Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks
by Sam Harris
Reposted from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html
Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."
Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.
Into the breach stepped Liveleak, a British video-sharing website, which finally aired the film on March 27th. It received over 3 million views in the first 24 hours. The next day, however, Liveleak removed Fitna from its servers, having been terrorized into self-censorship by threats to its staff. But the film had spread too far on the internet to be suppressed (and Liveleak, after taking further security measures, has since reinstated it on its site as well).
Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world. In response, Dutch corporations placed ads in countries like Indonesia, denouncing the film in self-defense. Several Muslim countries blocked YouTube and other video-sharing sites in an effort to keep Wilders' blasphemy from penetrating the minds of their citizens. There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul. It must be said, however, that nothing has yet occurred to rival the ferocious response to the Danish cartoons.
Meanwhile Kurt Westergaard, one of the Danish cartoonists, threatened to sue Wilders for copyright infringement, as Wilders used his drawing of a bomb-laden Muhammad without permission. Westergaard has lived in hiding since 2006 due to death threats of his own, so the Danish Union of Journalists volunteered to file this lawsuit on his behalf. Admittedly, there is something amusing about one hunted man, unable to venture out in public for fear of being killed by religious lunatics, threatening to sue another man in the same predicament over a copyright violation. But it is understandable that Westergaard wouldn't want to be repeatedly hurled at the enemy without his consent. Westergaard is an extraordinarily courageous man whose life has been ruined both by religious fanaticism and the free world's submission to it. In February, the Danish government arrested three Muslims who seemed poised to murder him. Other Danes unfortunate enough to have been born with the name "Kurt Westergaard" have had to take steps to escape being murdered in his place. (Wilder's has since removed the cartoon from the official version of Fitna.)
Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.
As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable.
Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.
I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.
A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."
Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?
What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.
Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News." Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims.
Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in the Guardian:
It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith.
And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.
Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future.
The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:
It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.
It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.
Watch Fitna on Google Video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html
Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."
Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.
Into the breach stepped Liveleak, a British video-sharing website, which finally aired the film on March 27th. It received over 3 million views in the first 24 hours. The next day, however, Liveleak removed Fitna from its servers, having been terrorized into self-censorship by threats to its staff. But the film had spread too far on the internet to be suppressed (and Liveleak, after taking further security measures, has since reinstated it on its site as well).
Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world. In response, Dutch corporations placed ads in countries like Indonesia, denouncing the film in self-defense. Several Muslim countries blocked YouTube and other video-sharing sites in an effort to keep Wilders' blasphemy from penetrating the minds of their citizens. There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul. It must be said, however, that nothing has yet occurred to rival the ferocious response to the Danish cartoons.
Meanwhile Kurt Westergaard, one of the Danish cartoonists, threatened to sue Wilders for copyright infringement, as Wilders used his drawing of a bomb-laden Muhammad without permission. Westergaard has lived in hiding since 2006 due to death threats of his own, so the Danish Union of Journalists volunteered to file this lawsuit on his behalf. Admittedly, there is something amusing about one hunted man, unable to venture out in public for fear of being killed by religious lunatics, threatening to sue another man in the same predicament over a copyright violation. But it is understandable that Westergaard wouldn't want to be repeatedly hurled at the enemy without his consent. Westergaard is an extraordinarily courageous man whose life has been ruined both by religious fanaticism and the free world's submission to it. In February, the Danish government arrested three Muslims who seemed poised to murder him. Other Danes unfortunate enough to have been born with the name "Kurt Westergaard" have had to take steps to escape being murdered in his place. (Wilder's has since removed the cartoon from the official version of Fitna.)
Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.
As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable.
Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.
I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.
A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."
Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?
What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.
Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News." Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims.
Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in the Guardian:
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith.
And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.
Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future.
The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:
It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.
It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.
Watch Fitna on Google Video
Comments 401 - 450 of 503 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers402. Comment #184141 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:10 pm
MaxD,Can you get a restraining order online?
I am just going to tell him I am quite pleased with my current relationship, and I need no new paramour.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
403. Comment #184208 by Dale_Husband on May 23, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Would we be so scared of the Islamic powers if they were not sitting on the world's largest deposits of oil?Wait until the oil starts to run out. THEN we can seek revenge on the Muslim hypocrites!
Other Comments by Dale_Husband
404. Comment #184209 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Al,
Surely there is a way!
Other Comments by MaxD
405. Comment #185041 by lastgreekstanding on May 26, 2008 at 6:51 pm
al-rawandi had this to say about me:
But I will take a huge shit on you before I flag you as a troll, which you are, because you don't answer posts, and simply seek to start arguments, unrelated to the topic.
al-rawandi,
I am your worst nightmare: I've caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're completely covered in shit---of the bullshit kind. (LOL) Don't give me more bullshit that you've have been misunderstood or that you've changed your mind on issues, even having the nerve to compare your flip-flops to Christopher Hitchens. I am not buying that bridge. (Remember you're the fish, not I.) Moreover, your posts are extremely sloppy. This is very annoying to the reader, especially since you have a tendency to overindulge in threads.
EXAMPLE : You had said that Israel is a democracy. I answered that it was not. A democratic state MUST accept the equality of ALL its residents within its borders---ergo, Israel is NOT a democracy but an Apartheid state. You countered with these "cogent" thoughts:
al-rawandi, post 340:
Israel is a racist state. However it is not motivated by traditional racism, which desires to exclude the others.
al-rawandi, post 346:
Israel is a democracy. Arabs are represented in the Knesset. This to be a democracy a country must only allow elections and representation, and Israel doest this...hence it is democracy.
al-rawandi, post 354:
Israel is a democracy and the Arab shitholes are not....You are completely incapable of figuring out what a democracy is.
What a mess---what a sloppy fuckin' mess! (When "composing" your posts, do you sit there with your thumb up your fat ass?) Sigh. Let's start at the beginning.
Post 340: If "Israel is racist state", then by definition it excludes other ethnic groups. Don't play with words by foolishly saying that because it's not "motivated by traditional racism" it does not exclude others. Racism is discrimination. Point! It is inconsequential if one chooses to add a modifier to it. Don't obfuscate!
Post 346: You then inform us that for a state to be defined as a democracy, it's sufficient that it "only allow elections and representation". Therefore, because Israel allows for elections and "Arabs are represented in the Knesset", it is a democracy. Even if I were to accept this shallow definition, Israel still fails to qualify as a democracy. Yes, Arabs are allowed to vote in those elections. The fact is, however, that Arabs are prevented from voting for a candidate of their choosing. According to Israel's Basic Law: The Knesset (Ammendment No. 1985), a candidate that questions or denies the Jewishness of the state of Israel can't run or hold office. When longtime Arab Member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara did just that---campaigning for a state that treats equally all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews only---he was forced by Israeli police (Shin Bet) to resign, thus also losing his immunity from prosecution. He is currently in exile. If he returns, there is a good chance he will be arrested on some trumped up charges. He is not alone. Indeed almost every Arab Member of the Knesset has at one time or another been harassed and intimidated by Shin Bet. Hence, there is NO Arab representation in the Knesset as you would have us believe.
Post 354: Before I show you what a democracy is, why did you make the above racist remark against an entire ethnic group? We all speak freely on this site, but racist remarks are intolerable. I doubt very much that Richard Dawkins welcomes racists on his site.
What is a democracy. I am smart enough to understand that a democracy, at the very least, is inclusive---a state for all its citizens. You casually dismissed this, insisting that this is not a requirement. Larry Diamond, coordinator of the Democracy Program at Stanford University's Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, begs to differ. He had this to say about the basic elements of democracy:
Democracy consists of four basic elements:
1) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
2) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;
3) Protection of the human rights of all citizens:
4) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
Other serious academics generally agree with Larry Diamond's definition, with the sine qua non being equality of citizens. No matter. Even with your shallow definition, Israel is still not a democracy.
Mercifully moving on...
