Agreed Paul. Nothing new though, except that in this particular case conservatives were the perpetrators. Where was Nadir’s outrage over the following I wonder?:
1) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15779
Intifada Against College Republicans
2) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15855
Jihad at San Francisco State
exerpt:
The previous Monday, the day before the election, the CR’s were physically attacked while handing out Bush/Cheney materials in the University’s Malcolm X Plaza. On that day, Victor Traycey, one of the members of the conservative club, was slapped by Nala Gardizi, an Arab woman student who was part of an entourage led by four Palestinian women who accused the conservative students of being responsible for the “murder of Palestinian babies” due to their support for President Bush. In addition, food was thrown at the Republican college students and drinks poured over the campaign materials on their table. Gardizi harangued Victor Traycey that day and even called him “a Nazi,” according to eye-witness reports.
Lee Wolf, another College Republicans member, described one of the women on Monday as shouting, “The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible! I’d rather die a suicide bomber’s death than to call myself an American!” He continued, “In my opinion, these were terrorist threats.”
3) http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/dec_2001_5.html
Tufts 'Non-Violence' Activists Attack Patriotic Student
Masked Group Attacked Student and Defaced Patriotic Symbol; Tufts Drops Assault Charges
Outraged anyone? Nadir?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You can't have it both ways boys.
Oh, yes, Pete! I am outraged that four women verbally harassed some college republicans. One woman may even have slapped one of the men. How horrible!
That's a whole lot worse than several large men beating a U.S. Air Force veteran including kicking him while he is on the ground.
I think you're outraged because those "ragheads" had the nerve to accuse your party members of "killing Palestinian babies". I'm sure in your mind that is on par with the police brutalizing a veteran because he accused the U.S. Military of lying to the recruits (American children) that it sends to fight YOUR war.
I only believe about half of anything Frontpage Mag writes or reports because Horowitz and his cronies are constantly guilty of telling half truths (if not lying outright). For example, the numbers they cite for Israeli deaths in the second Intifada tell half the story.
Yes, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada)
"In the Palestinian attacks, about 1,001 Israelis were killed (up to September 2004) and 6,700 were wounded (source: Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs)." But here is the other half:
"Following statistics of the Palestine Red Crescent Society 2,417 Palestinians were killed and 22,233 were wounded from 29 September 2000, to 1 August 2003." So over twice as many Palestinians had been killed and 3 1/2 times as many Palestinians had been wounded over a year earlier than the Israeli numbers collected.
This conflict has been much deadlier on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side, but Frontpage doesn't care about those "Ay-rab" deaths. They are extremists who follow the pro-Israel line to the letter. They would have given Larry Franklin all the classified U.S. information they could find if they had known he was giving it to Israel.
They don't care (as YOU probably don't care) that one-third of U.S. foreign aid goes to Israel. And this is a people who are guilty of spying on the U.S. government! These are people who blew up the U.S.S. Liberty! These are the people who fed YOUR president much of the false intelligence he used to justify the invasion of Iraq - YOUR war!
Yes, I am outraged that four women yelled at college republicans and told them what their government was doing to their families and children back home. The women should have shown them pictures.
I'm sure YOU find this is more outrageous than a U.S. Air Force veteran being the victim of police brutality for telling the truth about U.S. military recruiting policies, but then YOU advocate and support the murder of innocent Iraqi and Palestinian civilians.
You say I can't have it both ways: this isn't two different ways. You're comparing physical abuse by police with the aid of a student to verbal abuse of several men by four women and one of the women slapped a man. Obviously campus police didn't think of this as the "violent encounter" that you and Lee Kaplan believe it was.
Your xenophobic, right-wing mind probably sees this as equal because both the victim of the police brutality and the perpetrators of the verbal abuse were of Arab descent. Your fear of Arab people and Islamic culture would make this seem like it is the same to you, but it isn't. Palestinian women trying to protect their children are not the same as large male police officers beating up a U.S. Air Force veteran. The two are complete opposites. But because your right-wing mind kind get beyond the politics of the situation, you completely miss the human part. Wake up, Pete.
