Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 271 of 301 (224720)
07-19-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
07-19-2005 7:16 PM


Hi Faith. As you speculate I did not call anyone a racist.
the supremem irony, these days, is that it is the modern majority left which is race obsessed, and the modern majority right which is colur blind. That is why the left is consumed with defining groups: gays, Black, Jews, women, and choosing favourites to whom to attribute victim status, while the conservatives argue for true rights adn equal opportunity before the law.
To paraphrase: Justice is equal opportunity; injustice is insistence on equal results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 7:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:03 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 272 of 301 (224722)
07-19-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
07-19-2005 7:16 PM


Faith, the left wing "admin Jar" rejected the following proposed new thread as my "usual assertions couched as fact." That is censorship only the left can support, lest their ideology be challenged.
The Islamists insist they are true to the koran, and, accordingly, are working towards seeing all the Islamic world ruled by themselves according to Sharia Law, then the rest of the world.
The West is their number one enemy - although they're fighting and terrorizing all over the globe for the spread of Islam - for two reasons:
First, they see that Islam was born (in the 7 century) expressly to displace Christianity and Judaism. Second, they see our democracy as their biggest ideological enemy, as they forthrightly state. It is rule of man by man, they say, instead of rule of man according to Allah as expressed in koranic law.
To accomplish their aims, they need Democracy discredited in the eyes of their fellow Muslims, and they need western power, mainly that of the US, out of the way. they are, naturally, incensed that the US has protected non islamist regimes in their world, and now has defeated an Islamist government in Afghanistan and another Islamic, but not Islamist, government in Iraq. Worse, much worse, the US is helping to birth democracy in those nations, with the biggest insult of all being that the people are generally supportive. If democracy succeeds, it's over for them.
This is quite a blow. Only a few years ago they were on the march. The Shia Islamists had, and still have, Iran under their grip, although the people despise them. Their arch rival Sunni Islamists had Afghanistan and still have Sudan. They have powerful 5th columns in pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and even have cells right in the West - such as that which is responsible for the bombings in london.
There is much debate amongst Muslims and non Muslims as to what is true of Islam. Are the Islamists not acting expressly as dictated in the Koran's Sword Verses? Or are they misinterpreting it? Do moderate Muslims truly exist? Afterall, why have they allowed the Islamists to gain so much power in western nations? why have they allowed them to takeover most mosques and Islamic organizations. Why have they allowed so much hate to be preached? Why have they not turned over islamists to authorities? Why have they allowed funds to be raised for islamists? Why do they send their children to Islamist schools? where were the fatwahs against bin Laden and other islamists?
On the other hand, it appears a number of Western Muslims are speaking out now. They are saying it is high time they confronted and defeated the Islamists within. Tony Blair challenged them to do exactly that in a speech the other day. But will there ever be peace within islam if the truth of the Sword Verses is as understood by the islamists? Is there not now, and has there not always been, an ideological war within Islam on exactly this?
The following is an interview on this subject with many Westerners favourite Muslem moderate, Irshad Manji.
The Sunday Times - Review
July 17, 2005
The lipstick lesbian daring to confront radical imams
Irshad Manji has already been dubbed ”Osama’s worst nightmare’ for her criticisms of Islam. Now she wants Britain’s Muslims to stand more firmly on the side of freedom
No wonder Irshad Manji has received death threats since appearing on British television: she is a lipstick lesbian, a Muslim and scourge of Islamic leaders, whom she accuses of making excuses about the terror attacks on London. Oh, and she tells ordinary Muslims to “crawl out of their narcissistic shell”. Ouch.
Manji is a glamorous Canadian television presenter whose book, The Trouble with Islam, has made her so famous in America that she won something called the Oprah Winfrey Chutzpah award. Even at a conference in Oxford last week she felt unsafe ” despite extra security ” with police sifting through “disgusting e-mails” and threats after her appearance on Newsnight.
Doesn’t the violent Muslim minority show Islam is flawed? “I ask myself the same question,” she grimaces. Far from regarding Muslims as oppressed they have a “supremacy complex ” and that’s dangerous”. This, she contends, is true even among moderates. “Literalists” who consider the Koran the “perfect manifesto of God” have taken over the mainstream; and far from misreading Islam, as Tony Blair and the Muslim Council of Britain insist, terrorists can find encouragement for murder in the Koran.
The underlying problem with Islam, observes Manji, is that far from spiritualising Arabia, it has been infected with the reactionary prejudices of the Middle East: “Colonialism is not the preserve of people with pink skin. What about Islamic imperialism? Eighty per cent of Muslims live outside the Arab world yet all Muslims must bow to Mecca.” Fresh thinking, she contends, is suppressed by ignorant imams; you can see why she has been dubbed “Osama’s worst nightmare ”.
