Quote from GIDEONSPY:
WAEL012000, listen ---
1. I donât proclaimed experts in Islam so----- donât write Nonsense about whatâs in the Talmud---ok----
Non of the smart asses in here do...They just act like it!!
2. Donât speak to me about minorities---ok---Jew comes in all colors and size. If anything, I m a supporter of women of Islam. Yes, -----to get an education and be productive member of society with there Vales on.
You are not making sense buddy! I was talking about Pipes...Are you, by any chance, him??
In regard to women In Islam...So Am I!! As much as I am in support of the 250,000 Russian women slaves who are forced to work as prostitutes in the state of Israel.
3. I donât support Meir David Kahane ideology ------but I also donât support his killers and the people who care to explain or understand------ terroristâok---- Kahane statement was referring to-----âthere going to try to kill jews but we will fight backâ----understand.
Would you support killing Osama Bin Laden??
4. ZZZzzzzzzz, propaganda is about the same as the terrorist supporter who claim to explain or understand them.-----ok
your blanket statement about Zzzzzzzzz deserved my blanket reply Mr. Kahana wannabe.
Oh and by the way, please do not use the OK thing with me, somehow, it gets under my skin.
Uncomfortable Questions For Comfortable Jews
- Thread starter sunnyskies
- Start date
Please list some actions that are absolutely wrong. Please list actions that are necessarily righteous.
Quote from GIDEONSPY:
Arab terrorist are not----- Avengers, Defenders or Rebels like ZZZzzzzzzz claims. Why? Because? Arab terrorist and ARAB fundamentalist are not?
1. Avengersâbecause their cause is not righteous (there guilt is killing innocent people) ------- ZZZzzzzzzz claims âwhat wrong to someone maybe right to othersâ-----bullshit nonsense propaganda. If you commit a federal crime against a person -----the victims has all the right to forgive you-----but the federal law will not. Your argument that, there only perceptions and opinions----is weak.
Stop denying absolute truth----understand
2. Defenders----where was ARAB fundamentalist or any Moslem during Bosnia War? --------yes the good, the bad and the ugly Americans (yes the monsters CIA, too) to the rescue. What? Was it for OIL (hint, WAEL012000)
3 .Rebels-----champions of the people's cause? ----- Palestine? What Palestine? There was and there will never be a Palestine! -------Only if the Arab stops adopting terroristâs----only Arabs in peace with Israel understand!
4. I think I also know a thing or too about------ logical fallacies----- Style Over Substanceâright!
Reason and critical thinking----you have none----so read this again from previous posters-----by
The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual's life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man's nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.
With reason as its cardinal value, this code of individualism espouses fixed principles and categorical moral judgments. It demands, for instance, that the initiation of force--the antithesis of reason--be denounced and that an unbridgeable moral chasm be recognized between the criminal and the non-criminal.
Good day
WAEL012000, why would I try to intimate you---Why? ---I have no bone to pick with you. ---only the oil pipe line conspiracyâs .about the Russian women---if this trueâthen I support the idea of sending thereâs pimps to camp Gitmo. Due I support killing Osama Bin Laden----yes---but not the people who claim to explain or understand terrorist---maybe many years in jail and therapy. I didnât said that zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz was a terroristâs----I stated that his tries to explain and understand terrorist------how is Question?---- I think zzzzzzzzzzzzzz believe in them-----so I wonder why? My faith calls for making peace and improving the world! My first love was with a beautiful Moslem girl-----yes----but it wasnât going to work, not because of her faith ----her family. About Jerusalem as a capital----good thing we are not the real negotiators----it would be tuff call. But I think we should put people and peace first. As, for the name Gideon -----the real Gideon was one of the Greater Judges of Israel and spy means to watch.---- so Gideon watchâs.
WAEL012000, are you Moslem?
Good day
WAEL012000, are you Moslem?
Good day
Prager is a Jew; I assume you are,
-----By ethnicity only.
so I leave you to read the rest of the article if you wish and debate the points contained.
