It's All Israel's (and Bush's, and Harper's) fault&#33

[jbg]

A minority of Jewish people give other Jews a bad name too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

I know, I know. I was representing a lower middle-class victim of a mortgage scam (and succeeded in getting her house back, which she had stolen). The perpetrator was a Chasidic Jew. I nearly ripped his beard off when I was taking his deposition.

[Black Dog]

I want the constructive majority of the Muslim community, and the Christian and Jewish communities, to recognize that there is a serious problem, and tackle it, head on. Even the constructive majority of the Muslim community hides behind their emnity towards Israel in refusing to face their own peoples' serious problem.

Is demonizing an entire religion and comparing its adherents to animals constructive behaviour? Is framing the conflict between militant Islam and the west in manichean "us or them" terms (which clearly places "the constructive majority of the Muslim community" on the side of "them") the way to achieve your end? Really, you're just building walls.

Rue, a beautiful dream. Peace takes two to tango. Rabin shook hands with Arafat on the White House lawn in 1993. The jihadis followed with bombs every time Israel made a concession.

Do you have any proof of this? I should also point out the strong correlation between Israeli offensive operations conducted during periods of calm, such as assasinations, and retaliatory terror attacks. Like you say, it takes two to tango.

[jbg]

Is demonizing an entire religion and comparing its adherents to animals constructive behaviour? Is framing the conflict between militant Islam and the west in manichean "us or them" terms (which clearly places "the constructive majority of the Muslim community" on the side of "them") the way to achieve your end? Really, you're just building walls.

The silence of the "moderates" among Islam, with a few splendid exceptions, is defeaning.

Do you have any proof of this? I should also point out the strong correlation between Israeli offensive operations conducted during periods of calm, such as assasinations, and retaliatory terror attacks. Like you say, it takes two to tango.

My memory serves me well. I remember quite a few incidences, back in 1994 and 1995, after Israel turned over Jericho, and then I forget which city next (maybe Ramallah), the Palestinians rewarded Israel with bombings. In my book assassinations of leaders that repudiated Oslo were quite appropriate.

[Black Dog]

The silence of the "moderates" among Islam, with a few splendid exceptions, is defeaning.

Moderates tend to be silent. Really, I wish I knew what you wanted them to be doing.

My memory serves me well. I remember quite a few incidences, back in 1994 and 1995, after Israel turned over Jericho, and then I forget which city next (maybe Ramallah), the Palestinians rewarded Israel with bombings. In my book assassinations of leaders that repudiated Oslo were quite appropriate.

Er..except that Israel's assasinations usually came during periods of relative calm. The 1994 and 1995 bombings followed, not preceeded, Israeli killings of Islamis jihad leaders. The very first Palestinian suicide bombing was itself a response to he massacre of 29 Palestinians in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque by the American-Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein.

[jbg]

Er..except that Israel's assasinations usually came during periods of relative calm. The 1994 and 1995 bombings followed, not preceeded, Israeli killings of Islamis jihad leaders. The very first Palestinian suicide bombing was itself a response to he massacre of 29 Palestinians in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque by the American-Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein.

But the jihadis were not party to Oslo. And Arafat did nothing to honor the agreement to disarm the jihadis. Indeed, he blew his UN aid on weapons and a fat Swiss bank account.

[scribblet]

The silence of the "moderates" among Islam, with a few splendid exceptions, is defeaning.

Moderates tend to be silent. Really, I wish I knew what you wanted them to be doing.

They could speak out more, like Dr. Waffa Sultan and Irshi Manjhi (sp) mind you, they have death threats onj their heads now.

[jbg]

The silence of the "moderates" among Islam, with a few splendid exceptions, is defeaning.

Moderates tend to be silent. Really, I wish I knew what you wanted them to be doing.

They could speak out more, like Dr. Waffa Sultan and Irshi Manjhi (sp) mind you, they have death threats onj their heads now.

Exactly my point. The Jewish and Christian religions don't kill their dissenters. Isn't there another thread about Jewish dissenters from Zionism in London (link)? How many of those people have been killed or received death threats from the Israeli government?

[scribblet]

No they don't. Again I have to wonder why the left in particular is so profoundly anti-Israel, because their views can be as much a threat to Israel's existence as Hamas (et al)

[Black Dog]

They could speak out more, like Dr. Waffa Sultan and Irshi Manjhi (sp) mind you, they have death threats onj their heads now

I thought you were talking about "moderates". I'd be more open to hearing from people not associated with raving racist Daniel Pipes.