On another thread, not too long ago, al-rawandi had said,
Non Jews cannot become citizens, Jews have the right of return. A national policy which discriminates between Jews and non-Jews. Orthodox Jews are exempted from military service to attend Yeshiva and become nastier fundamentalists. Non-Jews may not buy land owned by the JNF. This is sanctioned by the Israeli government. East Jerusalem residents (Arabs) pay tax at a 34% rate. They receive 10% expenditure on social services. Jewish only roads in the West Bank. Shall I go on with this pernicious Klan like nonsense you call "secular democracy?
and in post 357, al-rawandi---in vain---tried to wipe the shit off his face:
All of the places I mention, are the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, you soppy cunt. You cannot even read, which is not much of a surprise.
Jewish Nation Fund, I later realized that this, although discriminatory, is not a state function, the Jewish National Fund is not a state system, so it is not state discrimination, therefore I was wrong to include this in the list.
When you first posted the above "explanations", I didn't bother replying. What would be the point. Anyone can see that you're lying through your rotten teeth. However, for the record, I will now reply, lest you think you fooled me. First, all the places you mentioned in the other thread are NOT in the Occuppied Territories. That is a lie, and you know it. The Right of Return applies to Israel proper (as well, of course, the Occupied Territories). Also, The Jewish National Fund (like the Jewish Agency) is a legal, administrative unit that is allowed to operate in Israel BY THE CONSENT OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT. You said so much yourself, dummy: "This is sanctioned by the Israeli government". Furthermore, the government of Israel has the power---IF IT CHOOSES---to close it down. Why should it when the goverment and the JNF work hand-in-hand: it's the government that expropriates Arab land to give to the JNF!!! So don't play with words---again---and tell me it's "not a state system".
Should I continue, fish? Who's the "soppy cunt" now? (LOL)
also in post 357, in a fit of stupidity, al-rawandi had this to say:
I am disgusted by Israel, absolutely. Your problem (one among many, no doubt) is that you have mistaken me for a supporter of Israel, an out-and-out supporter at that. Israel bases its nationalism requirements on race, therefore it is a racist state. How does this show there is APARTHEID within Israel? I asked you to show there was apartheid INSIDE ISRAEL. You simply don't have the intellectual horsepower to pull it off.
You, a supporter of Israel? (LOL)
In closing, having no shame, al-rawandi said,
I welcome all challengers
Oh, shut it. You're a hypocrite, a liar, a gullible buffoon, and---sadly---a racist.
Cheers.
P.S. Hope you enjoyed your long weekend.
Other Comments by lastgreekstanding
406. Comment #185176 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 6:31 am
Lastgreekstanding-
you sure went to a lot of effort with that post, didn't you. Just in case you're not aware: it's not actually illegal for someone to change their mind.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
407. Comment #185191 by al-rawandi on May 27, 2008 at 7:16 am
Quetz,
That was the best he could do. I wasn't lying. And he knows it. He is using some strange form of anti-logic to falsely interpret the posts.
Greek,
Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy, or even a democracy with regards to its Arab citizens.
As for the Jewish National Fund, in the United States there are plenty of race based programs, for instance "Affirmative Action" or, perhaps more importantly, things like "The United Negro College Fund", it is allowed to operate, and it only funds college education for blacks, whites cannot apply, whites cannot receive money. Does this mean the United States is an institutionally racist entity? That is a serious question.
A little of your dishonesty here:
a candidate that questions or denies the Jewishness of the state of Israel can't run or hold office. When longtime Arab Member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara did just that---campaigning for a state that treats equally all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews only---he was forced by Israeli police (Shin Bet) to resign, thus also losing his immunity from prosecution.
You leave out the fact that Azmi Bishara spoke at a memorial for Hafez al-Assad, and made glowing remarks about Hezbollah. How would a US congressman be treated if he/she went to a country that was de facto at war with the US and praised a group dedicated to the destruction of the US. A group that also said that the US spreads AIDS intentionally (as Hezbollah said of Jews)? This congressman would be instantaneously evicted from his/her seat. Should this happen, I don't know, would this happen, absolutely.
This isn't the end. Bishara visited Syria once again, telling his audience that Israel may launch an offensive attack on Syria. His party (Balad, perhaps you could look up the connotations of this word in Arabic) made supportive statements of Hezbollah on visits to Lebanon.
Quoted in the Jerusalem post the Balad MK's Azmi Bishara, Jamal Zahalka, and Wasal Taha told Fuad Saniora that Hezbollah's resistance "lifted the spirit of the Arab people". This was a "solidarity mission". The same article notes the treasonous act of Bishara warning Syria of potential Israel attacks.
Not finished, Bishara also spoke of Syria' struggle to free "occupied Arab land" and praised Syrian support for "resistance to occupation". Syria the very same country that has sought to destabilize Lebanon. That has assassinated Lebanese politicians. The very same.
It has been a law, since 1948 in Israel to incite violence against that state, and to lend support (verbal or physical) to terrorism. This law has been around for a great long while.
Here is what you said:
Arab Member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara did just that---campaigning for a state that treats equally all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews only---he was forced by Israeli police (Shin Bet) to resign,
This simply isn't true, and here is what a member of Bishara's own party had to say about the matter:
MK Wasil Taha, of Bishara's own Balad party, called the accusations "nonsensical and false. Bishara denied them during investigation and we are denying them today. Their only purpose is to use Bishara as a scapegoat, to incite public opinion regarding everything dealing with Israel's failure in the [Lebanon] war, and to cover up those failings."
Haaretz, 4-25-07
He is saying this is a cover up for the failings in the Lebanon war. What did Israelis say, they cited his support for an enemy state.
In fact, in 2001 the Knesset passed a law making it illegal for MK's to visit an enemy state. 5 years later, Bishara did just that, he visited Syria, this was a violation of the law, and he was punished for this.
I am unsurprised that you cited the Bishara case, it is the best way to bewilder those who do not understand how the situation progressed. It is also a favorite of the anti-Israel crowd, because on the surface, someone might actually believe what you are saying.
Bishara committed treason under Israeli law, and was bounced for this. Although I do agree with him on the issue of the constitution, I cannot defend his treason.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
408. Comment #185286 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 11:15 am
Quetz,
Off topic,
Tecumotzin is helping Hercules fight of a Skrull invasion. Why aren't you helping out? This seems rather cowardly of you.
Lastgreekstanding While you have caught your breath after another frothing at the mouth post that reflects a mind incapable of entertaining a simple mind change, maybe you could find the time to apologize for attacking my wonderful usage of the word unserious which as I demonstrated is completely within the realm of the permissable by the rules of English.
Thanks.
(EDIT) Quetz, OMG you are Tecumotzin! I just found this out thanks to that shitty internet encyclopedia Wikipedia! Well good luck in your battles. At least according to Marvel comics mythology which may not correspond well with your actual metaphyscial derivation. Anyway apologies.
Other Comments by MaxD
409. Comment #185288 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 11:23 am
MaxD-
Off topic,
Tecumotzin is helping Hercules fight of a Skrull invasion. Why aren't you helping out? This seems rather cowardly of you.
Well excuse me! I've been a little busy fighting off Galactus, the Devourer of Worlds. Don't worry, I'm currently aboard a dreadnought crewed by an army of my finest mutant hybrids. We'll arrive shortly.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
410. Comment #185289 by righton on May 27, 2008 at 11:25 am
Lastgreekstanding = _riverrun_For sure. He has the same horrible attempts at humor, and then puts LOL after his jokes/insults. Calling Al, "the fish" also reminds me of _riverrun_. It is the humor and insults that totally give it away.
This guy is fucking pathetic and creepy.
Other Comments by righton
412. Comment #185296 by al-rawandi on May 27, 2008 at 11:36 am
righton,
Don't forget his blatant distortion of the Azmi Bishara case.
I didn't even go into the money Bishara received from "dubious" sources, as he was never tried for this.
Honesty is the first to go with these types.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
413. Comment #185332 by righton on May 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm
comment 419"I am your worst nightmare: I've caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're completely covered in shit---of the bullshit kind. (LOL) Don't give me more bullshit that you've have been misunderstood or that you've changed your mind on issues, even having the nerve to compare your flip-flops to Christopher Hitchens."
Says _riverrun_
How long will it be before you delete all your comments again?
