Once again he throws a billion Muslims under the bus by tacitly acknowledging that they carry just a bit too much political baggage for him.
(But it's OK -- he apologized.)
"Muslims barred from picture at Obama event," by Ben Smith at Politico, June 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."
Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.
When Obama won North Carolina amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. Across the aisle, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Senator John McCain at a Nashua event.
But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.
"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."...
Barry is the front man, or the front boy, for the old liberal guard of the Dem party.
He's brought aboard almost every hack from the failed past of the Dems from Algore to Kerry to Dean etc.
Appearance is everything for the vacuous front man, so hide the muslims, and keep the wizard behind the curtain, and those muslim women out of sight.
Saw this already on Drudge. I couldn't stop laughing. I also couldn't help but think how the Obama campaign has to hide a lot of things to get their guy elected President.
Now, if this was a McCain rally - well, you can imagine the outcry. If I was one of these two women, I would attend the next Obama rally without my "traditional" headgear, etc., be allowed to stand behind The Man of Hope and Change and then make a big stink about the double standard.
A quick internet search reveals numerous websites devouted to Muslims who support Obama both financially and otherwise. Now BO may not BE a Muslim, but why do Muslims support the man? Do they know something that non-Muslims don't know?
Do they simply perceive him to be sympathetic to their cause, or IS he sympathetic to their cause?
Such questions/concerns should never be attached to any Presidential hopeful, and we cannot afford to find out one way or the other after the election.
Vote NO2BO!
The whole concept of packaging, of selecting the supporters you want to be in the camera's view is an example of how far staging has come. Now people are seeing the downside to it. Will we return to candidates alone on the platform with a sign and maybe a few aides as their backdrop?
Regardless of the group or the candidate, why aren't those who feel slighted putting the good of the campaign ahead of their own hurt feelings? Why is it always about THEM? Is being a stage prop their highest ambition in life?
That a 25-year-old lawyer would see this as an act of discrimination shows how thin the Obama candidacy and her support for it really is. She's not interested in change. She's practicing the same group-identity politics some of us have come to expect from Democrats. Nothing has changed.
NObama '08
Or ever.
And no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with:
OK, folks. Let's get the facts out here. Let's put Western rationalism to work for us.
Obama supporters violate the campaign's explicit POLICY and discriminate against Muslims, and suddenly Obama's throwing them "under the bus." Meanwhile, John McCain supported Pervez Musharraf's reign of terror over the Pakistani population. He supported the invasion of Iraq, which led to the ACTUAL deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims--and has consistently opposed aid to millions of Iraqi refugees.
I know metaphors are lots of fun, but if Obama threw Muslims "under the bus", what did McCain do? Throw them under the tank treads?
Good job being objective in covering both candidates, Robert. Just endorse McCain and be done with it.
Let McCain do the same thing and watch the media, ACLU, and CAIR attack. But they lay down in support of Obama.
If their feelings were hurt, perhaps they should contact this lady's lawyer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1027300/How-I-driven-brink-ruin-refusing-hire-Muslim-hair-stylist-wouldnt-hair.html#
Have we forgotten the one about a month or so ago, at one of these crowdscapings, the 'Get me more white people in here' - ?
Funny stuff. What tangled webs we weave...
Why doesn't anyone ask Obama if he finds anything offensive or disturbing in Islamic theology, anything that might suggest that Islam id not a peaceful religion, if he sees any connection between Islamic theology and terrorism?
I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim, but that doesn't tell me anything about his ability to make clear-headed decisions in dealing with the rest of the world.
Of the two candidates running he has the better grounding in Islamic teachings, and if he stands up in front of a camera and and repeats the mantra that "islam is a peaceful religion," and there's nothing in Islam that we should be disturbed about, then the man is a self-serving, bald-faced lier.
It's time someone asked the man some serious questions, instead of letting him get away with jut saying he's not a Muslim.
"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."...from headline.
The above statement is a prime example as to why Obama's "CHANGE" Campaign slogan needs some clarification - and it also demonstrates the power of perception, because Muslims perceive that BO supports them and their cause; and I can't think of anything more dangerous & volatile than a disappointed Muslim, can you? (I don't trust friendly Muslims, let alone hurt and disgruntled ones).
Obama is WRONG for America! He won't bring unity, only more trouble and turmoil than we already have.
"The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."
-- from a Muslim supporter who was asked not to remain too visibly in the crowd right behind Obama
Of course they don't. They're not fools.
Why doesn't anyone ask Obama if he finds anything offensive or disturbing in Islamic theology, anything that might suggest that Islam id not a peaceful religion, if he sees any connection between Islamic theology and terrorism?
I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim, but that doesn't tell me anything about his ability to make clear-headed decisions in dealing with the rest of the world.
Of the two candidates running he has the better grounding in Islamic teachings, and if he stands up in front of a camera and and repeats the mantra that "islam is a peaceful religion," and there's nothing in Islam that we should be disturbed about, then the man is a self-serving, bald-faced lier.
It's time someone asked the man some serious questions, instead of letting him get away with jut saying he's not a Muslim.
It's also possible that as Obama understands the trouble rotten fatherhood creates, he also understands what a rotten religion like Islam also creates.
As a Catholic it would be a sin to vote for someone who supported abortion, so there isn't a chance I'd vote for Obama. I do however hold out hope that he actually understand that Islam religion which is toxic to Western Liberalsim.
Obama might just be a closet anti-jihadist! Wishful thinking? Perhaps. Possible? Indeed.
Too bad the madrassas are off-limits to females. They missed the "war is deception" lessons from the hadith. They would have understood that it's nothin' personal, and that the o-man only has the ummah's interests at heart.
Been following Pamela's reports on the Obama-Odinga connections. The more I learn about this guy, the les I like him. Whether it's enough to make a guy hold his nose and vote for McCain remains to be seen.
Shlomo_Michael: You can't even get your facts down straight. Hundreds of thousands have not been killed in Iraq. That is a lie. It's been something like seventy to eighty thousand. And the blame for virtually all of these deaths should be laid at the hands of Islamic extremists who willfully place themselves amidst civilian populations and who deliberately have tried to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible to prevent America from establishing freedom and prosperity in a country that has never known it. Besides, folks like you have no moral high ground to stand on whatsoever because folks like you were prepared to do exactly nothing about Saddam Hussein and his sons continuing to pile up mass graves in Iraq, operate torture and rape rooms aplenty and mutilate dissenters in very large numbers.
As for Pakistan, it's a worthless ocuntry to be sure, but by Pakistani standards Musharaf was no worse, and in fact better than most, respecting those who have ruled over that wretched country since its inception. I guess by your reasoning America and Britain were guilty of abetting Stalin's atrocities because we allied with him in WWII. You pride yourself on being rational when you're anything but. I'm done here except to say that you're precisely the kind of person who thinks Obama is just fine, even terrific, when in fact he's a disaster waiting to happen. At best, if Obama is elected President, he will be another Jimmy Carter. At worst, he'll make the Carter Presidency look like a four-year exercise in firmness.
To Shlomo_Michael:
Even at the left wing website http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the "documented civilian deaths from violence" during the Iraq war currently number between 84,663 and 92,354. More important, if you look into the documentation at the site, you discover that well over 99% of those civilian deaths were caused by jihadists blowing up bombs, doing drive-by shootings, etc. Less than 1% of those civilian deaths were caused by American soldiers. I don't want to think about how many American soldiers may have died because of how much trouble and risk they have taken on themselves to avoid civilian casualties. It's the most accountable, wonderful, military force in the history of the world.
Wellington,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17970231
150,000 dead at a MINIMUM. Possibly up to 600,000 dead.
