kraychik

Here is Susan Rice doing a propaganda Sunday tour to parrot the lie from the Obama administration that the terrorist attack that murdered Ambassador Stevens and four other Americans was "spontaneous" (despite the fact that is involved several embassies and consulates being stormed in different countries on, of all dates, September 11): Here is Jay Carney struggling to address reports that reveal that Obama has skipped about 50% of his daily security briefings, whereas his predecessor missed virtually none:

Here is DHS deputy head Paul Stockton refusing to use the I-word or M-word in association with things like terrorism, murder, extremism, radicalism, or fundamentalism: Here is Obama's chief national security advisor describing the Muslim Brotherhood as "largely secular" and having "eschewed violence", and distinguishing them sharply from outfits like Al-Qaeda (despite the fact that the MB is calling for the release of Al-Qaeda terrorists in American custody):

Michael Hardner refuses to acknowledge the difference between Islam and Islamism. Here's a funny video of a Michael Hardner type refusing to acknowledge the nature of Islamic fundamentalism/extremism:

Michael Hardner's position illustrated.

So an op-ed from a Muslim apologist for these Islamist riots is supposed to accomplish what other than continuing to reveal your dishonesty?

Considering you don't even know what conservatism entails, there's not really much point in continuing this dialogue, is there? You literally think "ultra-conservative" Islamists have something in common with American/Canadian conservatives because they both share a word. Nevermind the fact that the meaning of conservatism is contingent on context. Go do some political science 101, then get back to me.

Another teachable moment - a leftist like Michael Hardner asserts that Islamic/ist terrorism is a response to "racism" from people like me. That's about as compelling of an argument as the "Twinkie Defence". Let's also educate Michael Hardner about the definition of "racism". Racism: 1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Since Muslims don't constitute a race, by definition a perception of Islam/Muslims cannot be racism. This ridiculous accusation of racism isn't new, Josef Stalin accused America of "racism" against "Russian-speaking races".

The National Post isn't a conservative publication, any longer. Moreover, it's irrelevant, and it reinforced my point that you're ignoring the real story: that the vast majority of media outlets in Canada and America refused to republish the cartoons despite them being entirely newsworthy. That's the real story, here, not the "success" of two publications publishing it, presumably without a violent response. The choice not to republish the cartoons and acquiesce to Islamist terrorism is a leftist phenomenon, whether or not it comes from publications that lie on differing sides of the ideological spectrum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqKRwU_DBNE There are plenty of videos of these events online. Lovely signs, some held by young children, included such messages as, "BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET", "SHARIAH WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD", AND " "OUR DEAD ARE IN PARADISE, YOUR DEAD ARE IN HELL". These rioters, numbering in the hundreds, also assaulted police officers (and police dogs). Remember though, this is just a tiny teensy weensy eenie meenie fringe minority of "extremists".

You're the one interpreting it was being "tied to every Muslim on the planet". What exists within Islam is a strain of extremism that is unique and pervasive, despite your attempt to draw false moral equivalences with "Christian terrorism" in Paris.

So you think that conservatism is the opposite of leftism in all circumstances? Interesting. You really are an amateur when it comes to political philosophy. Nope. They're left-wing by most important measures.

A conservative Islamist in Egypt is hardly a conservative in America or Canada. Conservatism varies based on context depending on what is is that is trying to be conserved. Islamism is a leftist ideology, though, in the sense that it is prescribes a large government with a wide breadth of control over the individual. It shares much in common with other leftist ideologies such as communism, Nazism, and socialism.

I'm not sure what your point when you assert that violence didn't reoccur after the republication of the cartoons. It's a slice of time and an specific event which is part of a broader context of interconnected events. As I've already said, the more important fact is how many media outlet chose NOT to republish the cartoons, which were entirely newsworthy. That indicates a victory of sorts for the Islamists, while you're trying to spin it as something else entirely.

But, but, but.... what about "Christian terrorism"?!

People like Michael Hardner regularly confuse the micro and macro. Apparently you can't dislike cultural trends without being sickeningly hate-filled towards all members of that culture.