First of all, when have I ever used the terms "raghead", or "Ay-rab"? What the hell man? And why should I believe anything Left Hook says any more than you believe anything Frontpagemag says? Please. And I'm supposed to believe a damn thing the Red Crescent Society says. Right.
By the way, Palestine has their "state" now, so we'll see how they handle it. So far they don't seem to be handling it very well.
Admit it, they (and probably you too) won't be happy until the state of Israel ceases to exist altogether. Who's the xenophobe? Screw you. You're the one who needs to wake man.
Yeah and by the way, it is the same.
Nadir: We Bushies are not xenophic in the least. We are tolerant. Even the Pat Robertson christians are tolerant. The muslim nuts we are fighting are xenobes; they are violently intollerant. Go wear a Jesus Loves You t-shirt in any muslim country. And where a short mini skirt while you do it.
We have never heard you express outrage at non-white, non-christian brutes and murderers. You only get angry when a white christian behaves brutishly. I, on the other hand, have expressed outrage at the US troops who have committed torture, and on this blog supported the law that bans torture. The brutes who attacked the war critic should go to jail. They apparently don't even know what they're fighting for. What do you think about those oppressed muslims in Holland who confronted Theo Van Goah?
I agree with you that Isreal is one big, fat mistake, and that the US should not give money to it, and that it's existance in such a xenophobic area causes a net problem (probably it causes some of the xenophobia). Well, what nation on earth is not founded on great injustice and brutish actions? Liberia? Uganda? Syria? Every people on earth can choose to cease their progress in this life in order to wage wars to correct the wrongs committed by and against people who are now dead. That's what led to the stupid zionist implimentation of Isreal in the first place. Do you think that if the jews all left, that a free and just society of muslims would fill the void? The biggest problem with the existance of Isreal is that it gives millions of muslims an excuse to behave counterproductively.
The Isrealis, do not want to kill all the Arabs. They just want to control a small chunk of an unfortunately xenophobic region.
The Arabs have yet to create a sensible, free society; opposition to Isreal should be way down on their list of concerns. The Arab muslims who live in Isreal are the freest and most prosperous muslims in the arab-muslim world. Palistinian mothers who want to protect their children should put their efforts into stopping Palistinian terror against Isreal.
The people who you accuse of xenophobia are not xenophobic. But you seem to be an immature baby who hates the parents who have given you a cornucopia of opportunity and wealth. What's the word for that?
Nadir: How dare you assume that me and six think anything negative about Arabs in general? I assume that you putting into our mouths the terms "a-rabs" and "rag-heads" that you are not referring to my playfulness in using such words for all people. Six and I and others like us, including Bush, are very clear in our beliefs of absolute toleration for all people, in their racial composition, religious practice, dress, and conduct... so long as their conduct does not interfere with anybody else's conduct. This belief -- traditionally known as liberalism -- is despised by the people that your government's military is fighting in Iraq. Six and I do not despise any people for being non-honkies or non-Americans. We despise people who seek to rule the lives of other people, by imposing their customs and beliefs on them.
I really f*cking resent the xenophobe accusation. I'm sick and tired of having racism thrown in my face every time I turn around. I try and have ALWAYS tried to judge people on an individual basis and consider myself and EXTREMELY tolerant person. I am outraged by this accusation.
I try to illustrate that violence and/or threats of violence against those utilizing their right to free speech is being perpetrated on both sides of the spectrum and get accused of being a racist. Wow.
What a sensation it must be to feel so morally and itellectually superior to the rest of us. What's that like?
I think that Nadir has drastically down-played the violence of the leftists. I think that unlike Nadir, I have a record of even-handedness in opposing intoleration and violence of this nature (leaving asside the issue of war, which we both support in different cercumstances).
I have opposed the leftists for their success in expelling university students who wear confederate flags, and I have also opposed the efforts of conservatives for trying to fire that Colorado professor for his comments against the war. I have a clear record of equal outraged for each incident.
My record is clear as well with regard to Bill Mahr getting cancelled for saying that the 911 terrorists weren't cowards (even if I disagreed with him -- which I didn't --- I oppose firing people for saying things that outrage me), and for Dr. Laura getting her show cancelled (prior to it even reaching the airwaves!) because she says that homosexuality is wrong.