I was not prepared to do "exactly nothing". I was prepared to fight for human rights--the same human rights that John McCain opposed for the Pakistani people, and denies current Iraqi refugees. I fought Bashir's genocide in Darfur since it began, and saw Obama spoke at the SaveDarfur rally at the Washtington Mall. While Obama was speaking, Cindy McCain was deepening her ties to companies that invest in genocide. Were it not for the War in Iraq, American standing would have been sufficient to bring democracy to Pakistan (not imposed from on high--ordinary Pakistanis have been shot in the streets fighting for democracy), and end the Darfur Genocide...maybe bring democracy to Burma also. Your play-acting at the moral high ground does not fool a soul here.
So let me get this straight 'Shlomo:' You condemn McCain for leaving Pervez Musharaf in power, while simultaneously condemning him for removing Saddam Hussein from power? How does that 'Western rationalism to work for us?'
NEWS YOU SHOULD KNOW...
I posted this, or my just disgust at the far left/neo-liberal left and feminists on another post on Dhimmi Watch--but in regards to this,
"Been following Pamela's reports on the Obama-Odinga connections. The more I learn about this guy, the les I like him. Whether it's enough to make a guy hold his nose and vote for McCain remains to be seen."
Exactly--Ditto, Look, I come from far left, independent now [got purged because I confronted the misogynist pandering to Islam bullshit], I'm woman's human rights first and always,
but, with all the fuss about sexism in media against Hilary, if you've been paying attention there has been this huge movement of women dumping the Dems and going over to the right--
ok, so I bring up, from an International development point of view ok, remember I'm leftist--about Concerns in relation to,
Obama and Odinga [you'd be surprised I swear the majority of campaign supporters still think Africa is like at the south pole, never seen so many STUPID PEOPLE,
but I brought up Those concerns, not posted by right wing now--but by liberals and women's rights advocates IN AFRICA,
know what the stupid morons and feminists told me,
I'm xenophobic, racist [never mind my daughter is darker than ole Obama himself], and I should take it to the 'right wing'.
Want to know something, right now, If they passed Sharia over these STUPID WOMEN, they would deserve it...[sure I'd fight to help them but its how I feel right now, its just Infuriating at the dullness of some people's minds], but you know they'll BITCH ABOUT THE CHURCH/ABORTION, THEY'LL BITCH ABOUT SEXISM AGAINST HILARY--HEY, BUT SEXISM AGAINST COULTER IS O.K., THEY'LL BITCH ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL BUT SEE NO ISSUE WITH FORCED VEILING,
I've in all my entire life have never worked around as much STUPID ASS PEOPLE SPONGE FOR BRAINS as I have, working in the left...this whole thing with Obama and saying no to Muslims, Odinga did the same damn exact thing...not only that--ITS ONLY BECAUSE,THEY'VE BEEN WATCHING ALL THESE BLOGS/FORUMS BY PISSED OFF WOMEN OVER HILARY--AND THEY ARE ADAPTING THE CAMPAIGN TO WOO THEM BACK, thats the ONLY reason--its just manipulative PYSOPS, thats all it is.
AND THE STUPID--STUPID, EMPHASIS ON STUPID NOW, supporters, feminists are falling for it, HOOK, LINE AND SINKER. There is this huge Obama supporter lets harass the pissed off women/ camp that is monitoring all these women's sites,and of course, NOW Obama is like all SECULAR, plalease--SHARIA BANKING--I brought that up,here, campaigners and feminists with as much knowledge of economics and globalization of a first grader,
STILL DIDN'T GET THE CONNECTION...you can throw up empirical evidence from non-party affiliated sources,
and they just don't see it--the First thing they pop off with, is
'whine whine' you're xenophobic and racist and right wing whine whine and more whine whine
Reason/Rationale with these people--sht, my KIDS have more ability to reason than they do.
As a Woman's Human Rights advocate, I've let them know--the NEXT TIME, ONE TIME, THERE IS ANY LEGISLATION AGAINST WOMEN'S FREEDOM BASED ON 'RELIGION'
and if they complain--answer is this:
shut up you xenophobic racists against Italians, Spaniards and South Americans and Whites.
Anytime the ACLU complains and files a suit against some one placing a Nativity Scene--
its YOU XENOPHOBIC AND RACIST AGAINST ITALIANS, SPANIARDS, SOUTH AMERICANS AND WHITES.
Seriously--and make it an official statement,
IF Obama was a Catholic with strong ties to anti abortionists those feminist/women, and leftists WOULD BE ALL OVER IT LIKE A FLY ON SHT,
IF Obama has photographs plastered everywhere with him shaking hands with anti-abortionists and the preachers who scream kill all gays,
those feminists/women and leftist moonbats WOULD BE ALL OVER IT LIKE FLY ON SHT
but now, Obama with Strong connections and support of Odinga who SIGNED A PACT WITH THE ISLAMISTS THAT SHARIA WOULD BE ALL OVER KENYA--AND ONLY 10% ARE MUSLIMS,
thats xenophobic to bring that out.
Obama shaking hands with one of the Shite Imans and the meetings about SHARIA BANKING
thats xenophobic to bring that out.
AND IF THEY SAY THAT TO ME--INDEPENDENT FAR LEFTIST ONCE STRONG LENINIST, VERY RADICAL WOMAN'S HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE--
what can I say, I mean, HOW THE FCK, DOES ONE REASON WITH STUPID PEOPLE LIKE THIS?
know what, Give it to them, Seriously--reverse it,
start saying, Hell yea, I think Sharia is good, get these women in line...
maybe if they hear enough of THAT,
they might wake up...
WANT TO KNOW THE PATHETIC THING THOUGH--
THEY WON'T. THEY ARE SO STUPID, SERIOUSLY,
THE IMANS COULD BE IN THE STREETS WITH THE POLICE LINING UP WOMEN TO BE STONED,
AND THESE STUPID LEFTISTS WOULD BE SAYING,
DON'T COMPLAIN--WHY,
THATS XENOPHOBIC AND RACIST.
Obama's campaign can master the art of illusion because the people, are STUPID ENOUGH--TO FALL FOR IT.
I'm seriously, not concerned about the Right Wing--I know what they are all about,
I am concerned though--at just how easily they'll take over--because of STUPID PEOPLE,
even ANIMALS, WHEN THEY SENSE DANGER--DO SOMETHING,
liberal leftists and sponge for brains hedonist utopic smoked too much dope in their life or something--too much freedom and comfort that their minds are gone,
when DANGER IS RIGHT IN THEIR FACE--
in their delusion of being 'liberal' they scream xenophobia and lay out the carpet and open the door for the enemy to come down on them and take them.
WHEN THEY WON'T EVEN LISTEN TO ONE EVEN FURTHER LEFT THAN THEY ARE--
there is no saving them. Might as just throw them to the wolves, seriously,
and save yourself. I'm to that point more and more...
the left has gone right, the right has gone left--
the secularist neo-liberal today and the far leftist today--has reversed progress, reason and science,
and has fallen to their knees begging for FEUDALISM, SLAVERY, NOBLE LORDS AND MASTAS,
THE WORLD IS FLAT, AND WOMEN AREN'T HUMANS.
go figure, our Liberal thinkers of Yesterday, would be rolling in their graves, as would Marx, Lenin, if they saw,
the STUPIDITY of today. Obama and the media, is nothing but a Stage Mock show, like Stalin's show trials...and I would know, I know all about far left propaganda--
American leftists, are like play-do, you can warp their minds anyway you want...Obama--stage show, and quite the performance, Stalin I think would give him an award.
http://wami-womenagainstmaleimperialism.blogspot.com/
Obama did the right thing politically speaking. Now the rest of the world needs to follow suit, and not allow muslims any stage whatsoever. They must be shunned back into the 7th century until they denounce the evil of Islam.