-----I just looked it up. The Mishnah is technically a part of the Talmud- not separate like I thought. Prager was not factually incorrect on that. I apologize.
-----By ethnicity only.
so I leave you to read the rest of the article if you wish and debate the points contained.
-----I just looked it up. The Mishnah is technically a part of the Talmud- not separate like I thought. Prager was not factually incorrect on that. I apologize.
September 30, 2004
The Harvard Law Professor Who Sat On An Israeli Assassination Target Review Panel
The Jihad of Alan Dershowitz
By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
Law Professor,
Washburn University School of Law
If to dispute well is law's chiefest end, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has honed this ability to a stunning craft. In high-profile cases, such as O. J. Simpson, Doctor Dershowitz, a seasoned criminal law jurist, serves as a media-savvy lawyer determined to defend "the guilty." Less well known, however, is that this advocacy Mephistopheles thrives on inventing unpopular, counter-intuitive, and even unjust exceptions to international law--a subject he normally does not teach. These exceptions--mutually folded in each other's orb---allow the torturing of terrorists, the assassinations of their leaders, and the demolition of their family homes. What is most intriguing is the contempt that Dershowitz has for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its current President (the Chinese judge) whom he calls a thug, discarding the language of professional courtesy.
Somewhat intrigued by his incendiary views daringly, and sometimes crudely, expressed in books and newspaper columns, I requested to interview Dershowitz, an interview he granted promptly and generously. We both taped the interview, I for no other reason but to save as a souvenir. I came out of the interview with the clear impression that--setting aside the civil liberties concerns that inform his criminal defense rhetoric--Dershowitz concocts these exceptions not merely to embellish his ivory tower but to proactively defend, and sometimes shape, Israeli policies in occupied Palestine.
For example, Dershowitz's contempt for the ICJ has deepened ever since the Court decided to rule on the legality of Israel's separation wall. Comparing the ICJ to a Mississippi court in the 1930s, Dershowitz contends that the ICJ is a credible court for the rest of the world but not for Israel, just as the Mississippi court was a just tribunal for whites but not for blacks. This argument, in its analogical enormity, paints the ICJ as an exceptionally anti-Israel body. Furthermore, Dershowitz challenges the neutrality of ICJ judges, arguing that they are shameless mouthpieces of their governments. When asked to comment on whether he holds the same view about British and American judges on the Court, Dershowitz stepped back to distinguish between the Court and its judges, now saying that the ICJ is bigoted but many of its judges are not. This distinction made no sense to me, since all judges on the Court, except one, held the separation wall to be illegal.
Dershowitz's exceptional defense of Israel is not confined to academic criticisms of the ICJ (or the International Red Cross or the United Nations). In the interview, Dershowitz, who opposes the death penalty, revealed that he had sat on the Israeli assassination committee that reviews evidence before terrorists are targeted and killed. This "due process" hearing is designed to reduce the raw charge that state-sponsored assassinations are blatantly unlawful. Dershowitz favors targeted assassination of terrorist leaders "involved in planning or approving on-going murderous activities." Under this protean standard, it is unclear whether spiritual and political leaders who favor terrorist violence but do not materially participate in specific terrorist acts may also be assassinated. These niceties aside, the idea of a Harvard law professor sitting on an occupying state's assassination committee would be, to many in the legal academy, a trifle perplexing.
What rattles his many critics the most, however, is the innovative exception Dershowitz draws for the Convention against Torture (1987). The Convention prohibits all forms of torture and provides for no exception. In fact, the prohibition against torture has attained the status of jus cogens--the peremptory norms of international law that cannot be abandoned or altered. Dershowitz confesses to know all this. Yet he makes an empirical argument to carve out an exception. Since torture cannot be eliminated in the real world, he argues: "Ay, think so still, 'til experience change thy mind." Dershowitz proposes that the legal system regulate torture by requiring state officials to obtain a judicial warrant before torturing. Despite Dershowitz's connections and influence, Israel refused to launch the proposed torture warrant, although it embraced the idea of exception to the Convention it had signed. However, when more than 90 percent of the Palestinian security detainees began to be tortured, the Israeli Supreme Court put an end to the fledgling exception.