Other Comments by righton
414. Comment #185345 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Al, righton,
While you both bring up excellent points in your critique of riverrun/lastgreekstanding, you guys have not adequately addressed his maligning of my use of English. I'd like a lot more of your time devoted to my infinately more substantial case against riverrun or whatever his name is.
On a serious note, what is wrong with this character?
Other Comments by MaxD
415. Comment #185347 by righton on May 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm
MaxD"I'd like a lot more of your time devoted to my infinately more substantial case against riverrun or whatever his name is."
Are you being unserious in this statement?
You are right though, he does owe you an apology.
Other Comments by righton
416. Comment #187790 by lastgreekstanding on June 2, 2008 at 4:48 pm
al-rawandi said,
Quetz,
That was the best he could do. I wasn't lying. And he knows it. He is using some strange form of anti-logic to falsely interpret the posts.
I thought I did quite well. But, then again, considering how comical and infantile your postings are, it's nothing to write home about.
Yes, you are a liar---the "liar,liar pants on fire" kind.
What? I am "using some strange form of anti-logic to falsely interpret the posts"? Silly al-rawandi, your inane posts speak for themselves. Please, let's have another look:
al-rawandi, in yet another display of stupidity, said,
Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy, or even a democracy with regards to its Arab citizens.
How can a racist state be a democracy? [rolling of eyes and wishing there were a God] That's unrealistic and discriminatory. [rolling of eyes but now wishing there were a devil, too]
How thickheaded are you? Seriously. [Now, I'm shaking my head in pity.] And I'm the one being illogical? [Greek coffee break]
al-rawandi, not knowing when to quit, said,
As for the Jewish National Fund, in the United States there are plenty of race based programs, for instance "Affirmative Action" or, perhaps more importantly, things like "The United Negro College Fund", it is allowed to operate, and it only funds college education for blacks, whites cannot apply, whites cannot receive money. Does this mean the United States is an institutionally racist entity? That is a serious question.
Interesting. I had no idea that the affirmative action program and the United Negro College Fund expropriated land from one ethnic group to hold in PERPETUITY for another ethnic group. [pee break]
Your modus operandi is simple: You go online, google, HASTILY read brief extracts, and then Copy and Paste shit that you think makes your point. You know what it gives it away, al-rawandi? Your incoherent and contradictory statements, not to mention lies. Here, let me show you what I mean:
I had said in my previous post,
Arab Member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara did just that---campaigning for a state that treats equally all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews only---he was forced by Israeli police (Shin Bet) to resign.
You replied,
This simply isn't true, and here is what a member of Bishara's own party had to say about the matter:
MK Wasil Taha, of Bishara's own Balad party, called the accusations "nonsensical and false. Bishara denied them during investigation and we are denying them today. Their only purpose is to use Bishara as a scapegoat, to incite public opinion regarding everything dealing with Israel's failure in the [Lebanon] war, and to cover up those failings." Haaretz, 4-25-07
He is saying this is a cover up for the failings in the Lebanon war.
What simply isn't true, dummy? Shin Bet (the Israeli secret police) has been after Bishara for years over his NONVIOLENT campaign for Israel to change to a state of all its citizens. They're scared shitless of Bishara's influence spreading. Before these latest allegations, he had already been twice indicted. Each time, the charges were dropped because the state was unable to build a case!. Those earlier indictments, however, were in made in a Civil Court where the evidence---or lack thereof---was there for all to see. So what did the fuckers do? They changed the rules yet again. If an Arab Member of the Knesset just so much as breaks wind, he'll be picked up, and this time he'll be charged in a Security Court (think kangaroo court) where the source of the evidence brought against a defendant cannot even be challenged. These latest charges of treason and espionage against BiShara are filed in a Security Court. Secret evidence? Undisclosed sources? Even a legal dreamteam, like OJ's, would have a hard time of it.
And what's with the above Haaretz quote, dummy. You're not making any fuckin' point with it. (Google, Copy, and Paste---see what I mean?) If you had bothered to read Haaretz's editorial concerning these latest charges of treason, instead of HASTILY reading snippets from Haaretz that suited you in order to cover your fat ass, you would have discovered---to your fuckin' dismay, no doubt---that this [Bishara's communication with Hezbollah and Syria] "will turn to be a tendentious exaggeration of telephone conversations and meetings with Lebanese and Syrian nationals". In other words, nobody takes these trumped-up charges seriously---not Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz, not the Israeli public. Only you, fish. Think, fish. If Shin Bet had any---ANY!--- tangible evidence against the man, would they be keeping it a secret??? You've never heard of show-trials, fish? Now your "democracy" has silenced (punished) Norman Finkelstein. The apartheid, biblical fuckers, upon his arrival in Israel, had him arrested, interrogated, and deported with a 10-year ban from Israel. Something about Hezbollah contacts and al-Qaeda ties. LOL (You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)
In case you haven't figured it out, I am purposely rude and arrogant towards you. Why not? You're a selfish bastard. You don't give a damn about the things you write. And why should you? It's all a game, no? You get your kicks by pretending that you know your stuff. You know dick! And when you get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, well ... that's when your bullshit goes into overdrive. "You what?" "You're entitled to change your mind?" Give us a break, A-hole! You have no principles, remember? And talking about A-holes, this Greek owns your ass. (You feel those hemorrhoids flaring up? Cream?) Don't worry, I want no part of it. You're so covered in shit that I wouldn't touch your ass---not even with the proverbial 10-foot pole!
Oh! I almost forgot to read you your rights. I'm sure you've heard of the Miranda rights. Well, these rights are---surprise, surprise---named after you. They're called the "al-rawandi rights".
al-rawandi rights:
You have the right not to post. Anything you post can and will be used against you in a thread. You have the right to speak to a buddy, and to have a buddy present when you post. If you don't have a buddy, one will be provided for you at richarddawkins.net expense.
MaxD,
For what do I owe you an apology? If it's regarding your limited vocabulary, that's not my problem. Take it up with your high school principal, Max.
Cheers!
P.S. For the record: "Syria is not a democratic country. Syria must make democratic reforms in the long term, as should all Arab nations." Azmi Bishara, as quoted in Haaretz. What can I say. Unlike al-rawandi, I read past the headlines.
Other Comments by lastgreekstanding
417. Comment #187797 by righton on June 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Geek wrote"(You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)"
YEEESSSSSSSSS!!! Hey al I think he is accusing you of being muslim. Everyone already knows that al-rawandi is a muslim.
Geez _riverrun_ you are one pathetic loser. That post was so fucking pathetic that I don't know how you can live with yourself after rereading it. Actually, just so you don't delete this one I am going to go ahead and repost it here.
_riverrun_ / lastgreekstanding vomited the following comment:
al-rawandi said,
Quetz,
That was the best he could do. I wasn't lying. And he knows it. He is using some strange form of anti-logic to falsely interpret the posts.
I thought I did quite well. But, then again, considering how comical and infantile your postings are, it's nothing to write home about.
Yes, you are a liar---the "liar,liar pants on fire" kind.
What? I am "using some strange form of anti-logic to falsely interpret the posts"? Silly al-rawandi, your inane posts speak for themselves. Please, let's have another look:
al-rawandi, in yet another display of stupidity, said,
Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy, or even a democracy with regards to its Arab citizens.
How can a racist state be a democracy? [rolling of eyes and wishing there were a God] That's unrealistic and discriminatory. [rolling of eyes but now wishing there were a devil, too]
How thickheaded are you? Seriously. [Now, I'm shaking my head in pity.] And I'm the one being illogical? [Greek coffee break]
al-rawandi, not knowing when to quit, said,
As for the Jewish National Fund, in the United States there are plenty of race based programs, for instance "Affirmative Action" or, perhaps more importantly, things like "The United Negro College Fund", it is allowed to operate, and it only funds college education for blacks, whites cannot apply, whites cannot receive money. Does this mean the United States is an institutionally racist entity? That is a serious question.
Interesting. I had no idea that the affirmative action program and the United Negro College Fund expropriated land from one ethnic group to hold in PERPETUITY for another ethnic group. [pee break]
Your modus operandi is simple: You go online, google, HASTILY read brief extracts, and then Copy and Paste shit that you think makes your point. You know what it gives it away, al-rawandi? Your incoherent and contradictory statements, not to mention lies. Here, let me show you what I mean:
I had said in my previous post,
Arab Member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara did just that---campaigning for a state that treats equally all its citizens, not one that grants rights and privileges to Jews only---he was forced by Israeli police (Shin Bet) to resign.