Shlomo_Michael: First of all, I remain deeply skeptical of anything associated with the United Nations. The UN is an American-hating, Israeli-hating, tyrant-supporting, terrorist-excusing international disgrace. But even if the figure stated by the World Health Organization, a specialized agency of the UN, is correct (which it is not), the responsibilty for almost all the deaths in Iraq is still due to Islamic radicals and not George Bush and the Americans. You just can't seem to get this through that magnificently rational head of yours.
Second, your statement that you were prepared to fight for human rights is a joke. By doing what? Attending rallies? Joining feckless organizations in free countries which do nothing but host speakers and hold protests? Your kind is the type who think that putting a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker on your car is an act of wisdom and courage. Tyrannies are almost always only replaced by force. You seem incapable of grasping this and that civilization must be muscular as well as decent. Just reflect for a moment what Winston Churchill would think of your arguments. Or are you prepared to dismiss him while embracing the likes of Obama? In any case, folks like you would have accomplished exactly nothing in insuring the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
As for bringing democracy to Pakistan, but for our invasion of Iraq and George Bush's Presidency, your naivety is risible and pathetic. No wonder you're going to vote for Obama. And respecting Cindy McCain "deepening her ties to companies that invest in genocide," this is a calumny of the highest order. I guess you think Prescott Bush had deep ties to Nazis too? Pretty sad all around. I'm finished.
He's not even in office yet, but B-HO has done more to dis the ummah than al-Bush has in his 7.5 years.
OBEY
Shlomo_Michael,
I went to the article you linked. The John Hopkins School of Public health, according to the article you linked, visited "47 clusters" (villages?, blocks?) and on that basis extrapolated the figure of 600,000 deaths, including combatants and civilians. The article you linked also cites the more recent World Health Organization (WHO) study, which visited more than twenty times the number of Iraqi clusters the John Hopkins Study visited. The WHO study visited 1000 clusters, and on that basis estimated 150,000 combatant and civilian deaths. Since the sample WHO used is twenty times larger than the sample used by Hopkins, the WHO study seems likely to be far more reliable than Hopkins.
But as I said in a post above, even the left wing website iraqbodycount.org reports that the documented civilian deaths in the Iraq war are around 90,000. And if you look at the documentation at the iraqbodycount site, you find that less than 1% of those civilian deaths were caused by the U.S. military. Over 99% were caused by jihadists blowing up car bombs, kidnapping and murdering victims, etc.
It should be remembered, also, that before the U.S. invasion, Saddam was killing huge numbers of civilians. Don't most analysts say he is responsible, during his rule, for the murder of at least 300,000 Iraqi civilians?
If we take as accurate the WHO number of 150,000 combatants and civilians dead during the Iraq war, that would mean the U.S. military has killed about 60,000 Iraqi combatants. (Iraqbodycount.org estimates 90,000 civilian deaths, and 90,000 plus 60,000 equals 150,000.)
60,000 combatant deaths would be about 15 Iraqi combatants dead for every U.S. soldier who has died. That sounds like it might be in the ballpark as far as accuracy is concerned.
correction, having trouble getting things to work today,
that should be, I'm not concerned so much about the Right Wing I know what they are about...not Muslims,
I am concerned about the TROJAN HORSE OF ISLAM,
damn right. But I'm done, trying to educate and inform stupid ass feminists and neo-liberal leftists...
personally, if it were up to me I'd start rounding up tickets and send their stupid asses to go LIVE in Iran, Sudan, Somalia, let them live there, Saudi, Kuwait, one way trip vacation.
I simply don't have any more tolerance for the dumb fucks--I really don't. They throw a hissy over South Dakota over abortion [which was their own damn fault--complacency and mental 'laziness'],
but, Obama, even in his campaign--on women's rights, 'culture sensitive' programs,
yea, we KNOW what that means, Europe has those too--meaning, sensitive human right programs that abide by Sharia,
please, abortion is the LEAST of women's worries...they don't GET--that once Sharia is established, ANYWHERE--
abortion won't even be an issue, those women living under Sharia, don't EVEN HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY NO TO SEX, MUCH LESS, WORRY ABOUT ABORTION RIGHTS.
thats what we get though--too little reading of geopolitical history and development,
too much reading of erotica and harlequin romance and Jackie Collins [no offense to you Jackie], in the women's movement in America.
Something else too--Obama is not too keen on GLBT rights either,
wheres all the GLBT who march side by side with sheet clad 7th century chastity belt wearing women...huh? Women who are under an ideology that would HANG THE GLBT ON CRANES...
where are They? OH, I would bet, a huge percentage of them--marching to the piper tune of Obama--
I say--time to go into business folks, I bet, we could invest in crane companies to sell to none other than CAIR here in America--with GLBT stamped on the sides of them,
put them in every city and town downtown square,
and half of the duped GLBT Muslim sympathizers would instead of being shocked--would go,
Cool, are those for us? Why, lets get married here and paint these cranes PINK.
thats the stupidity, we are dealing with today...they not only don't See the TROJAN HORSE,
SHIT, THEY ARE TRYING TO GET ON TOP OF THE THING TO GO FOR A PONY RIDE.
WAMI
Natasha: May I respectfully suggest that your arguments would be much more effective if you wrote in coherent paragraph form and avoided vulgarities, which, as Ulysses S Grant observed, rarely have any positive effect. There is a difference, after all, between ranting and writing.
Natasha,
Those who don't or won't understand the danger Islam poses to them will have to learn the truth the hard way. People in a democracy get the government they deserve.
They need to check Islamwatch.org or Front Page. A great article on how women are the domestic animals of Islam, as related by Mohammed on his one and only hajj:
Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awan) with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of God, so understand and listen to my words, O people.
This is what they will get from sharia.
I agree with Wellington. Let's keep it clean, and keep the use of capital letters to a tasteful minimum for emphasis. After a certain point they lose their punch anyway.
A. ABU ALLAH "So let me get this straight 'Shlomo:' You condemn McCain for leaving Pervez Musharaf in power, while simultaneously condemning him for removing Saddam Hussein from power? How does that 'Western rationalism to work for us?'"
This is where we use another tenet of Western thought: empiricism. In Pakistan, there is a far more advanced civil society and political culture. The people WANTED democracy, and still do. And, they were fighting for it with massive street protests (men and women!). There was no pragmatic reason to oppose them, because Musharraf was more pro-Islamist anyways. But McCain decided to throw them under Straight Talk Express.
In contrast, Iraq had virtually no civil society. Exporting democracy was not practical, and Saddam did not have close ties to the Taliban as Musharraf did. But we invaded Iraq anyway--and let me remind you that while democracy was a goal, Bush said the urgency came from the "imminent threat" of nukes. This charge was false. While of course the Islamists carried out the attacks, we have a humanitarian obligation to the refugees that we have not fulfilled. If we had any interest whatsoever in the welfare of Iraqis, we would fulfill these obligations.
See what wonderful things can happen when we put aside theology, and try looking at the situation? I highly recommend it!
B. WELLINGTON. "Second, your statement that you were prepared to fight for human rights is a joke. By doing what? Attending rallies? Joining feckless organizations in free countries which do nothing but host speakers and hold protests? Your kind is the type who think that putting a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker on your car is an act of wisdom and courage. Tyrannies are almost always only replaced by force."
If we were having this conversation in Pakistan, I would be the PPP supporter and you would be the Talibani. In fact, the end result of the Pakistan situation directly contradicts your argument. Musharraf's goons failed with force, despite U.S. support. The lawyers won by protesting peacefully.
Oh, and by the way: my history's a little shaky because I'm a misinformed leftist, could you help me out? How did the USSR fall again? That was the most recent collapse of evil dictators, so I'd like a history lesson. Could you please tell me? Thanks.