Undeterred by such judicial rebuffs, Dershowitz continues to manufacture legal exceptions to shore up the universally condemned Israeli practices, such as bulldozing the family homes of terror suspects. Calling it property damage, he apparently dismisses the sanctity, the intimacy, and the memories attached to a family home, anybody's family home. As if demolition of family homes is a minor punishment, Dershowitz is willing to pull down even the entire "villages of suicide bombers." He thinks perhaps that it takes a village to raise a suicide bomber. It does. When her entire village has been grabbed by the neck and choked, some kid (a "terrorist") is surely going to be mad as hell.
Despite his legalistic jihad for Israel's security and despite his employment of the Harvard Law School stature to propose questionable exceptions to international law, Dershowitz does not completely throw away the sense of limits. For example, he opposes Nathan Lewin, a prominent Washington lawyer and a federal judge hopeful, who blatantly argues, contrary to popular feelings of the Jewish community, that family members of suicide bombers be executed.
By no means is Dershowitz an incorrigible ideologue nor is he morally sightless. His reading of international law is most certainly flawed and he needs "to settle in his studies." His intellectual honesty is nonetheless beyond doubt. He is what he thinks. He does not duck hard questions. And he does all this with an inexhaustible capacity to swallow contradictions. At the end of the play, however, when all arguments have been made, when all exceptions have been put to rest, and when the nation that launched a thousand missiles has been defended, Dershowitz relaxes his grip with a disarming sense of humor expressed through borrowed jokes. In his book Why Terrorism Works (2002), for example, he tells readers how he, as a boy, pondered over difficult hypothetical scenarios such as this: "If you were up to your neck in a vat of cat vomit and somebody threw a pile of dog poop on your face, would you duck?"
One may relish Dershowtiz's for his wits, but only to wonder at the unlawful things he permits.
Ali Khan is a professor at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas. His book A Theory of International Terrorism will be published in 2005. He can be reached at: ali.khan@washburn.edu
The Harvard Law Professor Who Sat On An Israeli Assassination Target Review Panel
The Jihad of Alan Dershowitz
By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
Law Professor,
Washburn University School of Law
If to dispute well is law's chiefest end, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has honed this ability to a stunning craft. In high-profile cases, such as O. J. Simpson, Doctor Dershowitz, a seasoned criminal law jurist, serves as a media-savvy lawyer determined to defend "the guilty." Less well known, however, is that this advocacy Mephistopheles thrives on inventing unpopular, counter-intuitive, and even unjust exceptions to international law--a subject he normally does not teach. These exceptions--mutually folded in each other's orb---allow the torturing of terrorists, the assassinations of their leaders, and the demolition of their family homes. What is most intriguing is the contempt that Dershowitz has for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its current President (the Chinese judge) whom he calls a thug, discarding the language of professional courtesy.
Somewhat intrigued by his incendiary views daringly, and sometimes crudely, expressed in books and newspaper columns, I requested to interview Dershowitz, an interview he granted promptly and generously. We both taped the interview, I for no other reason but to save as a souvenir. I came out of the interview with the clear impression that--setting aside the civil liberties concerns that inform his criminal defense rhetoric--Dershowitz concocts these exceptions not merely to embellish his ivory tower but to proactively defend, and sometimes shape, Israeli policies in occupied Palestine.
For example, Dershowitz's contempt for the ICJ has deepened ever since the Court decided to rule on the legality of Israel's separation wall. Comparing the ICJ to a Mississippi court in the 1930s, Dershowitz contends that the ICJ is a credible court for the rest of the world but not for Israel, just as the Mississippi court was a just tribunal for whites but not for blacks. This argument, in its analogical enormity, paints the ICJ as an exceptionally anti-Israel body. Furthermore, Dershowitz challenges the neutrality of ICJ judges, arguing that they are shameless mouthpieces of their governments. When asked to comment on whether he holds the same view about British and American judges on the Court, Dershowitz stepped back to distinguish between the Court and its judges, now saying that the ICJ is bigoted but many of its judges are not. This distinction made no sense to me, since all judges on the Court, except one, held the separation wall to be illegal.