“The good news,” she insists, “is it doesn’t have to be like this.” She wants a reformation in Islam, returning it to its clever, fun-loving roots. “The world’s first ”feminist’ was an 11th-century Muslim man. Baghdad had one of the first universities in the 9th century; the Spanish ”Ole!’ comes from ”Allah’; Islam even gave us the guitar.”
But now it gives us the suicide bomber: why? She does not rule out alienation and all those Muslims-as-victims explanations, but thinks the Muslim Council of Britain is negligent for “not even acknowledging religion might also have played a role”. Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, said terrorists could not be Muslims but Manji hits back: “The jury is out on what Islam is.”
The dispute centres on whether the Koran justifies suicide bombers. Manji argues terrorists can find succour in the holy book: “It says anyone who kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or villainy in the land, shall be regarded as killing all mankind.” The caveat is crucial; Bin Laden invoked it when America imposed sanctions against Saddam, so after the war in Iraq “four young men could decide to punish British taxpayers for re-electing a government that went to war there” ” endorsed by the Koran.
But could religion be an excuse? Might the gang of four have just been nihilist punks who, if raised in different cultures, might otherwise have railed against life through, say, hip-hop? “A hip-hopper will still wake up in the morning. That doesn’t explain a willingness to take your own life.” To do that you need belief in an afterlife, which means these men must have been devoutly religious. Waiting to be rewarded, I suggest, with their 72 virgins.
But Manji says recent research shows all that virgin stuff was based on an erroneous translation of the Koran: what awaits in heaven are 72 raisins. What? Could 54 people really have been blown up for a bag of raisins? “Well in 7th century Arabia raisins were so exalted as to be promoted to paradise.”
Our 7/7 was especially hard to take, being committed by those brought up here; America’s 9/11 was by outsiders. Is America better at integrating Muslims? I fill Manji in on our botched attempt at citizenship ceremonies that, far from inculcating British patriotism in newcomers, taught them how to work the benefit system. “Boy, it’s sexy being British these days,” she laughs.
“In continental Europe people of faith are regarded as second-class citizens. In America Muslims are allowed to earn their status by competing. In Europe, Britain included, your past establishes your identity much more than your future. If you don’t have the lineage here people might well feel disaffected.” She points out that American mosques display signs proclaiming: “God bless America”; inconceivable here.
If we are at fault for not encouraging Muslims, they fail to “celebrate the precious gift” of British freedom: “Why do they protest against France for making it illegal to wear hijabs, but not against Saudi Arabia for making it illegal not to wear them?”; more Muslims, she contends, have been killed in recent years by fellow Muslims than by westerners.
Manji thinks Muslims should take tolerant parts of the Koran and ignore the hellfire. Does this, I ask, include Koranic references to “lewd acts” of homosexuality? She offers counter examples of its tolerance but they seem faintly absurd ” should it matter what a bunch of people over a millennium ago made of homosexuality, or indeed anything else? She, not unlike the fundamentalists, picks and chooses the bits that suit her.
The state has a dilemma: to encourage moderate Islam ” absurdities and all ” or shirk from interfering, which will let extremists blossom. Isn’t a key problem of Islam that it has no structure? Any Church of England vicar calling for a jihad would receive a pretty sharp summons to Lambeth palace; imams are autonomous. “Yes, decentralisation would be good if it encouraged people to debate. But instead people just cower to their local imam.”
She excuses Blair glossing over violent aspects of Islam as “he is only trying to divert a backlash against Muslims, bless him” but she despises the Muslim Council for not coming clean. “Even if Muslims are only interested in slick PR, it would be a great move to recognise the problem; it would spread trust. And I am not asking them to do anything Jews and Christians haven’t done.”
Britain, she says, has been slow to introduce tests for imams on their mastery of the Koran. She recalls asking Mohamed al-Hindi, political leader of Islamic Jihad, where the Koran glorifies martyrdom; he insisted it was there, but even after looking up books and phoning colleagues, he couldn’t find one reference.
“His translator suggested I better go if I wanted to leave alive,” she recalls. “I asked why he had even given an interview, and the translator said, ”Oh, he assumed you would be just another dumb westerner’.”
Muslims, adds Manji, must find positive role models rather than jihadists: “Martyrs are the rock stars of the Muslim world, shown on the internet against a background of funky music. They feed on the self-esteem crisis of young Muslims.” That could be addressed by history lessons paying greater tribute to the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance.
She denounces terrorism and the response to terrorism, which is not sufficiently robust. It is no good, she argues, for respectable Muslims to say “violence is not the Islamic ideal” if violence has become Islamic practice. And she attacks the proposed religious hatred laws, saying: “Society needs people who offend, otherwise there will be no progress.”
Indeed. But can Manji and her followers provoke Muslims into progress?
Irshad Manji was talking to Jasper Gerard. The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change will be published in paperback by Mainstream in August