I also equally oppose conservatives attacking anti-war nuts like Nadir. I have 100% confidence that if Nadir (or any other America-hating baby) were speaking in public with his usual infantile socialist tirades, I would intervene if any Bush supporter either (1) shouted Nadir down, interfering with Nadir's capacity to make his stupid case; or (2) attacked Nadir.
This is because that unlike Nadir, I hold Free Speach to be one of the abolute essential natural rights of humans. I agree that Bush and many conservatives actually oppose free speach in certain circumstances. But my record is clear that I jump on them just as quickly and has vehemently as I do when Nadir's people try to, say, get Bill Bennett fired for saying things that some people don't want to hear.
Get with it, Nadir, join the Free Speach movement. Even though Bush isn't a perfect evangelical for this, his victory in Iraq and Afghanistan will advance this holy cause.
Struck a nerve there, did I?
The Islamic societies that you call xenophobic simply want to maintain their culture and customs without Western interference. The Japanese have been able to do this to a certain degree. The Chinese were able to do it by closing their society to the West for a substantial period.
Countries in Southwest Asia have not been able to do so because they have the oil. Western interference there has been and will be significant as long as oil is the primary energy source on the planet.
Six, why shouldn't you believe the Red Crescent Society? I'll bet their members pay their dues to the Red Cross/Red Crescent unlike the American Red Cross.
Paul believes that conquored people should just "get over" the fact that they have been beaten and should allow another people to take over their lands and lives. I'm sure his attitude would be the same if America was invaded.
Of course, America is being attacked by fascist elements from within its own government and by the Israeli government. Both of you guys support those actions. This is why you're telling us we should "get over it".
Paul, I am considerably outraged by all brutes and murderers, not just those that are white and Christian. However, you guys spend so much time bashing non-whites and non-Christians, I find myself defending their right to self-determination.
I have been very critical of military despots in Africa, the Middle-East and Latin America, and I have been very critical of U.S. support of those regimes (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uganda, Egypt, Columbia, and others). I do not advocate terrorism whether it is committed by individuals (white or non-white, Christian or non-Christian) or by the U.S. government or any other government.\
Paul says: "We despise people who seek to rule the lives of other people, by imposing their customs and beliefs on them."
Then how can you advocate the violent overthrow of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and other nations and the imposition of "American democracy" in those countries? How can you still support the Bush regime, its imperialist actions abroad and its fascist tendencies at home? You support people who wish to rule the lives of others and to impose their customs and beliefs on them and on us! How can you support that which you despise?
"Paul, I am considerably outraged by all brutes and murderers, not just those that are white and Christian. However, you guys spend so much time bashing non-whites and non-Christians, I find myself defending their right to self-determination."
Why would you "defend the right to self-determination" of brutes and murderers? The "self-determination" of such people by definition denies the self-determination of others (those that they brutalize and murder). The only non-white, non-christians that we "bash" are brutes and murderers.
Then how can you advocate the violent overthrow of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and other nations and the imposition of "American democracy" in those countries?
===
We advocate that the US govt violently overthrow only the following sort of foriegn government: one that exists as a dictatorship (ie, non-democracy) and that expends its resources to attack the US or its democratic allies. Only Iraq and Afgahnistan in your list above would qualify. Cuba, Venezuala, and Haiti do not.
The US govt has not recently overthrown Haiti, and I oppose its past Haitian invasions. Cuba in recent decades has not threatened the US or its democratic allies. I am unaware of any attempts by the US govt in recent decades to violently overthrow these retarded, oppressive, anti-democratic governments, or that of Venezuala.
When the US topples a government, I theoretically support the establishment of a democratic government. However, realistically there may prove to be too many murderous brutes for this to happen successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is very sad.
The Islamic societies that you call xenophobic simply want to maintain their culture and customs without Western interference.
===
Is this how you describe:
- Burying a woman to her neck and stoning her to death for having a child out of wedlock?
- Banning bibles?
- Non-democratic governments?