Dershowitz's exceptional defense of Israel is not confined to academic criticisms of the ICJ (or the International Red Cross or the United Nations). In the interview, Dershowitz, who opposes the death penalty, revealed that he had sat on the Israeli assassination committee that reviews evidence before terrorists are targeted and killed. This "due process" hearing is designed to reduce the raw charge that state-sponsored assassinations are blatantly unlawful. Dershowitz favors targeted assassination of terrorist leaders "involved in planning or approving on-going murderous activities." Under this protean standard, it is unclear whether spiritual and political leaders who favor terrorist violence but do not materially participate in specific terrorist acts may also be assassinated. These niceties aside, the idea of a Harvard law professor sitting on an occupying state's assassination committee would be, to many in the legal academy, a trifle perplexing.
What rattles his many critics the most, however, is the innovative exception Dershowitz draws for the Convention against Torture (1987). The Convention prohibits all forms of torture and provides for no exception. In fact, the prohibition against torture has attained the status of jus cogens--the peremptory norms of international law that cannot be abandoned or altered. Dershowitz confesses to know all this. Yet he makes an empirical argument to carve out an exception. Since torture cannot be eliminated in the real world, he argues: "Ay, think so still, 'til experience change thy mind." Dershowitz proposes that the legal system regulate torture by requiring state officials to obtain a judicial warrant before torturing. Despite Dershowitz's connections and influence, Israel refused to launch the proposed torture warrant, although it embraced the idea of exception to the Convention it had signed. However, when more than 90 percent of the Palestinian security detainees began to be tortured, the Israeli Supreme Court put an end to the fledgling exception.
Undeterred by such judicial rebuffs, Dershowitz continues to manufacture legal exceptions to shore up the universally condemned Israeli practices, such as bulldozing the family homes of terror suspects. Calling it property damage, he apparently dismisses the sanctity, the intimacy, and the memories attached to a family home, anybody's family home. As if demolition of family homes is a minor punishment, Dershowitz is willing to pull down even the entire "villages of suicide bombers." He thinks perhaps that it takes a village to raise a suicide bomber. It does. When her entire village has been grabbed by the neck and choked, some kid (a "terrorist") is surely going to be mad as hell.
Despite his legalistic jihad for Israel's security and despite his employment of the Harvard Law School stature to propose questionable exceptions to international law, Dershowitz does not completely throw away the sense of limits. For example, he opposes Nathan Lewin, a prominent Washington lawyer and a federal judge hopeful, who blatantly argues, contrary to popular feelings of the Jewish community, that family members of suicide bombers be executed.
By no means is Dershowitz an incorrigible ideologue nor is he morally sightless. His reading of international law is most certainly flawed and he needs "to settle in his studies." His intellectual honesty is nonetheless beyond doubt. He is what he thinks. He does not duck hard questions. And he does all this with an inexhaustible capacity to swallow contradictions. At the end of the play, however, when all arguments have been made, when all exceptions have been put to rest, and when the nation that launched a thousand missiles has been defended, Dershowitz relaxes his grip with a disarming sense of humor expressed through borrowed jokes. In his book Why Terrorism Works (2002), for example, he tells readers how he, as a boy, pondered over difficult hypothetical scenarios such as this: "If you were up to your neck in a vat of cat vomit and somebody threw a pile of dog poop on your face, would you duck?"
One may relish Dershowtiz's for his wits, but only to wonder at the unlawful things he permits.
Ali Khan is a professor at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas. His book A Theory of International Terrorism will be published in 2005. He can be reached at: ali.khan@washburn.edu
apparently, this man has no low! his hideous acts does not end there. He is willing to silence freedom of expression just to protect his interests and that of the state of Israel.
Recently, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, a well known expert on the Middle East and the Israeli- Palestinian conflict by the name of "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History"
In it, Dr. Finkelstein attacks the new anti Semitism. Primarily, however, it is about the "dishonesty in the research on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict", as it is called in one of the publisher's synopsis. The point being: The criticism is aimed at no other than Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein makes serious allegations against Dershowitz' book "The Case for Israel"
In return, Dr. Dershowitz followed the Zionist lobby's manual of intimidation word for word.