Wellington,
BULL.
sorry, but thats BULL,
for years I have written empirically and coherent--
it does absolutely no good. Our forefathers could have written King George III poetry,
if would have been useless.
If I've learned anything these past years in fighting for Women's Human Rights,
coherent speech, statistics, even pleading does not ONE BIT OF GOOD. We have hundreds of
eloquent speakers while women are being butchered in the Congo, raped in ways that even the Spanish Inquisition looks tame in comparison,
we have eloquent human right lawyers who wind up in prison,
we have eloquent and articulate speakers for democracy while the HOLOCAUST goes on in Sudan with ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY.
I'm to sit here and write eloquently while women soldiers who fight for us are raped by our own military men and are told--gag order, shut up and take it,
I'm to sit here and write eloquently while our men and women are dying every day in a futile war,
I'm to sit here and write eloquently while we have the TROJAN HORSE and his BRILLIANT MOCK POLITICAL STAGE SHOW,
while Imans and Mullahs and CAIR plot against us all.
And I'm to write eloquently for What?
What Wellington? So that, we can sit here and agree,
then what?
IF a far left radical anti-theocrat can't reach the so called 'liberal anti-religious' do you really think,
YOU CAN with eloquent speech?
If anti-imperialists who hate Christians and Jews because of the puritan influence based on dialectic materialism and scientific progress are CONVERTING TO DARK AGE THINKING ISLAM,
do you Really THINK, eloquent speech and articulation will save us?
What in the World would George Washington say to that? Why lets not revolt, oh, lets not throw the tea in the harbor,
rather, lets sit down, and have an eloquent tea party, under the cherry tree and debate the pros and cons of our doom.
GIVE ME A BREAK....
HELL NO--AND HELL NO...
I SAY--TIME TO GET GUERRILLA ON THEIR ASSES, AND NOW. TIME FOR A MAJOR WAKE UP CALL TO AMERICA AND EUROPE,
they truly don't see just how blatant and oppressive Islam is. All the evidence is around them, and they Still don't see it. ANY attempt in exposing Islam to them,
is to be met with,
1. its only their culture
2. its only a minority
3. if they integrate they'll eventually be enlightened
4. they'll be tolerant, even while they are chopping off little girls heads if we just show them tolerance
5. oh, you are just xenophobic and racist
IS IT WORKING?
apparently NOT.
What MIGHT work--psyops, reverse psyops...
rather than sit and write articulately,
go to work, dressed as a member of the Spanish Inquisition and start demanding those witches be burned,
bring back dark ages Christianity and
when they file suit or fire you,
stand up and say, HERE HERE, YOU RACIST XENOPHOBIC AGAINST ITALIANS AND SPANIARDS
can't beat em--join em...they want to pander to dark ages,
GIVE IT TO THEM--ALL OF IT. EN MASS' GIVE IT TO THEM, GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO CHASTITY BELTS AND PENANCE--DUNGEONS AND NOBLE LORDS AND FEUDALISM,
go all the way back,
DEMAND KINGS AND TSARS
do so, and be very vocal against the Satan and Decay of the societies of the West. Play their own crap and be serious about it,
rather than fight it say,
you know, they're right, they are on to something here, lets go back to our ancestor's ways, bring back the dark ages,
start forcing the standards and laws back in 1000 and 1400 and 1600--
demand that the world is taught that its flat and by golly--when they say thats absurd,
PROTEST, DEMAND THEIR HEADS, SCREAM HERETICS...
and when the LIBERAL LEFT SAYS,
YOU ARE CRAZY,
SAY--REALLY, ITS NOT CRAZY THAT THE ISLAMISTS DO IT...WE JUST AGREE WITH THEM--BUT IN OUR OWN SPIRITUAL WAY,
just say, We've been enlightened, and yes, modern thinking is Satanic--burn those witches and by golly woman NO SEX FOR YOU,
and of course, Jews, can't have Jews--
reverse psyops. Seriously, think about it...in a very militant way, but it needs to be serious--start burning books on philosophy and literature, its satanic anyway,
don't you see--if we are Going to allow Madrassas, then, hey,
start making Spanish Inquisition type of schools too and demand tax dollars to pay for them, go back all the way to dark ages, even Dress like they did then,
burn those science books--why we know the earth is flat, and any other 'modern' European civilized learning...
after all--ITS OUR CULTURE, OUR ANCESTORS CULTURE--
so why not embrace it? If we are going to embrace dark age laws for most of the world, even in our own backyard,
why not embrace all of it.
DARK AGES, HERE WE COME...BRING IT ON...
DownWithIslam
"Obama did the right thing politically speaking"
Everyone knows that those people behind the candidates are strategically placed. It looks staged - because it is a stage.
I am sure a Muslim woman would not be asked again to remove her scarf to be seated behind Obama - but likewise one will never be asked again either.
I actually say him take a picture with a bunch of students and there was at least one Muslim girl there -
You would have to be worried about Muslims using Obama to make a statement - I would be worried about what that message would be - or how that picture might be used --
Islam at the moment is a hot potato issue - there is a lot of violence being carried out in its name - as well as it has made clear its desire for world domination - both through political means - and through violent jihad - that's the problem.
It's my bet that if a couple Obama supporters wearing T-shirts with a big cross, and the caption, "Jesus saves," prominently printed across it, tried to plant themselves behind Obama, they would have been jerked out of there in a split second -- and I doubt that Obama or his campaign staff would apologize to anyone for it. If anything, they would describe the offernders as being "devisive", and not consistent with the "inclusive" theme of Obama's campaign.
It would be interesting to see someone try it.
Natasha you are very passionate about whay you believe in, and so l can see how some words slip thorugh. We are in all this together as it really gets me fired up with the "Liberal Feminists" who try to silence rest of us, and yet cover up for women bein brutalized, raped and murdered in the name of islam. when l bring up our saving of women in Afganistan, they just say none of our business. then l tell them about little girls being sexually mutilated, they put a blind eye to this disgusting perversion.
so the original story of that poor little darling brain washed muslim women wearing her sac, well little lady "You ARE NOT WELCOMED" in civilized society, GO BACK to your favourite Cesspoolstan!!!
the 'weapon' Obama's camp is using against angry feminist right now is the Abortion card...
if you leave the Dems, and vote for McCain you are voting against your abortion interests.
and ITS WORKING, sadly, the choice of picking between the worse of two evils. But again--there is that belief in so many that the threat of Islam is just by a few--that most are moderate people,
and its not the people I have issue with--its the Belief system, I almost married into it, so I KNOW, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HOW THEY WORK,
how Islam works to indoctrinate and instill fear and hate...its NOT something to play around with.
AND IF YOU WAIT UNTIL SHARIA IS UPON IS--GUESS WHAT PEOPLE,
ITS TOO DAMN LATE. ITS TOO DAMN LATE.
we need STRATEGIES NOW.
not tomorrow.
http://wami-womenagainstmaleimperialism.blogspot.com/
Natasha/Zena,
I am especially interested to hear your opinions of Benazir Bhutto. Please see link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944931/posts
Thanks.
ZenaWarriarPrincess,
you are absolutely right and its not just lib fems, I've been running into this mind block among the most Radical of feminists. But I can tell you, the strategy that was used, to begin the division and shutting women up,
and it was on the issue of 'race'. Race and imperialism/western imperialism, and the instilling 'guilt', 'white guilt' in particular,
in the American and European feminist, and this was done by none other than Marxist and Socialist/Nationalist feminists. And it worked, it worked like a charm AND ITS STILL WORKING.