You replied,
This simply isn't true, and here is what a member of Bishara's own party had to say about the matter:
MK Wasil Taha, of Bishara's own Balad party, called the accusations "nonsensical and false. Bishara denied them during investigation and we are denying them today. Their only purpose is to use Bishara as a scapegoat, to incite public opinion regarding everything dealing with Israel's failure in the [Lebanon] war, and to cover up those failings." Haaretz, 4-25-07
He is saying this is a cover up for the failings in the Lebanon war.
What simply isn't true, dummy? Shin Bet (the Israeli secret police) has been after Bishara for years over his NONVIOLENT campaign for Israel to change to a state of all its citizens. They're scared shitless of Bishara's influence spreading. Before these latest allegations, he had already been twice indicted, and each time the charges were dropped because the state was unable to build a case!. Those earlier indictments, however, were in made in a Civil Court where the evidence---or lack thereof---was there for all to see. So what did the fuckers do? They changed the rules yet again. If an Arab Member of the Knesset just so much as breaks wind, he'll be picked up, and this time he'll be charged in a Security Court (think kangaroo court) where the source of the evidence brought against a defendant cannot even be challenged. These latest charges of treason and espionage against BiShara are filed in a Security Court. Secret evidence? Undisclosed sources? Even a legal dreamteam, like OJ's, would have a hard time of it.
And what's with the above Haaretz quote, dummy. You're not making any fuckin' point with it. (Google, Copy, and Paste---see what I mean?) If you had bothered to read Haaretz's editorial concerning these latest charges of treason, instead of HASTILY reading snippets from Haaretz that suited you in order to cover your fat ass, you would have discovered---to your fuckin' dismay, no doubt---that this [Bishara's communication with Hezbollah and Syria] "will turn to be a tendentious exaggeration of telephone conversations and meetings with Lebanese and Syrian nationals". In other words, nobody takes these trumped-up charges seriously---not Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz, not the Israeli public. Only you, fish. Think, fish. If Shin Bet had any---ANY!--- tangible evidence against the man, would they be keeping it a secret??? You've never heard of show-trials, fish? Now your "democracy" has silenced (punished) Norman Finkelstein. The apartheid, biblical fuckers, upon his arrival in Israel, had him arrested, interrogated, and deported with a 10-year ban from Israel. Something about Hezbollah contacts and al-Qaeda ties. LOL (You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)
In case you haven't figured it out, I am purposely rude and arrogant towards you. Why not? You're a selfish bastard. You don't give a damn about the things you write. And why should you? It's all a game, no? You get your kicks by pretending that you know your stuff. You know dick! And when you get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, well ... that's when your bullshit goes into overdrive. "You what?" "You're entitled to change your mind?" Give us a break, A-hole! You have no principles to start with. And talking about A-holes, this Greek owns your ass. (You feel those hemorrhoids flaring up? Cream?) Don't worry, I want no part of it. You're so covered in shit that I wouldn't touch your ass, not even with the proverbial 10-foot pole! Lucky bastard. LOL
Oh! I almost forgot to read you your rights. I'm sure you've heard of the Miranda rights. Well, these rights are---surprise, surprise---named after you. They're called the "al-rawandi rights".
al-rawandi rights:
You have the right not to post. Anything you post can and will be used against you in a thread. You have the right to speak to a buddy, and to have a buddy present when you post. If you don't have a buddy, one will be provided for you at richarddawkins.net expense.
MaxD,
For what do I owe you an apology? If it's regarding your limited vocabulary, that's not my problem. Take it up with your high school principal, Max.
Cheers!
P.S. For the record: "Syria is not a democratic country. Syria must make democratic reforms in the long term, as should all Arab nations." Azmi Bishara, as quoted in Haaretz. What can I say. Unlike al-rawandi, I read past the headlines.
Other Comments by righton
418. Comment #187800 by lastgreekstanding on June 2, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I never said he was a Muslim, stupid. You can read, can't you? LOLOther Comments by lastgreekstanding
419. Comment #187801 by righton on June 2, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Sorry. LOLIt was an inside joke. LOL
Yes I can read. LOL
Don't call me stupid. LOL
LOL
Other Comments by righton
420. Comment #187802 by righton on June 2, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Its funny that I reposted your comment cause now you can't edit it at all. LOLHave a good nite.
Other Comments by righton
421. Comment #187826 by lastgreekstanding on June 2, 2008 at 7:29 pm
???Why would I want to edit or delete post 430? Unlike you (post 431), the fish, and some other buffoons, I think before I post. I am not ashamed of anything I've written so far. Too bad your buddy the fish can't say the same.
You're offended that I called you stupid? Why? Be grateful I didn't call you a fish. Now that sucks. LOL
Good night.
Other Comments by lastgreekstanding
422. Comment #187833 by MaxD on June 2, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Lastgreekstanding,
Its good to know that you are not ashamed of anything you have written so far. However you really should apologize for insulting me over my correct usage of English.
And you just need to admit you were wrong about the use of the prefix un. Unserious is a fine word, and conforms to the rules of English.
You sought to insult me based on some -imagined-errant usage of a pre-fix. If you will look above, you will see all the instances in which the prefix un may be used.
I doubt you will apologize, but you need to at least admit that you are wrong.
Other Comments by MaxD
423. Comment #187885 by Quetzalcoatl on June 3, 2008 at 1:19 am
lastgreekstanding-
I thought I did quite well
Trust me, you're the only one who thinks that.
(You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)
Wait a second.....there's no hyphen, but al-rawandi sounds quite similar to al-cohol....maybe he's a drunk as well!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
424. Comment #187886 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 1:22 am
Comment #187885 by Quetzalcoatl Wait a second.....there's no hyphen, but al-rawandi sounds quite similar to al-cohol....maybe he's a drunk as well!Alkali - that's a fairly basic response from me.
Other Comments by epeeist
425. Comment #188268 by al-rawandi on June 3, 2008 at 3:00 pm
righton,
Thanks for reposting what the Greek wrote before he could go back and edit out all the nasty bits without note. I have always been honest about what I posted.
Greek,
The most comical thing about you is that you think it is illicit to look up a Ha'aretz article online. You act like it is so dishonest to use the internet for research. What do you want me to do fly to fucking Tel Aviv and pick up the Sunday edition? Want to check my fingers for ink stains?
Now we are done with your comedy, we can start with your out and out lies. Here is what I said, and you simply omitted from your response:
You leave out the fact that Azmi Bishara spoke at a memorial for Hafez al-Assad, and made glowing remarks about Hezbollah. How would a US congressman be treated if he/she went to a country that was de facto at war with the US and praised a group dedicated to the destruction of the US. A group that also said that the US spreads AIDS intentionally (as Hezbollah said of Jews)? This congressman would be instantaneously evicted from his/her seat. Should this happen, I don't know, would this happen, absolutely.
This isn't the end. Bishara visited Syria once again, telling his audience that Israel may launch an offensive attack on Syria. His party (Balad, perhaps you could look up the connotations of this word in Arabic) made supportive statements of Hezbollah on visits to Lebanon.
Quoted in the Jerusalem post the Balad MK's Azmi Bishara, Jamal Zahalka, and Wasal Taha told Fuad Saniora that Hezbollah's resistance "lifted the spirit of the Arab people". This was a "solidarity mission". The same article notes the treasonous act of Bishara warning Syria of potential Israel attacks.
Not finished, Bishara also spoke of Syria' struggle to free "occupied Arab land" and praised Syrian support for "resistance to occupation". Syria the very same country that has sought to destabilize Lebanon. That has assassinated Lebanese politicians. The very same.
It has been a law, since 1948 in Israel to incite violence against that state, and to lend support (verbal or physical) to terrorism. This law has been around for a great long while.
These statements he made in support of various terrorist organizations and states are quoted in Ynet, the Jeruslaem Post, among others. He was praising a terrorist organization which had launched numerous suicide attacks against Israel throughout the years. The legality of the Israeli invasion (immoral in my opinion) is not at issue, the issue is that Azmi Bishara violated a law that was on the books since 1948.