He tried to get the president of the University of California to intervene with the press. He tried to get a prominent law firm to send threatening letters to the counsel to the university regents, to the university provost, to seventeen directors of the press and to nineteen members of the press's faculty editorial committee. A typical letter, from Dershowitz's attorney Rory Millson of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, describes "the press's decision to publish this book" as "wholly illegitimate" and "part of a conspiracy to defame" Dershowitz. It concludes, "The only way to extricate yourself is immediately to terminate all professional contact with this full-time malicious defamer." Dershowitz's own letter to members of the faculty editorial committee calls on them to "reconsider your decision" to recommend publication of the book.
And if that was not enough, our friends sent an almost threatening letter to the Governor of Californian Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Mr. Schwarzenegger's leagle advisors sent the following reply âYou have asked for the Governorâs assistance in preventing the publication of this book,â but âhe is not inclined to otherwise exert influence in this case because of the clear, academic freedom issue it presents.â
apperently the campaign against freedom of expression does not end there; as we are speaking, there is a very well orchestrated campaign to expel all scholars out of all American universities who oppose the state of Israel.
People like spect8or, Sam123 and some other members on this forum, who happened to be hard core neocons, belive that it is their HOLY freedom of expression right to express raciest views against African Americans and other minorities but at the same time are some of the staunchest supporters for a Nazi like group called Campus watch, which targets professors opposed to the state of Israel policies.
Campus watch sends students to spy and report on professors, send threatening e-mail messages to them and pressure university officials to expel the persistent ones.
the Form of freedom of expression our friends spect8or and sam123 want to see is the one that attacks arabs and Muslims, is for the war in Iraq and for the Israeli occupation in the WB and Gaza.
The bigger audacity is that Sam123 and the other lackey does not see anything wrong with defending such nazi and Stalinist like campaigns.
Recently, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, a well known expert on the Middle East and the Israeli- Palestinian conflict by the name of "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History"
In it, Dr. Finkelstein attacks the new anti Semitism. Primarily, however, it is about the "dishonesty in the research on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict", as it is called in one of the publisher's synopsis. The point being: The criticism is aimed at no other than Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein makes serious allegations against Dershowitz' book "The Case for Israel"
In return, Dr. Dershowitz followed the Zionist lobby's manual of intimidation word for word.
He tried to get the president of the University of California to intervene with the press. He tried to get a prominent law firm to send threatening letters to the counsel to the university regents, to the university provost, to seventeen directors of the press and to nineteen members of the press's faculty editorial committee. A typical letter, from Dershowitz's attorney Rory Millson of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, describes "the press's decision to publish this book" as "wholly illegitimate" and "part of a conspiracy to defame" Dershowitz. It concludes, "The only way to extricate yourself is immediately to terminate all professional contact with this full-time malicious defamer." Dershowitz's own letter to members of the faculty editorial committee calls on them to "reconsider your decision" to recommend publication of the book.
And if that was not enough, our friends sent an almost threatening letter to the Governor of Californian Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Mr. Schwarzenegger's leagle advisors sent the following reply âYou have asked for the Governorâs assistance in preventing the publication of this book,â but âhe is not inclined to otherwise exert influence in this case because of the clear, academic freedom issue it presents.â
apperently the campaign against freedom of expression does not end there; as we are speaking, there is a very well orchestrated campaign to expel all scholars out of all American universities who oppose the state of Israel.
People like spect8or, Sam123 and some other members on this forum, who happened to be hard core neocons, belive that it is their HOLY freedom of expression right to express raciest views against African Americans and other minorities but at the same time are some of the staunchest supporters for a Nazi like group called Campus watch, which targets professors opposed to the state of Israel policies.