And to be honest--I even see some of that psychological influence here among some, and its on such a level that unless one really knows the psychology of mass movements and how they work,
they probably wouldn't even notice it. IT can work on the other side too, like paternalist and natioanlists using the same psychology to control women, etc., but point being,
that is the Achilles Heel that the west has, and the Islamists and the Marxists [distored Marxism I might add--its actually the remnant of Stalinism, and the communist philosophy of the Southern Cone AND Africa--why, why its IMPERATIVE for Americans and Europeans to really grasp this because its that influence,
that is bringing cohesion and dangerously so, in Phillippines [sic]for example between Maoist groups and Stalinist groups With Islamists.
AND OBAMA IS MEMBER OF BOTH.
The APOSTACY rule in Islam--there is no way in Hell that man isn't a Muslim, he'd be killed if he was by Muslims--unless they KNOW something, or if they thought, he'd be the perfect Manchurian Candidate and THATS what people need to realize,
not only that, but Look at Odinga's website/his 'time for change', sound familiar?
I mean, if an eight year old can see it, and yet, adults can't--something is up.
Feminism, is a Threat--to both Islam AND to, you guess it,
ABSOLUTISM.
After years of working in it and being a part of it, and running into wall after wall with the likes of men who scream freedom from slavery and oppression but who then turn around and praise Ortega--a man who his own daughter brought up sex rape charges against,
and they dismiss that, as nothing...[right wing does this crap too--misogyny isn't just unique to Islam--but its the Systematic LEGAL SYSTEM that makes it far worse for women],
but realizing eventually, why feminism is in contrast to every absolute type of fascism there is, right or left or religious--its because,
women have been fighting for freedom from SLAVERY in both intimate and social and political...as INDIVIDUALS AND COLLECTIVELY,
and it runs in conflict with any hierarchy/patriarchy or ABSOLUTISM. So what better way to defeat it--
backlash, which worked, but what worked more, was Nationalism--Culture Nationalism and Race Nationalism therefore--tada,
using THAT PSYCHOLOGY, expanding that to liberalism--meaning,
confronting Islam, is racist, imperialist, and nationalist [American exceptionalism, etc], and the leftists, nationalists, anti-semites and Islamists, learned how to use it, and use it well.
Which is WHY you see, feminist caving IN to that psychological EXILE...
now, think on this for minute, EXILE, just like Stalin did, though that was physical exile--it was also psychological.
Psychological exile is far more powerful, to force silence, compliance, terror and fear.
And it works, why Any attempt to bring enlightenment in regards to Islam and the danger of, using evidence, doesn't work. Because that fear of exile is much stronger--that false 'guilt'.
BUT now--bring to the table right wing persecution of women or the media sexism--and women act,
18million march for Hilary being planned right now--thats how pissed women are over the SEXISM so blatantly spewed on media airwaves against Hilary...its been YEARS, YEARS since women have gotten that angry to organize--
but bring up Obama and ties to Islam--boom,
fear of exile again---identifying with the enemy because its too dangerous, not just to stand up to barbarism, but to stand up to the onslaught of attacks by both right wing and left wing men...
either you're a racist, xenophobic, femi-nazi, you name it...try to stand up for Women's Human Rights and you get it FROM BOTH SIDES.
But--when one fights against oppression and is labeled part of the oppression, on a psychological level that causes something to happen--a separation, or desire to separate because no one fighting against slavery wants to be included with slavery, get what I'm saying,
why the Abortion card, is very powerful right now in Obama camp--if you vote for McCain you vote for,
laws that force your inferiority. That, that is more real to them,
than some threat from another country---thats how that works.
We, have got to find a way to get Through that, to break down that fear of Exile, psychological exile, and yes, it will mean, confronting some outdated puritanical theocratic bs of our own here [and why men, even if they are anti-islamists, will shut women down really quick when it is a threat to THEIR POWER TO BE MISOGYNIST],
but its that right there--THAT IS THE ACHILLES HEEL--AND THE TROJAN HORSE IS USING IT,
VERY, VERY WELL.
Reverse pysops, seriously, if you can' t beat em join em--and why that might have potential to work,
it brings into light--the brutality and danger of appeasing and paving the way to dark ages laws and rule. GET it out of culture--
so it can't be attacked as mere xenophobia,
get it out of that reasoning--use their own arguments against them.
Next time there is legislation on any women's issue--and they scream-
use reverse psyops--its culture, its xenophobic to protest that, we are decadent society, if you are tolerant to Islam when they do it, why not to such and such...
they have no problem in bashing Christianity or Judaism [like Jews are really passing laws forcing all women to shave their heads, like whatever--thats how deep the indoctrination goes], they have no problem with bashing it because
its not like there is a Death threat if they do.
In Islam there is--
but if they thought, the right was joining in that dark age mentality--USING the arguments of Islam to justify it--they'd pay attention to that, oh hell yea, they would,
and when the liberal lawyers say, no, you can't do this,
use their own shit against them--why, thats xenophobic, this is our alliance against social decay and modernization and so forth.
hey, it worked for the LDS compound...using that freedom of religion to sexually abuse girls with impunity...[in preparation for tolerance to Sharia, mark my words on that one]
if you Want political action--you have to make it personal.
example--Domestic violence--just say, once,
that hey, the Islamists are on to something, and if they can do it, why not we, and bring back the old justifications for it...
if one just did that--the feminists would be all over it. They won't be able to confront it UNTIL THEY CONFRONT ISLAM TOO,
because that would be DISCRIMINATORY.
reverse psyops...just show strong alliances on human right abuses with Islam--and that, would wake people out of their slumber real quick.
ITS A DAMN SHAME THOUGH--THAT IT MIGHT TAKE JUST THAT, TO GET THIS NATION AND EUROPE--ELECTRIFIED ENOUGH TO SAY--ENOUGH,
NO MORE, AND GET RID OF THAT DARK AGE SHT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Shlomo_Michael
Benazir Bhutto was undoubtedly better than most of the other politicians that Pakistan had, but she was the secular angel that some think. See this article about Bhutto and her involvement with nuclear deals:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=kanchan%2Fkanchan180%2Etxt&writer=kanchan
You said in another tread that the new Pak government is leading to less terrorism than as under Mushareff, but I think it's too early to say. Given how the whole country is entrenched into Islamism, it will take a lot of hard work to bring Pakistan into a definite secular direction.
Natasha--
Please watch your language.
Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor
"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."
What a crock! Obama consistently denigrates Muslims for political expediency!
Dee,
I never said Bhutto was an "angel". That said, there has been a steady drumbeat of demonstrably false allegations against her since she challenged the Musharraf al-Haq military junta. Now someone else is making accusations, which may or may not be true. Based on how many false accusations she experienced in life, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt unless I see better evidence.
I have no idea what country you're thinking of when you say Pakistan is "entrenched in Islamism". In the past three decades, virtually all movements in an Islamist direction have come from Zia and Friends, and virtually all movements in the secular direction have come from the Bhuttos, Sharif, etc--the major, mainstream political parties. The biggest obstacle I see now is the Army's continued influence on politics.
regarding Bhutto--
you know, that can't even be answered with a two line statement, because the issue of abortion [I'm not in favor of abortion but I am very pro-choice when it comes to women having say so over their bodies/reproductive rights, as well as reproductive rights NOT being controlled by the state--be it to have children or not to have, meaning, I don't support force sterilizations or forced abortions either],
but, in regards to east/west and population control, one,
the birth control international policy--is eugenics, pure and simple and the East knows it...
its a double edged sword, for women. The reason Bhutto said, empower women--because yes, abortion rights in nations where women don't even have status--would be seen as a threat and would backfire on women--
but, now I don't concur with the right on this either--the ONLY damn reason they don't want abortion--CHEAP LABOR.