What do you say:
So what did the fuckers do? They changed the rules yet again.
You act like the Israelis are just making it up as they go. The law was enacted in 1948, in part to deal with JEWISH terrorists, left over from the anti-British and anti-Arab activities of the mandate period.
You simply dismiss things quoted from, let's take for example, the Jerusalem Post. Why is that, do you just think all Jews are liars who cannot publish proper journalism? I think that is more the case than anything else.
Azmi Bishara went and told the Syrian government and people (an enemy to the state in which he is a citizen and a member of the government, sworn to protect its people) that Israel was planning attacks. What kind of treason is this? What state wouldn't punish this kind of behavior?
Your position is so manifestly absurd as to require no further comment. You see my posts as abusive, and at times they are, but always within the framework of some point of fact. You have simply devolved into absolutely insane nonsense:
LOL (You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)
In case you haven't figured it out, I am purposely rude and arrogant towards you. Why not? You're a selfish bastard. You don't give a damn about the things you write. And why should you? It's all a game, no? You get your kicks by pretending that you know your stuff. You know dick! And when you get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, well ... that's when your bullshit goes into overdrive. "You what?" "You're entitled to change your mind?" Give us a break, A-hole! You have no principles to start with. And talking about A-holes, this Greek owns your ass. (You feel those hemorrhoids flaring up? Cream?) Don't worry, I want no part of it. You're so covered in shit that I wouldn't touch your ass, not even with the proverbial 10-foot pole! Lucky bastard. LOL
I haven't heard anything this stupid since I was a freshman in high school. This is evidence that you are truly pathetic. Look at your obsession with me, look at how you have made a fool of yourself. This is just sad, I am not even mad at you over this, I am truly sad to see someone behave like this, even under an assumed name.
"al-Rawandi sounds Arabic".
Excellent work detective.
And the final window into your personality, you, being the whimpering coward you are, edited this away, without note. You made the comment and took it out, and righton had to save it for "posterity". How sad.
Let me tell you something, I have the fucking courage to criticize someone when they are wrong. I criticize Israel, even recently when they shamefully banned Norman Finkelstein, and I criticize the Palestinians when they hurl anti-semitic rhetoric and suicide bombers at Israel. You, what do you do? You cannot discern between right and wrong. Israel is always wrong, you simply cannot discern what is a just act and what is an unjust act. That, along with your ravings, is evidence of an extremely weak intellect.
Sad sad sad.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
426. Comment #190323 by lastgreekstanding on June 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm
al-rawandi said,
righton,
Thanks for reposting what the Greek wrote before he could go back and edit out all the nasty bits without note.
It wasn't very smart of righton to repost. Why remind everyone that you're a hypocritical, gullible buffoon? For all you know, righton may be collaborating with me? In any case, I stand by "all the nasty bits". I have you to thank for them! Were it not for your overindulgence in posting, I doubt very much I would have been able to collect so many "nasty bits" so soon. Here, for posterity's sake, I'll gladly sum them all up:
Nasty Bit 1: You are a liar. You lie at the drop of a hat just to score some silly point. Moreover, when you get caught in a lie, what do you do? You continue to shamelessly lie so you can cover up your previous lie. You are an incorrigible liar. Do try to stop, if for no other reason than the fact that you don't do it particularly well!
Nasty Bit 2: You are a hypocrite. It's astonshing how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth without swallowing your tongue. Not only have I caught you saying one thing in one thread and the opposite in another, but you actually had the chuztpah to do the same thing in back-to-back sentences in this thread. Remember Post 432?
"Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy . . ."
Hilarious. You know, you really must try to get your capacious head round the difference between a racist state and a democracy. Just because a state has accorded citizenship to its minority while according them second (or third) class status, one cannot call the state a democracy. What can I say, al-rawandi? You make it so easy for me. LOL
Nasty Bit 3: You are naive. Truly. I've never seen someone so easily persuaded as you. You swallow like a--- (damn nasty thought) : ) Do you really believe that Hezbollah actually said that Jews spread AIDS intentionally? Silly al-rawandi, don't believe everything you read. Try to have a healthy skepticism.
Nasty Bit 4: You are a racist. Post 354: "Arab shitholes". What an egregious thing to say. Disparaging an entire ethnic group is inexcusable. Surprisingly, no one else has called you on it. Do you feel the same way about other ethnic groups?
Nasty Bit 5: You are a halfwit, of the lazy kind. I'm sorry. I am simply calling a spade a spade. Who but a lazy halfwit cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. The material can be modified by anyone---even a halfwit. The site itself cautions against citations. Unfortunately, you still don't get it: Wikipedia is about as reliable as asking your pet gerbil its opinions.
Don't despair, al-rawandi. You're still young. And like you've said, people do change. [See. I am not all that nasty.]
Before I contunue, you're obviously fixated by someone named _riverrun_.
al-rawandi:
Post 348: . . . do you know a guy named _riverrun_?
Posr 395: . . . am flattered, I have had two male devotees, _riverrun_ and "lastgreekstanding".
Hey lastgreek, just so we are clear I am NOT gay. Just an FYI.
_riverrun_ is not particapating in the discussion, but I am. So leave him/her out of it. [I must say, he/she must have verbally taken you to the cleaners---bigtime---because you're still smarting from the exchange. Ouch!]
You're not gay? You don't say! FYI, al-rawandi, I couldn't care less. [rolling of eyes]
al-rawandi said,
Greek,
The most comical thing about you is that you think it is illicit to look up a Ha'aretz article online. You act like it is so dishonest to use the internet for research.
Don't twist my words. I never suggested that "it is illicit to look up a Ha'aretz article online", nor that "it is so dishonest to use the internet for research". What I did say was that you go online, google, hastily read brief extracts, and then Copy and Paste matereial. not even bothering to check the source(s) of the story. That is not research! For example, the Down's Syndrome Suicide Bomber story that you posted, it was obvious that you hadn't even bothered to read past the headline, let alone the first paragraph. Had you done so, you would not have made a complete fool of yourself. So the next time you decide to do research online, take your time, thoroughly read the material, and do check the source(s). Simple, no? : )
al-rawandi said,
Now we are done with your comedy, we can start with your out and out lies.
Before we begin with my "out and out lies", I am going to take a few moments to sort out what you've said. Sorry, but your writing is bad and disorganized.. As I have stated before, you're all over the place---Google, Read Hastily brief extracts, Copy, Paste, and Repeat---and that exasperates me to no end. Who knows? Maybe you're not a halfwit after all. Maybe I've been debating all this time with an illiterate imbecile! [SHOCK] Anyway, let's just take a 30 min. break, O.K. ?
[---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's get started.
al-rawandi said,
Here is what I said, and you simply omitted from your response:
You leave out the fact that Azmi Bishara spoke at a memorial for Hafez al-Assad, and made glowing remarks about Hezbollah. How would a US congressman be treated if he/she went to a country that was de facto at war with the US and praised a group dedicated to the destruction of the US. A group that also said that the US spreads AIDS intentionally (as Hezbollah said of Jews)? This congressman would be instantaneously evicted from his/her seat. Should this happen, I don't know, would this happen, absolutely.
Actually, I stated the most important fact of all:
"Before these latest allegations, he had already been twice indicted, and each time the charges were dropped because the state was unable to build a case."
The indictments in question had come in 2001. They were eventually dropped by Israel's Supreme Court.
So he spoke at a memorial for Hafez al-Assad (2001). He often travels to other countries, including Syria and Lebanon. Even if these countries are considered by Israel as "enemies", he had diplomatic immunity as a Member of the Knesset.
With regard to him "making glowing remarks about Hezbollah", even if he did so what? As a Member of the Knesset he was allowed to freely express himself, regardless of what he said. He was protected under the "Law of Immunity of Members of Knesset". Moreover, it was an honest assessment of Hezbollah: that they are a resistance movement fighting Israeli aggresson.
