Bob

You just said a moment ago that you don't view Jewish brothers and sisters as different. I'm telling you we are different. I'm telling you we view ourselves as different. I'm telling you we are viewed as different by non-Jews. This is perfectly fine. There's a big difference between denying the existence of difference (what you seemed to be doing originally) between various groups of people and not making "a fetish out of them". You can pretend we're not different if you want to, but we are different. And that's ok. There's nothing wrong with difference. My mistake. I guess you were talking about "basic humanity". Would you please elaborate on what that is? Also, you're confusing the concept of "liberty" with "libertarianism". When I assumed that you were trying to communicate the solidarity between Jews and non-Jews towards the values of democracy and liberty, I certainly was not channelling in Ron Paul's campaign message. Are democracy and liberty not values that are included within "basic humanity"? I disagree. I certainly do not think we're all virtually alike. In fact, I know we're not all virtually alike. I think I've got much more in common with you than with some Taliban terrorist in Kandahar, for example.

What are you basing that speculation on, though? If anything, the brief clip leads me to believe otherwise. As we discussed just a moment ago, her pronunciation of her name shows a good Arabic accent, suggesting to me that she's not some recent convert. I really don't think she's converted and too some Arabic-Islamic name. She's look ethnically Muslim to my eyes, as well.

It doesn't make any difference, I'm just speculating for curiosity's sake.

I started typing out a response to this paragraph, but I deleted it all because I'm not sure you're the kind of person I want to discuss these matters with. Without elaborating, virtually all of this above paragraph is incoherent or just plain wrong. I may regret asking you this, but have you any examples of activities that need to be stopped? I think we could have an interesting discussion over how well our justice system has prosecuted corporations and associated guilty parties (i.e. CEOs of companies who were complicit in mobilizing the company towards illegal activity), but this is a different topic than what you seem to be driving at. What companies have been "cut slack" with respect to "basic principles of justice"?

So you don't think she's a born-and-raised Muslim?

I disagree. The difference in history is vast. Were your parents or great-grandparents murdered in concentration camps? Perhaps oppressed in the former Soviet Union or expelled from a Middle Eastern country after Israel's establishment? Do I need to get into the vast differences in religious perspectives? This is just a small component of what separates many Jews from non-Jews, and the list is endless. Obviously it goes both ways between all various groups, there are many historical, religious, and cultural components that differentiate cultures from one another. Perhaps what you're trying to get at is that we're united in certain fundamental ways to values such as democracy and liberty? If that is what you're trying to get at, then that's quite different that denying differences between us. Don't be afraid to acknowledge differences, differences are part of what makes this a beautiful world!

Another very disturbing and anti-semitic video... still, it's quite clear that this Yvonne lady is a convert to Islam. Of course the sick young university Muslim girl featured in the first video in this thread MAY be a convert, but my intuition tells me she's a born-and-raised Muslim based on her Arabic accent when she briefly speaks Arabic.

What are you basing that on? When she took a few moments to say something in Arabic, she had the accent of someone who learned it at a young age. I see no evidence of her being a convert (she may be, but it's unclear from the video). To M. Dancer - Yes, she sounds American, but she also sounds like a born-and-raised Muslim. I am certain that English is her first language, and I am sure she is a born-and-raised American. But I'm also thinking she did some sort of Muslim education as a child, either Muslim day-school or weekend education, where she learned some Arabic.

If anyone's interested in the audiobook of Michael Oren's "Six Days of War", send me a PM and I'll see what I can do to hook you up.

How's that? We are different... most of us have a different religious perspective, have a different sense of shared history, which in effect shapes as into a different culture, etc... We are different, you shouldn't hesitate to acknowledge this...

How is it not obvious to you that such a "corporate death penalty" is not in the best interests of the public? Do I really need to explain all the harm that would be caused by such a decision to the many stakeholders of every large corporation? It should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that such a decision would be disastrous. Just a handful of parties that would be negatively affected include the employees of the business, as well as the employees and owners of other businesses with strong business relationships with the "killed" firm. Not to mention the loss of productivity and research conducted that fat the firm that the public benefits from with respect to the provision of goods and/or services as well as development of new and better goods and/or services (products and services that improve the quality of our lives). I'd advise you to consider that fulfilling the public good is more important than fulfilling your anti-corporate fantasies. Please refrain from using fake terms such as "environmental genocide" in order to increase the dramatic effect of your posts, it doesn't do anything to advance your argument.

In case you didn't already know, the only thing that's obvious is that you've no idea what you're talking about. This is definitely one of the most ridiculous posts of the day. I don't know how being Islamic helps a young girl fit in to an American university. She's also more than likely born and raised as a Muslim, given what sounded like a good Arabic accent. I also see no evidence of her having mental issues. She may have a warped ideology and be anti-semitic, but that's not the same as a mental disorder.