Its hypocritical as hell--sure, they love women having 13 children,
so one, they can exploit them labor wise,
and two, they can exploit them sexually.
THAT IS FACT-I CAN PRODUCE HUNDREDS OF EMPIRICAL DOCUMENTS PROVING THIS--and this, believe it or not, is why, a lot of the world hates us. They have justified reason there,
hell we do this shit to women in THIS COUNTRY. Don't have an abortion but hell yea, we got no problem seeing your kid starve and go without...besides, its the WOMAN'S fault--she shouldn't have had sex,
[kind of like the ole theocrats eh...], LOTS OF DOUBLE STANDARDS THERE--patriarchy, is notorious for it,
BUT in developing countries this is more so, because THEY are the ones feeling the brunt...because bottom line,
the same forces that don't want abortion rights in those countries,
don't want them having access to birth control either and what that does, is just reinforce that whole misogynist patriarchal ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE of women, why
the largest percentage of the poorest of the poor and slave labor in the world,
is none other than mothers with children, those mothers being women of color.
They see right through the 'agenda' of the west--pro-life or pro-choice,
so, I would understand why Bhutto would make the pro-life claims that she does,
but, hate to burst the bubble of the other side, puritanical controlling of women's sexuality, its not for the reasons They think here.
For instance, if you were to send pro-life women to Nicauraga (sic) right now, women dying, forced and trapped into marriages and forced to live in poverty that the west doesn't really understand,
those women, would probably rend you to pieces [and who can blame them],
but if you went there, as pro-choice, and said, hey, we want to help you with abortion rights,
again, they'd want to rend you to pieces because they know damn well--you are there for one reason,
either to control their population,
or to boost their population for the next wave of sweatshop workers and then, propping up and supporting the very governments that kill and terrorize them when they want more than five cents an hour.
[like they do in Brazil right now, death squads]
And that is why, as far as That is concerned--that does, yes, pave the room, for Islamists to come in and say, hey, look, this is what the west is doing and those alliances are made--
not that the Islamists give a damn about their freedom, no, but they Manipulate those injustices and it works.
and this is one of those issues that yes, feminists do come up against a lot--you know it works both ways,
you can't fight a cancer with a cancer--
but, you can't fight a cancer either and hang on to entitlements to EXPLOIT and HAVE SLAVES EITHER,
and expect those people to embrace westernism.
I've met women who've worked in sweatshops, who have been chained and who have been raped and who have been exploited--and I've met women whose daughters have been killed in Juarez, in the thousands,
and I've seen, the men brag about how easy it is to exploit and 'fuck' girls there..
and then, to go and say--you shouldn't have abortions,
its puritanical paternalism to protect slavery--and they see through it. IN OTHER WORDS,
Bhutto wasn't concurring with American 'right wing 'privilege', so, its not pro-life in the way it is here...
the needs of women there, is not about abortion or no abortion,
ITS ABOUT STAYING ALIVE AND NOT SEEING THEIR KIDS DIE BEFORE THE AGE OF TWO.
Nor was Bhutto concurring with Left wing American liberal Privilege either...
so, like trying to rationalize Bhutto's stands [or any woman leader in developing countries] from some privilege American view--is just,
ridiculous seriously. No offense, but it is.
and its part of that whole why Islamists are gaining advantage there, in that regard, sadly.
Shlomo_Michael: The USSR fell when it did because Ronald Reagan put it in an early grave by the threat of force in building up our military. Don't believe me? Then just read what former Soviet officals have said. For instance, Alexander Bessmertnykh, Mikhail Gorbachev's Foreign Minister, stated "Ronald Reagan's defense build-up and Stategic Defense Initiative accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union." Vaclav Havel, the great Czech writer and President, said that Ronald Reagan's description of the USSR as the "Evil Empire" was one of the finest examples in mankind's story of how words can move history. In short, the Soviet Union perished when it did because of the force principle I mentioned earlier (even the threat of it, if truly meant, can produce major results, something Winston Churchill also understood implicitly). Of course, liberals and Democrats at the time (some wussy Republicans too) thought Reagan was the problem. I remember that Dick Gephardt wanted to send money, food and other supplies to a failing Soviet Union which could not keep up with Reagan's defense outlays. Typical.
I didn't contradict any argument where Pakistan is concerned. What happened in Pakistan just proves that Musharraf, while corrupt in an ordinary Middle Eastern way, wasn't all that ruthless (like a truly vile ruler such as Saddam Hussein, who would still be in power if America was guided by Shlomo_Michael's principles). Otherwise, he would have just shot the damn lawyers. Again, you don't get it.
Being a liberal as you are, it's so fitting that you put form over substance, intentions over results. And thinking that Pakistan would be a democracy by now but for Iraq and George Bush is pure poppycock. It's laughable. And don't forget, that many of those Pakistani lawyers whom you laud would dearly love to establish Sharia as the law of Pakistan. Oh, that would be real progress. Seems you've learned nothing from history and are devoid of any understanding of Realpolitik------just like Barack Obama.
Natasha: You just don't get it. If you were in one of my college classes and wrote like you do here, I'd flunk you. No newspaper would hire someone who writes as you have on JW. You couldn't be a speechwriter for anyone but a loon. Nowhere is your "style" going to be accepted as civilized and in this great battle we're in against the forces of anti-civilization, which are so predominant in the Islamic world, one of the things which should continue to differentiate us from them is that we retain the trappings of what civilization has deemed appropriate through the centuries. Here you're clueless. But have a good day.
Obama apologizing and using the words he used to try to smooth everything over - is junk. And that is because we all know what he is - a lying sack of donkey dodo. To me he is a muslim practicing taqiyya. Oh yeah, I know he is some sort of Christian (that is so very racist, as his wife is), but he is bungling because one cannot keep on lying and keep their story straight. It takes too many brain cells - and I really don't think this guy has enough. I find him a dullard. But, a slick like a snake dullard. Look at his voting record - we can keep all the stuff we are not supposed to talk about (well, that is not going to stop me) and just look at his voting record to see he is a danger to us during these times.
NATASHIA! Please use regular words. If you have to cuss substutite words - use your imagination. I understand that things can be emotional and it is hard.
Anyway - I don't agree with the uncontrolled birth rates equalling cheap labor. What I see is just more people dumped on the streets. and in muslim countries that is dangerous because they go do jihad. And even the educated in those countries go do jihad because the degree that most get are - islamic studies. useless for most things on this earth to put food on the table of one's family.
When many of these countries divert education to hours upon hours of memorizing the koran. Not all of them do this - but many do.
And right now in our Western countries (Europe, Canada, the USA, etc) they are working on building up their numbers via uncontrolled birth rates. And we see in Europe that many of these people are on welfare. So it is ironic - they bring in these people to work - and they sit on welfare! There is no way one man can support multile wives and loads of kids - so welfare is the way to go - and they build up the numbers of their muslim population in the meantime.
I really haven't read too much how many are on our welfare rolls, but when I read that there are between 50,000-100,000 muslim polygamists in our country - I would think there are probably quite a number on the rolls. We don't have the same issues that Europe does with minorities. But, we put women who just sit around and are baby factories (well, I suppose they are not only sitting... if you get my drift!).
And another thing is that they are grouping, and growing, in areas so as to build up their voting power.
I have read a book on this, 'A Never Ending War', and it goes into this jihad with new tactics.
I just HATE!! that we do not have politicians who cannot define our enemy and call a war after only ONE tactic. Geez, it just irritates the heck out of me.
Shlomo
Benazir Bhutto was the one who first started Pakistani support to the Taliban. Prior to that, Gen Zia supported a different Jihadi warlord - Gulbuddin Heqmatyar. I really wish you'd stop being her propaganda mouthpiece. Reality of the situation is that no anti-Islamic government can come to power is Pakistan, which is what we really need. In fact, under her watch, terrorism support against India, particularly in Kashmir, escalated. The other democratic government Pakistan had recently under Sharif was the one that drove the shadow war in Kashmir in 1998-99.