Hezbollah said what? The Jews intentionally spread AIDS? Please refer to Nasty Bits 3 and 5, above.
other "points" that al-rawandi said I omitted:
This isn't the end. Bishara visited Syria once again, telling his audience that Israel may launch an offensive attack on Syria. His party (Balad, perhaps you could look up the connotations of this word in Arabic) made supportive statements of Hezbollah on visits to Lebanon.
Quoted in the Jerusalem post the Balad MK's Azmi Bishara, Jamal Zahalka, and Wasal Taha told Fuad Saniora that Hezbollah's resistance "lifted the spirit of the Arab people". This was a "solidarity mission". The same article notes the treasonous act of Bishara warning Syria of potential Israel attacks.
Not finished, Bishara also spoke of Syria' struggle to free "occupied Arab land" and praised Syrian support for "resistance to occupation". Syria the very same country that has sought to destabilize Lebanon. That has assassinated Lebanese politicians. The very same.
It has been a law, since 1948 in Israel to incite violence against that state, and to lend support (verbal or physical) to terrorism. This law has been around for a great long while.
"Blah, blah, blah . . . "
I should have lumped these four "paragraphs" with the first one. You're repeating yourself. Classic al-rawandi: Copy, Read Hastily brief extracts, Paste, and Repeat.
al-rawandi added,
These statements he made in support of various terrorist organizations and states are quoted in Ynet, the Jeruslaem Post, among others. He was praising a terrorist organization which had launched numerous suicide attacks against Israel throughout the years. The legality of the Israeli invasion (immoral in my opinion) is not at issue, the issue is that Azmi Bishara violated a law that was on the books since 1948.
Hallelujah! He has seen the light! Yes, the issue is the law. One more time:
1. Under the law of Foreign Travel (1948), it states that these regulations---that is travel to restricted countries---shall not apply to a person in posssession of a diplomatic passport of the State of Israel. Azmi Bishara had one.
2. Under the law of Immunity of Members of Knesset, he is free to speak his mind.
Here's the kicker. (Pay attention because I won't be repeating.) Even after the Knesset revoked his Parliamentary immunity, the legal system was still not able to charge and try him. Why? Because they didn't have a case!
al-rawandi,
What do you say:
"So what did the fuckers do? They changed the rules yet again".
You act like the Israelis are just making it up as they go. The law was enacted in 1948, in part to deal with JEWISH terrorists, left over from the anti-British and anti-Arab activities of the mandate period.
They are making it up as they go! You don't understand. It has nothing to do with the law of 1948. As I said in my previous post, these latest accusations against Azmi Bishara will be take place in a Security Court instead of a Civil Court like the earlier indictments. That's why I said they changed the rules. The Security Services can easily fabricate cases in a Security Court. Everything is kept secret. The Defense can't even question the source of the evidence! Thus, it's very difficult for the Defense to win in this kind of setting.
al-rawandi said,
You simply dismiss things quoted from, let's take for example, the Jerusalem Post. Why is that, do you just think all Jews are liars who cannot publish proper journalism? I think that is more the case than anything else.
I don't think that. I am not the racist. You are the racist, remember? By the way, why are all Arabs shitholes?
al-rawandi said,
Your position is so manifestly absurd as to require no further comment. You see my posts as abusive, and at times they are, but always within the framework of some point of fact. You have simply devolved into absolutely insane nonsense:
"You know, your username "al-rawandi" sounds Arabic, and looks similar to "al-Qaeda". You're not like those "Arab shitholes", are you?)
In case you haven't figured it out, I am purposely rude and arrogant towards you. Why not? You're a selfish bastard. You don't give a damn about the things you write. And why should you? It's all a game, no? You get your kicks by pretending that you know your stuff. You know dick! And when you get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, well ... that's when your bullshit goes into overdrive. "You what?" "You're entitled to change your mind?" Give us a break, A-hole! You have no principles to start with. And talking about A-holes, this Greek owns your ass. (You feel those hemorrhoids flaring up? Cream?) Don't worry, I want no part of it. You're so covered in shit that I wouldn't touch your ass, not even with the proverbial 10-foot pole! Lucky bastard. LOL "
I haven't heard anything this stupid since I was a freshman in high school. This is evidence that you are truly pathetic. Look at your obsession with me, look at how you have made a fool of yourself. This is just sad, I am not even mad at you over this, I am truly sad to see someone behave like this, even under an assumed name.
If you're going to dish it out ("Chomsky catamite", "soppy cunt"), that's cool. But be prepared to take it on the chin. Capiche! Don't whine like a baby.
Don't flatter yourself. I have no interest in you, al-rawandi. None at all. I'm only interested in what's posted.
"al-Rawandi sounds Arabic".
Excellent work detective.
And the final window into your personality, you, being the whimpering coward you are, edited this away, without note. You made the comment and took it out, and righton had to save it for "posterity". How sad.
What are you, on drugs? I did not delete the above comment. Wow! The depth of your buffoonery has yet to be plumbed. LOL
al-rawandi said,
Let me tell you something, I have the fucking courage to criticize someone when they are wrong. I criticize Israel, even recently when they shamefully banned Norman Finkelstein, and I criticize the Palestinians when they hurl anti-semitic rhetoric and suicide bombers at Israel. You, what do you do? You cannot discern between right and wrong. Israel is always wrong, you simply cannot discern what is a just act and what is an unjust act. That, along with your ravings, is evidence of an extremely weak intellect.
"Blah, blah, blah . . . "
Cheers.
P.S. al-rawandi, tell your "guppies" that they can repost to their hearts' content.
Other Comments by lastgreekstanding
427. Comment #190851 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm
LASTGREEKSTANDING
That was a long post over your favorite obsession, but I am still in need of an admission of error on your part.
It was you who was wrong about the word unserious, and it is time to admit it. You seem to think honesty and integrity are very important, perhaps on this small point you might be an example of such qualities.
Perhaps such admissions of error are beyond you. Maybe in your zeal for bashing al-rawandi you imagine yourself incapable of error? I of course have no idea what your major malfunction might be. No doubt it is truly debilitating, and terrible to behold. No matter.
Your knowledge of prefix usage is sorely lacking and needs a stout correction. To the extent that I can correct your grossly inadequate grasp of English I will, of course, be only too happy to help. But part of succeeding in that difficult task LGS, the most important part, is admitting you have a problem in the first place. I know that is very hard for you. If you doubt it, just look at the psychosis on display in your Al-rawandi rants. Not pretty. Ugh.
Now that you see that some of your time would be better spent correcting your own problems, rather than displaying your rank incredulity at something so common place, and unassuming as a change of mind, maybe you will get to work on you LSG.
Best of luck LSG in your long, difficult, and likely impossible journey.
Other Comments by MaxD
428. Comment #190930 by righton on June 10, 2008 at 12:04 am
greek said:_riverrun_ is not particapating in the discussion, but I am. So leave him/her out of it. [I must say, he/she must have verbally taken you to the cleaners---bigtime---because you're still smarting from the exchange. Ouch!]
Then said:
"If you're going to dish it out ("Chomsky catamite", "soppy cunt"), that's cool. But be prepared to take it on the chin. Capiche! Don't whine like a baby."
Hey greek/riverrun,
al called riverrun a "chomsky catamite", not you. So how did you know about that unless you are riverrun. Its ok bud, we already knew anyway.
riverrun wrote
"For all you know, righton may be collaborating with me?"
"Collaborating"?
God you are a loser.
I have known al for quite a while, but nice try.
Other Comments by righton
429. Comment #191075 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 7:22 am
Compare and contrast:
Don't flatter yourself. I have no interest in you, al-rawandi. None at all. I'm only interested in what's posted
Nasty Bit 1: You are a liar. You lie at the drop of a hat just to score some silly point. Moreover, when you get caught in a lie, what do you do? You continue to shamelessly lie so you can cover up your previous lie. You are an incorrigible liar. Do try to stop, if for no other reason than the fact that you don't do it particularly well!
Nasty Bit 2: You are a hypocrite. It's astonshing how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth without swallowing your tongue. Not only have I caught you saying one thing in one thread and the opposite in another, but you actually had the chuztpah to do the same thing in back-to-back sentences in this thread. Remember Post 432?
"Ok. I said Israel is a racist state in determining citizenship and in the Occupied Territories. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy . . ."