Islamic nations are xenophobic; democratic nations are not... except for Isreal, which has very tangible and immediate reasons for xenophobia.
Of course, America is being attacked by fascist elements from within its own government and by the Israeli government. Both of you guys support those actions. This is why you're telling us we should "get over it".
====
Nadir, what the hell are you talking about here? We conservatives on this list all oppose the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts. Please specify what fascist acts that any of us have told you or anyone to "get over".
Paul says: "The US govt has not recently overthrown Haiti, and I oppose its past Haitian invasions. Cuba in recent decades has not threatened the US or its democratic allies. I am unaware of any attempts by the US govt in recent decades to violently overthrow these retarded, oppressive, anti-democratic governments, or that of Venezuala."
You obviously haven't been reading any news other than the mainstream media.
Paul says: "Islamic nations are xenophobic; democratic nations are not... except for Isreal, which has very tangible and immediate reasons for xenophobia."
Then why have American visas become so difficult to come by? Why are a recipient's social security number or tax id number required for any package that comes into the U.S.? Why are people like Pat Buchannan talking about impeaching Bush over his poor stance on immigration policy?
Paul says: "Nadir, what the hell are you talking about here? We conservatives on this list all oppose the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts. Please specify what fascist acts that any of us have told you or anyone to "get over"."
You voted for and continue to support this president who has taken measures to curb free speech and freedom of movement through the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts.
I am a staunch advocate of free speech. I acknowledge the right of the KKK and our own hometown American Nazi Party to exist. I don't support them, and I would use my right to free speech to criticize them.
My comments on this post stem from your statements that campus security beating a man is on par with campus security standing by while four women yelled at college republicans. Assault is worse than yelling. You guys equate the two based on whose opinion you agree with.
Just like you believe in the violent overthrow of some dictatorships but not others.
Why are you against stoning a woman but for the electric chair or lethal injection? Which one is more barbaric? Killing is killing.
Why are you in favor of invading Iraq, but not in favor of invading Saudi Arabia, where there is MORE Islamic extremism and MORE anti-Americanism than existed in Iraq before the invasion?
I don't defend the right of self-determination for brutes and murderers. I defend the rights of the people of nations ruled by brutes and murderers to overthrow their own tyrants.
What I reject is hypocricy. Why overthow one perceived dictatorship while others are considered friends? And what right does the United States have to be the world's policeman? None.
Nadir: Pat Buchannon's immigration policy has nothing to do with Xenophobia, and neither do all the rediculous Homeland Security restrictions. Do you think that it makes sense to have open borders? If so, then advocate that: the US should let anybody who wants to enter and reside here do so.
But currently there are laws that restrict immigration. I agree that the US should either enforce those laws, or change them. I agree with Buchannon also that there are great benefits to the the many Mexicans coming over. Many of them are working harder and making much better use of the opportunities here than are the native americans. He does not want to stop all Mexican immigration.
Nadir, how many times do we have to tell you that we oppose Bush on many things, including Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Those measure embarrass me, and I agree that they reduce our freedoms. In my view, they represent victories for the Taliban.
Nadir: The reason that Bush, Six, and I want the US military to topple the Taliban and Saddam, but not most other dictatorships, is that we believe that violently replacing those dictatorships with popular automomous self-rule ("democracy") will drastically reduce the attacks on the US by international islamic terrorists. We might well be proved wrong (I have never been 100% convinced that this will work, as you should recall).
As for toppling all the dictatorships that suupport this anti-US terror, even we believe that the US military cannot accomplish that. The idea is to take this drastic action on the fewest number possible, not to invade and establish democracies everywhere, not even in all the nations that support the islamic terror against the US. We do hope that we have selecte the correct minimal number (2) and the correct nations (Afgahnistan and Iraq), with this leading not only to elimination of terror against the US, but also free and prosperous nations throughout the arab/islamic world.
Our hypothesis might prove incorrect. But it is not hypocrticial. I have explained this to you 1,000 times before. Why do you keep ignoring this explaination? Why not debate against this hypothesis, rather than against another of your straw men?
Post a Comment