That's an interesting point. I'm kinda on the fence on this issue, now. EDIT - fixed.

Did you just read and/or watch Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", or something? Let's say a corporate entity is stripped of its corporate status... then what? What is then done with the assets, liabilities, operations, stakeholders and everything else associated with the business? It just doesn't make sense. Corporations can be made to pay monetary and other damages for their ills. Also, those involved with the corporation are can still be held personally responsible for crimes, contemporary examples include Enron's Ken Lay and Skilling, and the dude from Worldcom (I forget the CEO's name). Whether or not our governments pursue corporation appropriately is another question, altogether...

Your statement doesn't make any sense. First of all, how did he know what she would say? Are we to assume that simply because she is Muslim that she is anti-semitic and wishes that all Jews be liquidated? I certainly do not think that this disturbed bitch's anti-semitism is representative of most Muslims, although I am concerned that it sick perspectives like hers are on the fringe, either. Secondly, how do you figure that a Jewish person would also be in favour of the liquidation of all Jews? How does that make any sense?

On the other hand, I'll distinguish between the actions of virtually every Muslim country and Islam. Fair enough?

I don't think you're prejudiced, but you're asking us to sympathize with those who are prejudiced because they've been victimized. We can understand what brought them to their prejudiced perspectives against Muslims, but we don't have to condone their unfair conclusions about the broader Muslim community. I can understand why Rosemary became anti-Muslim, but I will not agree with her or condone her position.

I can't be any clearer about this - this Rosemary lady's objection to the idea of a mosque being built on part of ground zero is absolutely rooted in her association of Islam (and by extension: mosques) with Islamic terrorism. While I know there is overlap between Islamic terrorism and Islam (and by extension: Muslims), she's unfairly connecting the future patrons of this potential mosque with the terrorists responsible for the murder of her son. If I was a Muslim, I would hate to be connected with such a sick group of people as the executors and supporters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I definitely understand where she's coming from, but I only understand where she's coming from if I take a prejudiced mindset against Muslims. Perhaps some of these future patrons will hold despicable political perspectives and religious ideologies, but that's life. Opposing the construction plans of this mosque doesn't do away with these undesirables. You're asking Muslims to apologize (or "show sensitivity", as you put it) for the crimes of others who identify themselves as Muslims. I don't see how there's some competition of "meaning" between Muslims who want to build a mosque and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If this Rosemary lady and other affected parties want this particular property for some other reason, such as a memorial, then I'd understand. As far as I can see, this lady is simply opposed to the construction plans as they relate to the construction of a mosque rooted in her own anti-Muslim prejudice. When you say, "where.... they're coming from" - I say to you that they're coming from a prejudiced perspective. Look, I understand that this Rosemary lady is more than likely not some inherently bigoted and prejudiced individual, I know that her prejudice is the result of having her son murdered in such a horrifying way. Let's not pretend that one of the consequences of the horror of her son's murder isn't the development of an anti-Muslim prejudice, though. As an objective outsider, I am not afraid to call it like I see it - prejudice. I'll add on more thing, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a girl is victimized by sexual assault several times in several different circumstances by young black males. We can then understand that she develops a fear and/or resentment of young black males. We cannot pretend that she isn't prejudiced, however. Back to the Rosemary lady, I can understand why she is prejudiced against Muslims, but I cann't deny that the prejudice exists. From my perspective, I would understand why the anti-Jewish sentiment would exist among the Muslims of this neighbourhood, but that doesn't mean that this sentiment isn't prejudiced. I'm also unsure that "showing sensitivity" by avoiding the area and not building any Jewish structure sends the right message. To me, following your advice would feel like an admission of guilt-by-association with these hypothetical Jewish extremists. It seems to me that you're unwilling to concede that it is anti-Muslim prejudice that is motivating this Rosemary lady's objection to the construction of this mosque. Yes, I can understand where she's coming from - from a prejudiced perspective. I can also understand why she's developed this prejudice. Still, she remains prejudiced. I can't pretend to understand the horror and loss that she experienced and continues to deal with, I can only hope that if I am ever a victim of such a horror that has a distinct ethnic/cultural/religious component that I do not allow it to unfairly bias me against groups of people.

Sometimes I get the impression that some gentiles out there think that we Jews think we're some sort of superior group of people. Another misrepresentation is that we describe ourselves as "the chosen people", when more accurately, we're to be viewed as "the people who chose God". In other words, it's not that we were chosen, but that we made a choice. Basically, I find there is some misinformation out there which attempts to portray us as if we all think we're the best thing out there since sliced bread.

If anyone is interested in the audiobook of Natan Sharansky's "Defending Identity", send me a PM and perhaps I can help you check it out. It is a book which examines, among other things, the concept of nationalism national identity.