Campus watch sends students to spy and report on professors, send threatening e-mail messages to them and pressure university officials to expel the persistent ones.
the Form of freedom of expression our friends spect8or and sam123 want to see is the one that attacks arabs and Muslims, is for the war in Iraq and for the Israeli occupation in the WB and Gaza.
The bigger audacity is that Sam123 and the other lackey does not see anything wrong with defending such nazi and Stalinist like campaigns.
This is the second time I found myself getting slandered deep within your response to some unrelated thread. I don't know how many other times you have done this. But I caught you this time!
I never said it was a HOLY right, but a 1st Amendment right. You canât throw people in jail for making racist comments. I donât approve of racist comments, but you continue to believe that when I criticize ethnocentric minorities for their ethnocentrism, or todayâs phony âcivil rightsâ advocates for waging racist class warfare, or cultures/ideologies that are hostile to our own, I am somehow making racist comments.
Campus Watch illustrates the ridiculous suppression of ideas going on in academia, and how young Ph.D's are forced to limit their intellectual points of view in order to get any respectable position and tenure. This is a terrible reality that must be addressed.
Campus Watch merely uses the 1st Amendment to criticize these indoctrination practices and make people aware (including students) that they exist. It takes a Campus Watch to compel academia to review its hiring practices. Perhaps they will hire professors who research a wider variety of social ideas. The balance and wide variety of ideas on campus is education, rather than indoctrination.
I go along the lines of David Horowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.org). The problem is not that the Ward Churchillâs are teaching. The problem is that they are the only ones doing the teaching, at least in the (oxymoronic) âsocial sciences.â
Nonsense. And again, you confuse todayâs liberation of free speech and its shaming and persuasion with the oppressive rule of law and governance. So this has nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. And since there are gobs of Christian Arabs, non-Islamist peaceful Muslim Arabs and other Arabs who simply want to mind their own business and live out their lives, why do you continue to believe our criticism of Islamofacism is an attack on Arabs? And when Arabs, or any other race embrace the cult ideology of Jihad, I criticize their beliefs, not their race.
Winston Churchill was pounding on the table for years about Nazism and no one listened until it was too late. I see the same damned thing happening today because the Left indoctrinated several generations in believing that being judgmental of hostile cultures is "racist intolerance."
Freedom of expression should be used to engage hostile ideologies from abroad. I see no difference between the spread of Islamism, the spread of Communism, and the spread of Nazism. If we can engage in harsh words with the Communists, why canât we with the Islamists?
As for my comments about Palestine in another thread, I was just trying to get you hot, Wael, since you obviously are a victim of âPalestine indoctrination intoxicationâ in college.
I never said it was a HOLY right, but a 1st Amendment right. You canât throw people in jail for making racist comments. I donât approve of racist comments, but you continue to believe that when I criticize ethnocentric minorities for their ethnocentrism, or todayâs phony âcivil rightsâ advocates for waging racist class warfare, or cultures/ideologies that are hostile to our own, I am somehow making racist comments.
Campus Watch illustrates the ridiculous suppression of ideas going on in academia, and how young Ph.D's are forced to limit their intellectual points of view in order to get any respectable position and tenure. This is a terrible reality that must be addressed.
Campus Watch merely uses the 1st Amendment to criticize these indoctrination practices and make people aware (including students) that they exist. It takes a Campus Watch to compel academia to review its hiring practices. Perhaps they will hire professors who research a wider variety of social ideas. The balance and wide variety of ideas on campus is education, rather than indoctrination.
I go along the lines of David Horowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.org). The problem is not that the Ward Churchillâs are teaching. The problem is that they are the only ones doing the teaching, at least in the (oxymoronic) âsocial sciences.â
Nonsense. And again, you confuse todayâs liberation of free speech and its shaming and persuasion with the oppressive rule of law and governance. So this has nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. And since there are gobs of Christian Arabs, non-Islamist peaceful Muslim Arabs and other Arabs who simply want to mind their own business and live out their lives, why do you continue to believe our criticism of Islamofacism is an attack on Arabs? And when Arabs, or any other race embrace the cult ideology of Jihad, I criticize their beliefs, not their race.