Exactly my point. The Jewish and Christian religions don't kill their dissenters. Isn't there another thread about Jewish dissenters from Zionism in London (link)? How many of those people have been killed or received death threats from the Israeli government?

Ah, yes, but instead they are tarred as "quislings" (for whom, I wonder?). Among the pundit class and in political circles, deviation from the strict pro-Israel party line is a surefire invitation to accusations of anti-semetisim, "self-hatred" (if the offending party is Jewish) and marginalization. So, no they don't physically kill their dissenters...

[southerncomfort]

So let me get this right. Anyone who points out the obvious is a racist thats sorta like trying to debate with a liberal. You know, anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a racist.

Daniel Pipes is no racist he just tells it like it is. How can the two gals be racist they are both muslim pointing out the error of the radical Islamist's ways. But nah, thats racist.

[Black Dog]

So let me get this right. Anyone who points out the obvious is a racist thats sorta like trying to debate with a liberal. You know, anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a racist.

No. I was quite specific: Daniel Pipes is a racist. If you choose to misinterpret my comment to your own ends, that's your problem.

Daniel Pipes is no racist he just tells it like it is. How can the two gals be racist they are both muslim pointing out the error of the radical Islamist's ways. But nah, thats racist.

Again: did I say Sultyan and Manji were racist? No. I said they were associated with a racist.

Indeed, Pipes is not only a racist, but an avatar of the intellectual thuggery of the Zionist hard right.

[Black Dog]

Just to expand a bit. It's glaringly obvious that political and intellectual freedom is greatly constrained in the Muslim world: indeed, any observation stating as such can only be met with the rebuttal "no shit, Sherlock." Certainly the Islamic world (defined here as the secular and religious leadership, rather than the hearts and minds of the millions of adherents) tilts towards authoritarianism. No doubt this is due in part to some flaws within the creed itself, but also due to other factors no doubt too numerous to, uh, enumerate. This too, is no revalation. But what I find interesting is that people here recognize this and trumpet the Mulsim world's intolerance of criticism and free speech, and then turn around and demand more Muslims stick their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos. Indeed, is it any wonder more Muslims don't speak out? Of course the kicker is the same people who bemoan the lack of freedom and intolerance of dissent in the Islamic world and the dangers facing dissidents also turn around and interpret the silence of moderate Muslims as approval of or complicity with the very structures that shut them up. A classic example of "heads: I win; tails: you lose."

[jbg]

Indeed, Pipes is not only a racist, but an avatar of the intellectual thuggery of the Zionist hard right.

I have seen Pipes talk at a local temple and talked to him personally. Trust me, he's no racist.

As for racism, what work have you personally done with minority group members?

[Black Dog]

I have seen Pipes talk at a local temple and talked to him personally. Trust me, he's no racist.

That's worth this much: [.]

As for racism, what work have you personally done with minority group members?

None of your fucking business. See, I'm not the one making racially charged posts on message boards, so there's no reason to question my racial cred. The day I start calling certain races "animals" and other such crap, feel free to inquire. Until then: stick it.

[scribblet]

I disagree that Pipes, or by inference those associated with him are racist. If you did not think that the two ladies mentioned were not racist, why mention any association with Pipes?

This is a more obvious instance of calling people racist to stifle discussion.

I believe we really have to question the motives and ask why, the left or Liberals in Canada to generalize, often hate the U.S. and indeed any conservative, while supporting and finding excuses for repressive and brutal regimes?

Indeed, we have to question why these people don't believe in free speech and generally try to disrupt Pipes when he speaks, and stop him from speaking. I guess free speech only applies to those who support terrorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYSWzcwNEhA&eurl=

[jbg]

None of your fucking business. See, I'm not the one making racially charged posts on message boards, so there's no reason to question my racial cred. The day I start calling certain races "animals" and other such crap, feel free to inquire. Until then: stick it.

My point is that I work hand in glove with black people, Hispanics, etc. (some my superiors), and have represented Palestinian Arabs. They get every bit of my loyalty and skill.

I am tired of being called a racist by people who wouldn't work on an equal basis with a member of a minority group, or don't have the experience of it.

[Black Dog]

I disagree that Pipes, or by inference those associated with him are racist. If you did not think that the two ladies mentioned were not racist, why mention any association with Pipes?

Well, I think Pipes is racist, which taints his agenda which taints anyone associated with it. That doesn't make the people in question racist. It just makes them tools: useful idiots.

This is a more obvious instance of calling people racist to stifle discussion.