I also understand where she's coming from, but I reject her position. Yet I only understand her perspective when I put myself in the mind of a prejudiced person. Yes, her son was murdered by Islamic extremists. Yes, I can understand how she has extrapolated the guilty parties to include most (if not all) Muslims. Still, it's bigoted. I understand how a mosque being built on the same grounds as the former WTC would be a "slap in the face" to those who are prejudiced against Muslims. You're very subtly implying that ordinary Muslims should be apologizing for the acts of the terrorists by not building a mosque at ground zero. At the very least, whether you realize it or not, you're suggesting that ordinary Muslims should show "sensitivity" to those who were murdered by Islamic extremists by not building a mosque at ground zero. Don't you see how that's tacitly associating ordinary Muslims with Islamic terrorists? I'm Jewish, myself, and I'd hate to have to adjust my actions in accordance with wrongs that may be perpetrated by other Jews. See what I'm getting at? I'm not going to allow myself to be "guilty by association" simply because I belong to the same ethnic group as some terrorists - because I don't share their beliefs. Yes I know I'll be associated with them by some simple-minded people, but I don't have to accept that association.

I agree, if these Hutaree Militia were planning on killing police officer and then killing people are the funeral, they definitely need to be executed or at the very least put away for a very long time. I also have no problem labelling them as terrorists.

Hi there Machjo, I agree with your definition of patriotism, although it is ultra-simplistic. I think we could all elaborate quite a bit on what "patriotism" can be defined as. With respect to the definition of "nationalism", however, it's not a matter of opinion. Your definition of "nationalism" is simply incorrect. Allow me to briefly define what nationalism is, at least from an academic perspective. Nationalism is a belief held by a group of people that they are linked in one or more ways. The links between people who identify themselves as belonging to a nation can include common language(s), religion(s), values, political beliefs, ethnicity/race, food, and a shared sense of history and common destiny. Broadly, people who identify themselves as belonging to a nation feel united via a shared culture. Certainly these common traits among members of the nation distinguish these folks from those outside of the nation, but this is not the same as suggesting that members of the nation believe that they are superior to those outside of the nation. Just because I'm different than you doesn't mean I'm better than you, and just because I know that I'm different than you doesn't mean I think I'm better than you. Now, I am not denying that nationalism (as well as patriotism) can overlap with prejudice/racism/ethnocentricity, but this is not an automatic consequence of nationalism (or patriotism). What you must not deny is that strong nationalism can mobilize people towards working towards goals beyond simple selfish objectives. In other words, when one believes in something bigger than him/herself (i.e. the benefit of the nation), one can be motivated, at least in part, to work towards altruistic endeavours. Many of us crave this semi-spiritual component to our lives, and thrive with it as a component of our identity. I understand that many people (apparently yourself included) have reservations about people with a strong sense of identity that can be perceived as separating one group from another. Perhaps you feel that differences between people such as those rooted in nationalism invariably lead to conflict. Of course this can be true in some scenarios, but it depends on the context we're examining and how the nationalism is subscribed to among its members. There is so much that can be said about this subject, but I'll stop here for now. Well, now you're talking about a nation-state - where a nation establishes its home within certain territorial boundaries. There is some truth to what you say, but don't all states have a set of beliefs which they work towards advancing domestically and abroad, whether or not they are nation-states? Canada, not being a nation-state, still holds onto to values that we (rightly) believe are superior to others (our democratic values, for instance). It is entirely appropriate for a state or nation-state to advance its "ways" when they are superior. To use Canada as an example, it is entirely appropriate for us to promote democracy and liberty at home and abroad (and we are not a nation-state), which are fundamental values of our culture. We can discuss this more, if you like. I personally find this subject very interesting.

Can't we still call him a terrorist since the motivation(s) for his bombing attempt is strongly connected to the ideology of Islamic extremism? Assuming he's a "homegrown jihadist" (why do I feel stupid typing out those words?), he strongly identifies with the anti-American sentiment we see widespread among Muslim extremists, who view their religion and culture as being attacked by America and its allies (a false perception), and believes that wholesale violence is a legitimate way to address his grievance(s). Can he not be a terrorist simply by ideological association and/or motivation(s)? As a side note, apparently this Faisal Shezad guy did have some sort of connection to identifiable terrorist groups in Pakistan. Apparently he received some sort of "terrorist training" (again, I feel stupid typing out those words in quotations for some reason) abroad.

What I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to suggest that my take on this media/arts funding issue is a slippery slope perspective that might lead Canada into a Soviet Union-esque regime. Your supposition that the Soviet Union was utilitarian isn't really accurate, as it did contribute to the development of the arts and athletic and other things that aren't puritanically practical. Anyways cheers.