In fact, it is only dictatorial regimes in Pakistan, whether an Islamic one under Zia or a less Islamic one under Musharraf, that guarantee the peace. If either the PPP or the PML were to promise that, they'd be accused by the other of being anti-Islamic and kowtowing to India. It's not in their political interests to advocate peace, which is why a 'democratic' government in Pakistan would do nothing in the war against Jihad.
As for Iraq, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, but now, getting out of Iraq is, and that's where McCain, with his 100 year base, is completely wrong. Iraq is not Germany, South Korea or Okinawa: we don't, and won't have a friend there. Even if we don't withdraw now, once our job there is done, we should completely and quietly leave, like we did in KSA, and Syria did in Lebanon. Also, no bases in any Islamic country, such as Qatar either: instead, station them in Israel, Ethiopia for starters, and work on improving relations with the Eastern Orthodox countries, such as Russia, Greece, et al, so that you can have bases in Cypress, Armenia, et al.
On the Obama campaign's original move, good move. He needs to throw not only his Mohammedan supporters, but also his Mohammedan allies like Rashid Khalidi under the bus as well. I look forward to him betraying his erstwhile allies the Mohammedans.
"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."
OK, Barry, if it's really true that this is not the policy of your campaign, then invite them to the next campaign speech, and let them sit in the seats you denied to them this time.
In this way, we'll know that your campaign is more than just words.
Natasha,
I haven't seen you here before, but by now you probably realize that you are among friends who share your views. JW/DW has for years been discussing the very concerns you voice in your posts. So, welcome.
I checked out your web site - pretty powerful stuff, as are your posts above. I have a question - I have long wondered if the key to taming Islam isn't through the empowerment of their women. I couldn't imagine your typical beard-sporting, Qur'an spouting Muslim male standing much of a chance going up against you. If only a few women in the Islamic world had the courage to take on the imams, one can only imagine what difference it would make.
So, what do you think about this? And in practical terms, what would it take to mobilize them?
Maybe he has woken up and realized that Muslims are an anathema to both a Democratic or Republican vision of America
"You couldn't be a speechwriter for anyone but a loon. Nowhere is your "style" going to be accepted as civilized" --Wellington
I agree. I haven't even bothered to read what looks like incoherent ravings of a lunatic. A shame because she probably does have some good points. Suggestions: 1. Paragraphs. 2. Stop bludgeoning the reader with your anger.
*
Concerning Obama's Mohammedan bus-throwing behavior, it doesn't surprise me in the least. He is a hypocrite, and will do anything to be Pres. To have to look at his face for the next four years - what a horrible torture.
Natasha -
You have been asked several times to tone down the language and the ranting. I could barely get through it and I'm sure others can't either.
Please have a little respect for those who run JW - whose "home" you are visiting here on this site.
All right, I give up. I honestly cannot keep track of this nonsense anymore.
If anyone else did such a thing, wouldn't they be labeled an Islamophobe and practically run out of town?
And yet I am willing to bet money that this will not touch him at all.
I need notes or something, because I can't keep the rules straight anymore!
I need notes or something, because I can't keep the rules straight anymore!
Posted by: Mo at June 18, 2008 11:53 PM
What rules? "All's fair in love and war." And we are in a war.
Wellington,
While Reagan talked a good game and used threats of force, he also shipped record amounts of grain to the Soviet Union. He made it clear to the people of Eastern Europe--in a way that I do not think has been made clear to the people of the Islamic World--that we are not against them, only their oppressive leadership.
I am not denying that force plays a role in politics. Obviously it does. But you can not deny the work of "soft" "liberals" such as Vaclav Havel (former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience), and all the other people who marched in the streets across the USSR. We can and should use force when necessary, but we have other options available that are less costly and therefore preferable.
It is true that Musharraf is more tolerant of protest than Sadam was. But the threat of force underlay peaceful protest. If Musharraf had just "shot the damn lawyers", the country might have plunged into chaos. The army recognized this, and therefore eased him out. Again--I am not denying force plays a role. But if the lawyers had just sat at home drinking beers after Chaudry's dismissal, instead of going out to march, Pakistan would still be under dictatorship today.
You think perceptions don't matter. But there's a reason we can't get real sanctions against Iran, and why Britain is pulling out of Iraq, and why no one even wants to add troops to Afghanistan now. That is a direct result of Bush's imperious behavior. People vote based on perceptions, they vote the pro-Bush folks out. Maybe you don't quite understand that the West democratic. What people think matters.
One more thing about lessons of history. While the US arms race certainly played a role, the USSR did not fall because it fought one war too few. If anything, it fell because it fought one war too many. I suppose that's a lesson you choose to ignore.
Infidel Pride,
It's true Bhutto supported the Taliban primarily in Afghanistan, based on realpolitik. But that's very different from what those after her did. Leaders such as Zia based their support on radical Jihadi ideology, wanted to eliminate the Durand Line, and patronized the explosive growth of extremism within Pakistan.
In terms of democracy guaranteeing the peace...are you aware that it was Bhutto's father who signed the peace treaty with India? Also, during the Kargil Crisis, the PM refused to be blamed for the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers, despite Musharraf's repeated attempts to pin the blame on him. So I have no idea what you're basing your wild assertions on. Sorry.
said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills: "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters...."
Why does that surprise a Moslem? Doesn't their holy writ tell them not to befriend non-Moslems or associate with them? If it's o.k. for a Moslem to avoid asociating with non-Moslems, then the inverse is also o.k.
First of all,
to the offense of my strong language, and yes I have posted here before. Let me phrase this, as eloquently as I can,
you are confronted with, the most violent religion/theocratic LEGAL SYSTEM in the world. I would Hope you understand that. Secondly, as a woman, I have a lot more to lose, if they accomplish their goals than most of you men do, lets NOT FORGET THAT, its really easy,
to sit there and say to a woman not to be angry, when its not YOU that is going to be at the bottom end of the stick. And yes, I do take, VERY STRONG OFFENSE AT THAT. Its o.k. for you MEN to be vocal and angry,
but I, a woman, who is far more apt to be at the receiving end of the violence in Islam am supposed to be chaste and sweet? Why, so big brother can save me? Big brother is raping his own sister in Iraq, we are supposed to believe YOU will save us?
Of course, thats the typical answer isn't it, women, shut up, don't be rash or 'hysterical' and just have them babies for 'de nation' and big brother here will take care of it...
Women can be violent for the 'brother' but DARE a woman be violent in defense OF WOMEN.
So let me state That for the record.
Secondly, Eastview, first of all, thank you, and to your question,
thats a tough one because there are strong women's organizations in the Muslim world, however, there is also the internalizations of years of patriarchy and misogyny, just like there is here. There isn't even the level of gender consciousness here even, much less in those countries and not only that,
but the levels of oppression there are much more severe. Which is one reason why some of the strongest feminist opponents to Islam in those countries are in fact, members also of the communist worker parties. Now, one thing to know, the communist parties In Islamic countries are Extremely different in comparison to the communist/socialist parties in the west, because of two things,
1. the development of the society due to the autocracy is backwards in comparison therefore the worker's parties have not had the middle class influence such as we have had in the west and
2. due to the isolation they often have with the levels of persecution they've not been as influenced by western neo-liberalism. Meaning, for example, if you talk to a Marxist feminist from Iran they will not have the same sympathies for political Islam as the western feminist does.