Hilarious. You know, you really must try to get your capacious head round the difference between a racist state and a democracy. Just because a state has accorded citizenship to its minority while according them second (or third) class status, one cannot call the state a democracy. What can I say, al-rawandi? You make it so easy for me. LOL
Nasty Bit 3: You are naive. Truly. I've never seen someone so easily persuaded as you. You swallow like a--- (damn nasty thought) : ) Do you really believe that Hezbollah actually said that Jews spread AIDS intentionally? Silly al-rawandi, don't believe everything you read. Try to have a healthy skepticism.
Nasty Bit 4: You are a racist. Post 354: "Arab shitholes". What an egregious thing to say. Disparaging an entire ethnic group is inexcusable. Surprisingly, no one else has called you on it. Do you feel the same way about other ethnic groups?
Nasty Bit 5: You are a halfwit, of the lazy kind. I'm sorry. I am simply calling a spade a spade. Who but a lazy halfwit cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. The material can be modified by anyone---even a halfwit. The site itself cautions against citations. Unfortunately, you still don't get it: Wikipedia is about as reliable as asking your pet gerbil its opinions.
Don't despair, al-rawandi. You're still young. And like you've said, people do change.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
430. Comment #191085 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 10, 2008 at 7:40 am
lastgreekstanding,Who but a lazy halfwit cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source
Michael Shermer, for one.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
431. Comment #191094 by al-rawandi on June 10, 2008 at 7:53 am
Greek,
I am done wasting my time on your stupidity, but one little point:
1. Under the law of Foreign Travel (1948), it states that these regulations---that is travel to restricted countries---shall not apply to a person in posssession of a diplomatic passport of the State of Israel. Azmi Bishara had one.
What 1948 law did I refer to?
Not this one. It was the "prevention of terror ordinance" composed in 1948.
I simply cannot argue with someone who cannot manage basic reading comprehension.
More,
Nasty Bit 3: You are naive. Truly. I've never seen someone so easily persuaded as you. You swallow like a--- (damn nasty thought) : ) Do you really believe that Hezbollah actually said that Jews spread AIDS intentionally? Silly al-rawandi, don't believe everything you read. Try to have a healthy skepticism
Okay, let's just say that Hezbollah didn't say Jews spread AIDS intentionally, that Jews are responsible for AIDS by accident... what would be the point of that comment? It is manifestly untrue, it is an anti-semitic lie, and it is standard commentary from Hezbollah.
Have you ever watched the Arabic program Al-Shatat? It was broadcast on al-Manar (Hezbollah's TV station), it depicts the Jews, gathered in a secret meeting hall, plotting to take over the world? Have you ever watched the Egyptian Arabic program Fars bi la Jawad? More of the same, secret Jewish meetings to take over the world. Hezbollah has just recycled the Protocols.
Did you read up on Mr. El Betel who showed the Internation Humanist and Ethical Union slides of the anti-semitic material Hezbollah teaches to 5-6 year olds?
How about when Nasrallah said this:
"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli"
Maybe you could look up his comments on the Holocaust.
And finally, your flagrant lie, exposed:
By the way, why are all Arabs shitholes?
Arab countries. Not people. First this was brought up when I said Israel was a democracy unlike Arab shitholes (which are not).
You really cannot comprehend what you read. To take your interpretation (if placed in the actual context) I would have said:
"Israel is a democracy and Arabs as a people are not a democracy".
How can a people be a democracy? Are you a democracy? Hey righton, are you a democracy. Some days I feel like I am a democracy, but somedays not.
How could you possible interpret that statement as calling every individual Arab a shit hole? You are either a liar or the stupidest person ever. Right now I think the jury is still out.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
432. Comment #191117 by al-rawandi on June 10, 2008 at 8:49 am
More not-anti-semitism
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/hate1.jpg
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp
http://inhonor.net/ramlah/
Here is a non-shithole country, where this is allowed to take place:
http://leilamagazine17.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_6785.html
The page is Arabic, but the caption above the video reads:
"Stoning and Arab Woman to Death".
The touching part comes near the end, when the non-violent arab guy who is a victim of western oppression smashes the cinderblock on the woman's head. Damn Jews, must be their fault.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
433. Comment #191194 by _riverrun_ on June 10, 2008 at 11:08 am
It's been fun to watch the hasty mythologizing grow around me (accompanied by the usual slurs and distortions). I notice the phrase 'Chomsky's Catamite' still being thrown around by al-rawandi, and the hilarious accusations made against someone called lastgreekstanding, that he is indeed me!*leaves playground*
Other Comments by _riverrun_
434. Comment #191196 by Quetzalcoatl on June 10, 2008 at 11:09 am
_riverrun_-
Is now a good time to ask why you deleted almost all of your comments?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
435. Comment #191201 by _riverrun_ on June 10, 2008 at 11:18 am
Quetz: If I look back and see that I've inadvertently dropped some work of mine in a pile of shit, it behooves me to address the matter.Other Comments by _riverrun_
436. Comment #191329 by bollocks on June 10, 2008 at 3:19 pm
440. by lastgreekstandingDo you honestly expect anyone to read that gigantic dump of pretentious drivel
Too much of nothing
Other Comments by bollocks
437. Comment #191588 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 9:12 am
Quetz,
He doesn't yet realize what he posted WAS the pile of shit.
Chomsky was exposed as an neo-nazi defending, fabricator and exaggerator. I bet Alan Dershowitz wishes he never defended O.J., but he cannot delete those records either.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
438. Comment #191604 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 9:49 am
Why would Alan Dershowitz regret defending OJ? Other Comments by hungarianelephant
439. Comment #191609 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 9:58 am
elephant,
Because he was clearly and obviously guilty. And the only people who weren't convinced of his guilt were 12 morons. Sort of like with Chomsky.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
440. Comment #191612 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
Better make that 13 morons.The evidence against him was pathetic. Not even a Surrey Magistrates Court would have convicted him on the basis of what the prosecution produced, and I've seen them believe stuff that would embarrass devout Catholics. Important parts of the evidence were planted and many of the police involved are found to be corrupt.
If he did it, he somehow managed to dispose of both the murder weapon and the blood-stained clothes such that they have never been found. I'm not saying this is impossible, but it at least gives some grounds for doubt.
And even if he did, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for any given lawyer to put his case. I have no particular liking of this character, but pro bono work on difficult and controversial cases is something for which lawyers deserve bouquets, not brickbats. You might one day find yourself in need of it.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
441. Comment #191619 by MaxD on June 11, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hungarian Elephant,
I suggest you do some more reading on the OJ case. The prosecution had all it needed. There was plenty of evidence to convict him. There is plenty of blame to go around on why this case was botched as badly as it was. But the evidence was all there.
Other Comments by MaxD
442. Comment #191623 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:26 am
MaxD - I saw nearly all of the case live. (I was a student on holiday and had nothing else to do. The internet hadn't been invented, at least in my house.)What evidence do you think was presented that would be sufficient to get a conviction? And if it were you on trial, do you feel you would have any legitimate complaint if you were convicted?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
443. Comment #191625 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Criminal_trial_evidence
OJ did it. No question. The ignoble jury was hoodwinked by a clever defense team.
The fact that the blood found at the murder scence was OJ's (one in 170 million) was air tight.
Nicole's blood was on OJ's sock. (1 in 9.7 billion Caucasions)
Both Nicole's and Ron Goldman's blood (traces) were found in OJ's bronco.
Simpson's hair was found on Goldman's t-shirt.
DNA from the glove found at the scene had DNA traces from Simpson, Brown, and Goldman.
The gloves contained Goldmans hair, and fabric from OJ's car.
It isn't even a close call, he was insanely, obviously, totally, and incredibly guilty.
Alan Dershowitz's WORST offense was defending TRAITOR Jonathan Pollard PRO BONO. Pollard was a US Naval officer convicted of spying for Israel. He received a harsh jail sentence (he desrved it for betraying his nation) and Dershowitz complains about this to this very day. Not to mention Dershowitz plagarized his book "The Case for Israel", and plagarized it from a discredited hoax.
Did I mention OJ was obviously guilty.