You're using a word incorrectly. I'll use the dictionary definition, rather than go by your request for trust. Prejudice is (emphasis mine): 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. 4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending. 5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

So you've got an example of a terrorist attack in 1988 from Paris in response to freedom of expression. You want to have a contest to see who can come up with more examples of violent responses to freedom of speech and expression when comparing the "Muslim world" with the West? What you're doing is obviously a desperate attempt to portray a non-existent parallel between our societies and those of Muslim majority countries.

Right, because "death to Israel" is so completely and totally different from what they REALLY mean to say, "down with Israel". I've spoken with Iranian ex-pats several times, and they've told me what I need to know. An honest discussion is not possible with a person like yourself who is committed to the dishonest narrative of Iran never having threatened Israel with annihilation (which they've done literally thousands of times over many years). This whole exchange is a joke.

Are you suggesting that there are "holy grails" in our society regarding freedom of speech and expression that, when crossed, regularly lead to murder and violence? I'm not going to go back and loo through the thread for that example, but I'll assume it's in reference to murders of doctors practising abortions and/or attacks on medical clinics that offer the service. If I'm right, those are not responses to speech or expression.

Islamism is much, much, much bigger than Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Obama was later contradicted by the State Department via Victoria Nuland, who virtually stated that Egypt is in fact an ally when asked to comment on those very words from Obama's "not an ally, not an enemy" statement. More importantly, however, the foreign aid from America is continuing to flow to Egypt while it is under control of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as other Muslim majority countries that are largely hostile to American interests. Actions speak louder than words.

You clearly asserted that there is some parallel between the responses in our societies towards certain "holy grails" and those in Muslim societies. There isn't. We don't murder diplomats and storm embassies when people express unpopular opinions. Your comment, whether or not you realise it, amounts to apologism for murderous responses to freedom of expression and speech.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden doesn't change his policy of appeasement towards Islamism. He is continuing to fund the now Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt with foreign aid started in 1979 to underwrite the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, he refused to provide sufficient security at the Benghazi consulate because he was committed to maintaining a "low profile" in Libya (which led to the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans), he has released detainees from Guantanamo Bay which was resurfaced only to engage in more terrorism, he labelled Nidal Hassan's mass murder at Fort Hood "workplace violence", he acquiesced to Turkey's demand to exclude Israel from a NATO summit, apologising for the First Amendment, and on and on and on. This is appeasement by any honest measurement. Here's a powerful and emotional video of Obama and Clinton being chastised by the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL for standing on their achievements and prioritising politics over their security: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1x-5pCSI84

This video took about five seconds to find:

There is "death to Israel" propaganda coming from Iran daily. Again, this isn't controversial and it isn't news. It's been going on since virtually 1979. This is normal in a tyrannical state, which needs a constant enemy around which it an galvanise its population and deflect from its internal failures. This video took about two seconds to find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcjzO7AB2M

You obviously don't understand the core of the housing crisis and the broader collapse as it pertains to overregulation. Put simply the taxpayer was forced to cover bad loans that banks were forced to make via regulation from the so-called Community Reinvestment Act implemented during Carter, in 1979 I believe, and then ramped up with Clinton. The false narrative upon which the CRA was built alleged that banks were engaging in racial/ethnic discrimination when determining eligibility of applicants for credit. Since more black and Hispanic applicants were being declined as a proportion of total applicants when compared to white applicants, the banks must've been practising "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination", right? In order to make the banks more secure when lending to people with less-than-perfect creditworthiness, both Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac were established to guarantee that the banks would collect their money in the event that a sub-prime borrower defaulted. Fast forward to 2006, and the system starts breaking with taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions in defaulted loans. The assertion that deregulation caused the housing crisis and broader economic collapse is the opposite of the truth, and amounts to demagoguery. *Fun trivia - banks also determine eligibility for secured credit (mortgages and SLCs) based on the "sellability" of the home. The "sellability" of the home is largely dependent on the neighbourhood. Many undesirable neighbourhoods had overrepresentation of blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. So when banks declined applications for credit to purchase (or borrow against) homes in undesirable (and minority-filled) neighbourhoods, the left used this as further evidence of the phantom of "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination" being practised by the greedy banks. In other words, "They turned me down for my loan because my name is Miguel Sanchez!", rather than the fact that Mr. Sanchez only earns $20K a year, has a bad credit history, and wanted to buy a $200K home he couldn't afford in a bad neighbourhood that had recently been experiencing a decline in home values.