightly lesser extent Barack Obama. There was virtually non-existent security at the Benghazi consulate despite reports that it was needed. The Obama administration was more committed to maintaining a "low profile" than to actually fulfil its obligation of ensuring the security of its diplomatic missions. Also, it's frustrating that the enemies of freedom hide behind their status as "non-state actors". States aren't held to account as they should, because they blame third-party terrorist organisations that they keep at arm's length. The truth is that YouTube film trailer that most of the media is dishonestly presenting as the spark that started the film does have relevance to these stories. Islamic terrorist organisations coordinate with mosques and friendly governments to incite Muslims to storm diplomatic missions in order to provide a human cover and large degree of commotion to increase the likelihood of a successful operation. What this means is that a large number of "participants" in these attacks/riots at the American consulate in Benghazi didn't necessarily have an intention to murder any of the diplomatic staff, but they were unaware that they were actually providing an operational asset to the terrorists. The same thing was done in Afghanistan awhile back (a little over a year ago?) when the Terry Jones Quran burning was used to incite Muslims to attack a UN assistance mission. This huge group of people provided cover for a terrorist to murder an American soldier, feeling confident that the other soldiers and security personnel would not return fire into such a busy area. This is a tactic used by terrorists, and it's used effectively. They exploit the overly-restrictive RoE placed on our military and security personnel.

Here is the beautiful "multiculturalism" at work in the UK. Racist third-world trash from Somalia living in the UK attack a girl while shouting "kill the white slag!". The judge's decision? A suspended sentence. Why? Because they're Muslim girls, and "not used to drinking". Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims' Here's another gem: Woman arrested after video surfaces of black woman making racist comments about white people on a London bus

How is the link not safe for work?

These Australian men were wearing burkas in order to do research about security problems associated with women who wear burkas. Here are "moderate Muslims" reacting "peacefully" to this research. Michael Hardner, hopefully, will come in to make some excuses for their behaviour.

I meant to type "has now". And now, no valid points are made. A video made in America lampooning Islam its prophet Muhamad has nothing to do with Australia, but that didn't stop a bunch of Islamists from going on a riot and assaulting police officers and their dogs. No double standard here, whatsoever. Please feel free to continue sourcing Islamists and their apologists.

You certainly didn't disprove anything. My point stands: there are no "holy grails" in Canada or America where certain unpopular speech is used as a pretext for murder and violence, whereas in Muslim majority countries, it seems quite easy to organise violent riots when the religious/political establishments choose to do so. We don't do those sorts of things when Christianity or Judaism are ridiculed or insulted. You seem to be asserting otherwise, by referencing an exceptional story from 1988, and it's ridiculous. Isolated incidents don't constitute a pattern of behaviour, which is what's been established in many Muslim majority countries when there is a perception of Islam having been defamed. The closest you came to honesty in this post was asserting that such religious extremism is largely a thing of the past in the West, which implies that you do recognise how Muslim societies do not share our values of freedom of expression and speech. Predictably, however, you seem to imply that "progress" is some sort of inevitability, where Muslim societies will in time be where we are today with respect to freedom of speech and expression. That's typical of the leftist worldview, of course.

He's obviously using it facetiously, and not in the classical and (and largely nonsensical) manner coined by the CIA.

The right and the left have different points of departure when it comes to engaging in political discourse. It informs a person's core values and views of human nature. Beyond that, leftists subscribe to ideas and utopianism, whereas conservatives are much more cautious and cognizant of history (from which we learn lessons). Leftists are far more likely to be resistant to labelling themselves as on the left because they delude themselves into believing that they are complex, layered, and nuanced. Conversely, they view conservatives as boorish, simplistic, and incapable of grasping subtleties. While the labels have limitations, they are extremely useful and very quickly revealed in all sorts of political dialogue. I've noticed that man leftists get distressed when they unwittingly out themselves as being on the left, despite sincere attempts at trying to appear balanced and "moderate". The funny thing is they out themselves almost instantly most of the time.

Exactly, although with respect I think you could have articulated your point a little better. What wyly doesn't understand was that the former Soviet Union was built on the millions of slaves who were consumed in its prison network. He thinks we only need to count those killed/murdered after the 1991 "democratic vote". Like you said, the history of the Soviet Union's collapse didn't begin and end in 1991, as wyly would lead us to believe. Wyly's assertion that the Soviet Union collapsed "peacefully" is absurd.

For those interested in actually reading the article linked by Michael Hardner, consider that it was written by Uthman Badar, who "is the spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, an Islamic political party that is dedicated to the unification of the Muslim world under Islamic law." Michael Hardner has now mobilised from simple deflection from and apologism for Islamism to outright support of it. Nice.

Islam is much more than just a religion, though. That's the point you refuse to acknowledge. Moreover, we're speaking about Islamism, which is political Islam. There is an important distinction between Islam and Islamism, although they overlap greatly. It makes no difference to me or Shady what someone does or believes in their own private lives. What does make a difference to all of us, however, is how the ideology of Islamism manifests itself in today's world. What also matters is how leftists like you, Michael Hardner, pave the way for certain people to enter our societies who don't subscribe to our basic set of values (values which you would struggle to articulate, anyways), as well as how you wish to deal with them externally. I guess you can't be blamed for not having a minimum standard for people when you don't even know what the minimum standard is...