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 7:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:05 PM CanadianSteve has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 273 of 301 (224724)
07-19-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by CanadianSteve
07-19-2005 7:55 PM


As you speculate I did not call anyone a racist.
Not so. You employed the term to refer to certain persons. Faith believes that the term itself is meaningless, apparently; yet she had no comment at all - apparently didn't even notice when you yourself employed the term to refer to certain people.
the supremem irony, these days, is that it is the modern majority left which is race obsessed
Absolutely false. The right never, ever fails to play the race card, as you yourself have done consistently in this thread, when it suits their purposes. Witness your continual sour grapes "white man's burden" claims in this thread, or Congressional Republicans referring to Democrats as racists for opposing a Hispanic judicial nominee.
To paraphrase: Justice is equal opportunity
Black people don't yet have equal opportunity, which is why a black-sounding name makes you less than half as likely to be called back for the opportunity to interview for a job.
Until opportunity (which, to be realistic, we must measure by outcomes) is equal, Affirmative Action is necessary, and those who oppose it by arguing that employers are justified in making racist hiring decisions must themselves be racist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:55 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 274 of 301 (224726)
07-19-2005 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by CanadianSteve
07-19-2005 7:58 PM


While your assessment of the motives involved may possibly be right, I should tell you that one thing you have to get used to around here is the incessant demand for "evidence" beyond what I and apparently you normally feel obliged to produce in a discussion. I've found that it is weighted unfairly but decided that's the way it is and don't fight it. You might be able to get your topic accepted if you buttress it with plenty of links from authorities, especially Muslim authorities.
{EDIT: P.S. A good clue that you are right in your assessment is that it's unusual for an admin to reject a proposal outright like that. Usually there's some give and take as they advise the poster on how to make the topic more acceptable.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 08:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:58 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 285 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 8:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 300 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 7:45 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 301 (224729)
07-19-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:05 PM


I've found that it is weighted unfairly
Yeah, you're right. It's about time that the unfair censorship of lies, deceit, chicanery, flim-flam. and other varieties of made-up, unsupportable bullshit came to an end.
You're unbelievable, Faith. Not in the sense that your audacity and bald-faced lies are astonishing and flabbergasting, although that's true too, but in that your credibility is essentially zero as a result of your behavior.
Although I'll voice my opinion here that I believe that it was inappropriate for Jar, as involved as he is in discussions of this nature with these participants, to reject the topic out of hand. In other words I agree with Faith - Jar rejected the topic because he disagreed with the content and not because it was clearly against any forum guidelines. The topic merited refinement and discussion, at least. Jar was wrong to act as he did; he should have recused himself and allowed a more neutral admin to promote or deny the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 07-19-2005 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:21 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 276 of 301 (224730)
07-19-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:13 PM


Not to worry. Other admins can always step in and override my decision and they do fairly regularly. If one disagrees they will open it back up.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:19 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 301 (224733)
07-19-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:03 PM