Winston Churchill was pounding on the table for years about Nazism and no one listened until it was too late. I see the same damned thing happening today because the Left indoctrinated several generations in believing that being judgmental of hostile cultures is "racist intolerance."
Freedom of expression should be used to engage hostile ideologies from abroad. I see no difference between the spread of Islamism, the spread of Communism, and the spread of Nazism. If we can engage in harsh words with the Communists, why canât we with the Islamists?
As for my comments about Palestine in another thread, I was just trying to get you hot, Wael, since you obviously are a victim of âPalestine indoctrination intoxicationâ in college.
I do admit I owe you a response in the âMuslimsâ thread. But my delay is because Iâm too busy responding to your more recent appalling posts!
In America, we call it âtwo-faced,â but NO: Iâm adamant about the 1st Amendment, period. McCarthy has a right to speak as much as Malcolm X, or some bearded Islamist in Detroit, as well as a homeless homosexual in San Francisco. Everyone has the right to sue, and yes: itâs Constitutional for people to send life-threatening letters to professors. However, the professor can use the legal system so sopoena the U.S. postal system to find out who sent the letter and then pass a restraining order, so that if the person gets near him, that person is breaking the law and can go to jail. And, of course, if the person breaks the multitude of established laws protecting life, liberty and property, the person is in big trouble.
Thereâs nothing wrong with using the freedom of speech as a tool of persuasion. As another example, if my neighbor is an Islamist who envisions an American Islamic theocracy, I have the right to tell him to kiss my proud judgmental ass, as well as publicly condemn, criticize, and oppose anything and everything he does to try to Islamize America. But at the same time, if I punch him in the nose, or burn his house down, or slap his children around, and thereâs evidence to prove it, I go to jail or pay a fine.
I donât believe in denying the Constitution to any American Citizen. But I take issue with extending and deluding its value to the global stage. And when our Islamist enemy combatants in captivity think they deserve the privilege of our Constitution and go on âcuteâ hunger strikes, they can kiss my American ass.
Well, the news is still unfolding on this, considering how the Islamist movement is trying really hard to crack Latin America. But I agree this was most likely a âgoofâ in this case. But goofs are not âexecutions,â by the way.
The reason why students are âspyingâ on professors is because they must rely on outside sources to save the Institution. For all the faults of Human Nature, there is always a new crop of young people who see it for what it is. And these students see the belligerent closed-mindedness in their universities. Blame them for the fame of Campus Watch.
I donât believe in the oppression of ideas. But you cannot rely on the rule of law or the Constitution to stop a growing consensus from realizing that certian ideas are not productive in a time of war. Both the Left and the Right are guilty of the hard-ball practice of "tar and feathering", as a means to make sure the pendulum of consensus swings their way.
Where are Jewish clubs in universities organizing marches on foreign patriotism that loathes American interests, capitalism, and policy? I heard of Hilel in college, but all the noise came from Palestinian groups masquerading as victims of American oppression. But in order to monopolize this microphone, the Palestinian groups had to morph themselves beyond the defense of Palestine. It had to be about American slavery, Marxism, todayâs minority, returning North America to the American Indian; hoping the Hispanics won the American-Mexican war. And, of course, .the defense of the poor against the rich. Bla bla bla.
If the advocates of Palestine stuck to their original cause, American students looking for a cause wouldnât give a ratâs ass because it was foreign, regional, small and meaningless.
The problem is that American consensus is tired of the the knee-jerk habit of blaming America first. Itâs not about opposing the state of israel. Itâs about having contempt for America in the first place.
You are right about McCarthy. But he went after the wrong people at the right time. The careers of harmless Communists in Hollywood were ruined, but at the same time, stealth Communists infiltrated the highest places in government and the Pentagon.
No one is trying to silence anybody. Itâs just that critics of the Left have been given the podium for the first time in years.
McCarthy from the right⦠Political Correctness from the Left. Whatâs the difference? You are defining periods when the consensus becomes stagnant and closed-minded. Today, we are moving from the closed-minded stagnation of the Left, just as the America moved from the stagnation of the Right in the 60s.