I'm quite willing to discuss the issue. I was quite clear that I'd be open to p.o.v's from people not associated with Pipes. Would you wnat to have a debate with someone who's source material came from Stormfront?

I believe we really have to question the motives and ask why, the left or Liberals in Canada to generalize, often hate the U.S. and indeed any conservative, while supporting and finding excuses for repressive and brutal regimes?

Indeed, we have to question why these people don't believe in free speech and generally try to disrupt Pipes when he speaks, and stop him from speaking. I guess free speech only applies to those who support terrorists.

Ah, so calling Daniel Pipes racist is a no-no, a way of shutting down debate, but painting all "leftists" as bosom buddies of terrorists and hatemongers is okay? Give your fucking head a shake.

For the record I support Pipes' right to speak. By his words you will know him for what he is.

My point is that I work hand in glove with black people, Hispanics, etc. (some my superiors), and have represented Palestinian Arabs. They get every bit of my loyalty and skill.

I am tired of being called a racist by people who wouldn't work on an equal basis with a member of a minority group, or don't have the experience of it.

I'm sorry that all your paddling and quacking around this board is making people conclude that you're a duck.

As for my race credentials: what do I gain from proving anything to you?

[jbg]

I'm sorry that all your paddling and quacking around this board is making people conclude that you're a duck.

As for my race credentials: what do I gain from proving anything to you?

Anyone who knows me or my posts knows that I am no racist. I am a realist. I will not continue the flaming on this side issue.

[Black Dog]

Anyone who knows me or my posts knows that I am no racist. I am a realist. I will not continue the flaming on this side issue.

That's fine by me. Of course it should be noted that I did not accuse you of racism on this thread, unless your name is Daniel Pipes.

Now why not address any of the points I made up in post #37?

[jbg]

Anyone who knows me or my posts knows that I am no racist. I am a realist. I will not continue the flaming on this side issue.

That's fine by me. Of course it should be noted that I did not accuse you of racism on this thread, unless your name is Daniel Pipes.

Now why not address any of the points I made up in post #37?

Done. See below:

Just to expand a bit. It's glaringly obvious that political and intellectual freedom is greatly constrained in the Muslim world: indeed, any observation stating as such can only be met with the rebuttal "no shit, Sherlock." Certainly the Islamic world (defined here as the secular and religious leadership, rather than the hearts and minds of the millions of adherents) tilts towards authoritarianism. No doubt this is due in part to some flaws within the creed itself, but also due to other factors no doubt too numerous to, uh, enumerate. This too, is no revalation.

So far so good.

But what I find interesting is that people here recognize this and trumpet the Mulsim world's intolerance of criticism and free speech, and then turn around and demand more Muslims stick their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos. Indeed, is it any wonder more Muslims don't speak out? Of course the kicker is the same people who bemoan the lack of freedom and intolerance of dissent in the Islamic world and the dangers facing dissidents also turn around and interpret the silence of moderate Muslims as approval of or complicity with the very structures that shut them up. A classic example of "heads: I win; tails: you lose."

The response is that certain values of decency and tolerance ought properly to be universal. We are not asking that they "stick their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos", but for the sake of upholding the very values of freedom, progress and dignity that the moderates say they stand for. Some disunity and dissent may hurt the Islamic leaders; it may help the everyday Muslims, and for that matter all who believe in world peace and world progress.

[scribblet]

The response is that certain values of decency and tolerance ought properly to be universal. We are not asking that they "their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos", but for the sake of upholding the very values of freedom, progress and dignity that the moderates say they stand for. Some disunity and dissent may hurt the Islamic leaders; it may help the everyday Muslims, and for that matter all who believe in world peace and world progress.

Excellent point.

In order to fight terrorist ideology we need people of the same faith to rally behind the anti terrorist cause and stand up to the intimidation and force and not allow the majority to bow to the will of the minority. There is safety in numbers, if enough of them speak out, eventually they could prevail.

[Black Dog]

The response is that certain values of decency and tolerance ought properly to be universal.

But they aren't. And you know that.

We are not asking that they "their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos", but for the sake of upholding the very values of freedom, progress and dignity that the moderates say they stand for.

The fact is the practical considerations of survival will usually win out. Why do you think it is that most of Islam's internal critics are either from or based in the west?

[jbg]

We are not asking that they "their heads in the noose for the sake of their (the western, non-Mulsim observers') egos", but for the sake of upholding the very values of freedom, progress and dignity that the moderates say they stand for.

The fact is the practical considerations of survival will usually win out. Why do you think it is that most of Islam's internal critics are either from or based in the west?

Alas, we agree.