As you speculate I did not call anyone a racist.
Not so. You employed the term to refer to certain persons.
You keep asserting this and have not proved it. Whatever it was I didn't see it. A quote please.
Your assertion that I regard the term as "meaningless" has no support whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 301 (224735)
07-19-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
07-19-2005 8:15 PM


Other admins can always step in and override my decision and they do fairly regularly. If one disagrees they will open it back up.
Or, they may choose not to, out of respect for your opinion and authority. Or because they like you better than CanadianSteve.
I think what you did was a mistake. CanadianSteve should have the right to revise his post, if he wishes, to provide what evidence he believes supports his views. There was no requirement for you to close the topic so quickly and deny him that opportunity, was there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 07-19-2005 8:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 07-19-2005 8:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 301 (224738)
07-19-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:13 PM


Yeah, you're right. It's about time that the unfair censorship of lies, deceit, chicanery, flim-flam. and other varieties of made-up, unsupportable bullshit came to an end.
You're unbelievable, Faith. Not in the sense that your audacity and bald-faced lies are astonishing and flabbergasting, although that's true too, but in that your credibility is essentially zero as a result of your behavior.
Your feelings are hurt, that's all. This is nothing but vindictiveness. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for this and for what I've denounced you for in the past. In fact you should be suspended for this diatribe against me. When I denounced you I expected to be suspended for it, and decided that it was worth it as you deserved it.
Speaking of "unsupportable bullshit," I notice that you offer no support whatever for this bit of shrieking.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 08:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:30 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 280 of 301 (224740)
07-19-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:17 PM


You keep asserting this and have not proved it. Whatever it was I didn't see it.
I know you didn't see it. That's the point. That's how biased you are - whenever someone you agree with does something that you've criticized your opponents for, you don't even see it. Your mind just filters right out.
Either that or you're not reading Steve's posts, which would make your sweeping statements of solidarity ring somewhat hollow, wouldn't you say?
Your assertion that I regard the term as "meaningless" has no support whatever.
If you don't believe that the word applies to someone whom its definition makes clear that it does, then you don't believe the word has that definition after all. Since you've implicitly rejected the common definition of the word and supplied none of your own to replace it, we're left with the conclusion that, to you, the word "racist" has no meaning.
Which makes it rather suspect of you to criticize me for using it, but to not even percieve it when Steve uses the same words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:26 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 301 (224741)
07-19-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:19 PM


Well, I've asked another Admin to take a look at it and we'll see what happens. I'm sure they'll open it up if they think it's reasonable. None of us would hesitate to override another admin if we thought they were wrong.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 301 (224744)
07-19-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:23 PM


Evidence please. You are putting out so much heat and so little light you are going to turn into a black hole all by your little self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:32 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 283 of 301 (224745)
07-19-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:21 PM


Speaking of "unsupportable bullshit," I notice that you offer no support whatever for this bit of shrieking.
Do you see up top, where it says "Welcome, Member Faith!" Click on that link and you'll see what I'm talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 284 of 301 (224746)
07-19-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:26 PM


Evidence please.
For what? Challenge a specific assertion, quote it from my post, open a new thread for it, and I'll be pleased to defend it.
Please, try me.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-19-2005 08:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:26 PM Faith has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 285 of 301 (224751)
07-19-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:05 PM


Given how devoid of evidence are most posts, it appears that there is one standard for conservatives and another for leftists. Consider the following, the the first of a topic clearly meant to taunt those who support the war in iraq, and, as you will see, there is no evidence, not a thread, for the assertions. Worse, there isn't intelligent reasoning. (As for me, I included an interview with irshad manji, a prominent Muslim moderate intellectual, who made many of the points I did.)
Topic: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans
schrafinator
Member
Posts: 6406
From:
Registered: Dec 2001
Message 1 of 284
06-13-2005 09:51 AM IP Logged
They lack fiscal discipline.
They believe in more government intrusion into people's personal lives rather than personal liberty.
They believe in nation building, preemptive war, and "might is right".
They believe in reducing the power of state governments.
Anyone have anything to add?
----------------------------------
It is obvious that serious bias was used in allowing this, but not mine. That is truly unacceptable, and betrays this entire board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:57 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 9:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024