*EDIT* Are you sure Dershowitz worked PRO BONO for millionaire OJ Simpson?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
444. Comment #191628 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 10:31 am
OJ bought a 12 inch Stilleto knife six weeks before the murder.
The police found that a replica knife matched the wounds precisely.
There were store receipts to prove the purchase took place.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
445. Comment #191633 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:42 am
457. Comment #191625 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 amLet me fix that for you.
The fact that the blood found at the murder scence was OJ's (one in 170 million) was air tight proof that OJ's blood was in OJ's old house. And if you poked around one of my old patios, you'd probably find my blood there too.
Nicole's blood was on OJ's sock. (1 in 9.7 billion Caucasions). However, the prosecution couldn't establish a proper and uncorrupt chain of custody that would show it was on the sock when they found it.
Both Nicole's and Ron Goldman's blood (traces) were found in samples taken from OJ's bronco, but there were the same problems with chain of custody.
Simpson's hair was found on Goldman's t-shirt, which was in a house in which OJ previously lived.
Etc. etc. See the other problems with the evidence referred to in the Wikipedia article you cite.
DNA evidence only proves that one sample of DNA matches another. Unless you can convincingly show where you got the samples, it doesn't prove anything.This is where the prosecution went pear-shaped.
I understood that Dershowitz acted pro bono, will check that.
[EDIT - re Pollard, I'm not familiar with this case, but presumably Pollard was legally innocent at the time Dershowitz was defending him. Even alleged traitors are entitled to a defence.]
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
446. Comment #191828 by MaxD on June 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hungarian Elephant,
I will not say OJ did it no question, but I do think it obvious that he is likely the one who did it. You noticed that the evidence was rendered somewhat problematic by the bungling of labs and the police. It was well played by OJ's defense team. Good on the defense team. That isn't the same as saying it wasn't the way they said it was. However it is reasonable to doubt that it is the way the LAPD said it was. More points for the defense team.
However I will assume there was no great conspiracy to convict OJ as I've read the LAPD was actually very very cautious in their approach to the case, at least in their dealings with OJ as a subject. Perhaps too cautious. They did not push for a confession after the clearly revealing white bronco chase. ANd you will remember the inimations that he was going to kill himself during this chase. This is the kind of thing killers in these situations often do.
The profiler John Douglas suggested that LAPD push him the moment they took him into custody, and was convinced they'd have had a confession that night. This the LAPD elected not to do. Further analysis of the murder scene points to OJ, or at the very least someone with as much a beef with Nicole Brown Simpson. An ex-lover at least. A possessive ex-husband who had no problem putting the beat down on her for her uppity ways in the past.
This kind of murder is almost always committed by someone close to the victim. The condition of the two victims indicates that she was the intended target-overkill- while Ronald Goldman sustained only the amount of injuries necessary to negate him as a threat. Nicole Brown Simpson however was mauled well beyond anythign necessary for a simple robbery, or perhaps over owed drug money, or simply to kill her. She was nearly decapitated and stabbed vastly more times than Goldman. (This is also problematic for OJ who had recently learned how to weild a knife in dangerous fashion for a video he had shot.)
OJ's erratic behavior was also highly indicative of a guilty party.
The most incriminating evidence was tainted it seems by the revealation that Mark Furhman had used the word nigger, ten years previously in the line of his work. And at the procedural level of labs and evidence gathering, there was nothing as comprehensive as what you might find on CSI! This led to a great deal of the trouble for the case, and was leapt upon with great effect by the excellent defense team.
I think it highly likely that OJ was guilty based mostly on the psychological evidence, and the fact that he fits perfectly the profile of killers in such cases. The evidence that stayed is enough to convince me coupled with the facts of the crime scene, and his behavior that he was the likely offender. I do think the evidence was there for the LAPD. But that it wasn't properly represented, or handled, and that the legal bungled the criminal case left and right.
Being swayed by the slick leagal team of Simpson was not bad or ignoble or necessarily reflective of a stupid mind. It happens and if the police don't follow or have key proceedures in place to protect what should have been a slam dunk case they don't deserve the conviction until they do.
The LAPD learned a great deal about how to handle such things as DNA evidence much more effectively after that. Nor do I think Dershowitz should feel particularly ashamed for representing OJ. Everyone is entitled to a legal defense. While I can't find too much fault with the Jury's verdict, I can suggest they were wrong, but perhaps for the right reasons.
(EDIT: My summary is by no means original and follows the work of John Douglas. His book Journey into Darkness reviews key details of the case. It further benefits from his actually having been on the scene as an advisor to the investigating officers. Anyway hungarianelephant, Al, I recommend giving it a read. It is a fairly sober look at a distrubing crime.)
Other Comments by MaxD
447. Comment #191866 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 am
MaxD - I pretty much agree with all of your post. Still, the question remains whether "more likely than not" or "very likely" is enough to send someone to jail for the rest of their life. I say not. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is there for a very good reason. I would not like to see that standard lowered. I may need it one day.What worries me most about the OJ case is that most people aren't prepared to look beyond their initial prejudices. It's one thing looking at the evidence and disagreeing with the jury. It's quite another to be completely ignorant of the evidence and make up your mind on irrelevant grounds. I understand that opinion is broadly divided in the US on racial grounds. That makes about as much sense as Clinton's impeachment trial being decided on party political grounds. He either lied or he didn't. And OJ either did the murders or he didn't. These are questions of fact, not viewpoint.
Thanks for the rec of John Douglas' book. I'm not getting much reading done at the moment, other than of "That's Not My Kitten" to my daughter. The narrative is good and the flow is excellent, but it's a little insubstantial.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
448. Comment #191920 by al-rawandi on June 12, 2008 at 5:46 am
elephant,
Let's run this down....
A violent man, repeatedly noted for his spousal abuse, has his wife and her boyfriend murdered. His blood is found at the scene. The murder weapon was identical to a weapon he purchased only weeks before. Their blood is found on his clothes, and in his car. His blood, Nicole's blood, and Goldman's blood are all found on OJ's glove. There is a blood smear in his car. He flees in his car (innocent people generally don't flee the law) with his passport, money, and disguise kit.
Before the murders Nicole called her parents and said she feared for her life, from OJ. She said her keys were missing, someone had stolen them and she feared it was OJ... the keys were later found at OJ's house.
He is found liable in a civil court.
He writes a book called "If I did it" and the ghost writer says "OJ confessed to me that he committed the murders".
There is no reasonable doubt, at all, anywhere. There is simply no question.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
449. Comment #191923 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 6:01 am
al-rawandi - So what you are saying is that on the basis of inadmissible evidence of past deeds, physical evidence without a proper chain of custody, inadmissible evidence of flight (and do your shades constitute a "disguise kit"?), inadmissible hearsay evidence, inadmissible irrelevant evidence of theft of keys, the finding of a court on a lower standard of proof, and a hearsay confession by a financially interested party, you're prepared to convict someone of murder and imprison them for life.You're entitled to that opinion. You're not going to sell it to me as the basis for a sound criminal justice system, though.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
450. Comment #191936 by al-rawandi on June 12, 2008 at 6:27 am
Well you did say to me that you weren't even sure that he committed the crime, outside of the legal framework of the case. In this case (in your mind) you can allow any and all relevant facts. The chain of custody argument is only good in a court room, in the real world you would have to tell me that the police went around carefully planting the evidence, you would also have to think of why they would even do that.
It is certain that he committed the crime.
The guy wrote a book called "If I did it". You can't be a rational person and not say "Ok the guy killed his wife".
Other Comments by al-rawandi
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
401. Comment #184102 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
lastgreekstanding really has no basis to be calling you a hypocrit. I find those people who herald the fact that they are something they call consistant (that is, they have never changed their mind) to be almost deranged. And those people who have these intellectual heroes, infallible as deities, like Chomsky or whoever are clearly deranged.
That he takes so long to post, one can only guess your prediction of this character pouring over past quotes to craft his masterful texts. What I find hilarious about this exchange with Leonidas here is his absolute obsession with you. Did you notice all his insults to me were really just attempts to heap more insult on you. I feel a little used!
Be ready to file a restraining order Al, I think you have your first internet stalker.
Other Comments by MaxD