3. There is three reasons, just occurred to me but in those countries too, there has been a history of not only persecution but massacres of leaders in communist or even independent worker parties by the Islamists so they aren't as apt to be as trusting of their so called 'solidarity' sa socialists/communists are in the west and this goes for Russia and China too, fact is and a lot here won't like this but too bad, when communism fell and privitization with all its corruption and exploitation and trafficking of women etc., came bursting on the scene all those reactions left a void and,
the pressure of the EU and USA to comply with the globalized economy, e.g., state welfare cuts, plunged thousands into worse poverty and put all those effects together and you have now a form of nationalism that is very divisive as well as corruption/selling out for economy basically within the parties, why you have communists in those countries that have revised communism into this form of part national socialism, part Islam, part eastern communism, into this twisted mix. In other words, not only is the left and far left in such a state of decay [Trotsky was correct in his predictions there] but the parties are extremely bourgeoisie. As one Italian said to me, the people in Europe have no faith in communism or socialism because they simply are in the pockets of the rich.
Therefore there, or at least in my opinion, is a huge separation from worker parties in, instance in Iran compared to those in Russia or South America. The parties here in America,
LOL, don't even get me started there, I'd hardly say they were socialist or communist, more like a mix of centralized democrats and neoliberals and a few hard line conservative leftists.
Why this is relevant, because its the same way in feminism too, what few strong feminist there are in Islamic nations, Africa, etc., are fighting a double battle,
and in an isolated camp at that. Not only are they fighting extreme misogynist systems but they are also fighting extreme economic barriers that leave them with few resources to actually build enough solidarity to make a strong impact.
The women in Iran in fact have been getting in the faces of those very Imans, they've been imprisoned, raped and tortured, beaten, and recently their web blogs taken down.
What makes it more difficult for them is the Western communist/socialists actually siding in or making allowances for Hezbollah and Hamas, AND the [as Darcy so puts it, Lunacy,,seriously girl get a clue],
western feminists AND right wing feminists who also Pander to misogyny and patriarchy, who do little if anything to stand in solidarity with these women. Hell they won't even stand up with women in THIS COUNTRY confronting violent porn, which is, one if not the largest industry in this world that is supplied by none other than trafficked women/girls who are beaten, raped, starved, tortured,
and we can't even get women out of their little bubbles here, because god forbid if they STAND UP TO MEN, why they might not be liked [that exile thing again] and if we can't even get women here to even come to a level of 'I'm a human consciousness and not some ashtray for a man if you get my drift',
we sure as hell won't get enough women to work in solidarity with those women, in those countries who not only are horribly persecuted but who are also, economically stuck. Its not like they can just walk away from their situations, they can't leave their marriages unless they want to lose their kids [thats mandatory in Sharia, father gets custody, automatic], they can't get jobs, why in those countries temporary marriages [prostitution] is as high as it is, why trafficking of women is as high as it is in those countries,
and free women, right and left, can't get off their comfy couch long enough because as we just say here,
let a Strong woman willing to FIGHT MISOGYNY speak,
and both men and women say,
oh my oh my, now hush hush because you know thats just not proper for little ladies to talk that way..but now, if I'm thrown on the ground being gang raped by Shites or Frat boys, I'm sure, no one will sit there and say,
their cheers and jeers are 'lunacy and uncalled for'.
[sarcasm, you Betcha--not to you Eastview--just to some others here]
you know, its like this, I've said this to the left and I'll say it to the right...
don't whine. Look, you don't like the fact that Islamists are taking over, but then you sit, and whine. You have no problem with the Poor, fighting the wars as fodder, while they are losing benefits, many of them going bankrupt, your Women being raped by even their male soldier comrades and your own government telling them to shut up and not complain--women working for Haliburton, being told to shut up, it took a woman whose father was a Republican in Congress to say something before that case was even covered in the media,
our young being betrayed time and time again fighting those Islamists that many of you here have no issue in poking jokes at,
but you see, Thats easy isn't it? Thats so easy when its not YOU on the front lines, in a lot of ways, you know something,
you're not any different than the left. When you say to a woman who is militant enough to get in the face that she's lunatic, because you think its 'cute' to be a fem and all,
you're no better than the feminists who cave in to nationalism and the race card.
The Islamists are winning because people, are Letting them. I will say one thing about the Islamists, they mean business, they learn, they watch, they adapt, they fight, they do whatever is necessary...
here we have, a belief system from the Dark Ages, winning against advances and philosophy and ideologies that have built nations,
its not only because of liberals or because of deals made with Saudi,
its because, people are just too soft, too complacent, and too comfortable to really DO SOMETHING.
The ones who Do actually get out and Do something,
many shoot down, "oh, they are too vocal, too violent, too radical",
well, you can't sit on the fence forever and you know, you can't keep thinking the dumb poor in this country will continue to be your fodder fighting to keep your freedom when you don't even fight for them. I've YET to see one large protest in this country demanding the government to Do something about the rapes of our women in the military, whether you think women shouldn't be in the military or not,
is not the point, the Point is, you SIT here and you poke fun at the misogyny in the Islamists yet you do the very same damn thing. Don't think they don't see it, they do,
the liberals see it and they are running you OVER WITH IT--WHY YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET OBAMA.
And whose to blame for that?
Not just the left--to say so is just a cowardly COP OUT.
IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FREE WORLD FOR OUR CHILDREN WE NEED PEOPLE WHO SAY TO HELL WITH PROTOCOL AND P.C.
I've had enough political correctness to last me a lifetime and when they have a gun to your head Wellington all your eloquent ROBERT RULES OF ORDER ISN'T GOING TO DO SQUAT TO SAVE YOUR ASS.
I'm beginning to think its not so much the Islamist taking over,
as its just spoiled, complacent lazy too fearful Westerners who just aren't willing to fight and are basically just giving it up to them.
After all, if it Meant sacrifice and if it Meant having to maybe look at our Own policies and economics and patriarchy we might have to Change a few things,
maybe what annoys people about Obama is not his ties to Islam as much as its his assertion to 'change'.
Well, America, life IS changing, the economic is going to hell, people are losing homes left and right, white men are losing privilege whether they want to deal with it or not, the ole cute little sweetie may think she's empowered but she's more enslaved to men than women under brutal dictatorships,
our population demographics are changing and the poor fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them are just fed up...why the Anti-War is growing.
Meanwhile, a militant leftist feminist who has taken more verbal abuse and even rape threats by comrades because she Dared stand up and oppose Islam,
and all you can do, is say, oh I can't read the lunacy...
you know, when they come for you, look in the mirror, seriously, and know--just know,
whining got you nowhere. There ARE people out there that would be willing to fight, to actually organize, come up with strategies to do something, on all fronts,
but people are just too stuck in their privilege and hanging on to outdated ideas and ways because they still think this is the fifties and that the American Pie will always be there.
Even if one thinks this is the spiritual end times, it shouldn't matter--you fight because its the right thing to do.
By the way Darcy, I take my examples from women who Fought the fascists, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the anarchists in Spain,
and if that makes me a lunatic so be it. I'd rather be a lunatic fighting for what I believe in,
than just posting slams which are far more Islmophobe, on boards not doing anything else because its just not 'chic' for a woman do do battle.
Meanwhile--I have work to do, America will get up and drive her big SUV and have breakfast in her big house that uses how much fuel because you know that whole keeping up with the Jones thing and well, hey, if all that depends on slave labor overseas that, is in fact, the populations that Islamists lure in, why its the fastest growing religion on the planet, even in Mexico,
we'll just eloquently talk about it here and if one is female, its o.k. to poke fun at women who are Stuck and have no where to go, the Lolitas of Islam,
but lets not dare deviate from those gender norms and do anything about it.
Figure that one out, hows That for lunacy.
Another brave ‘artist’ displays his courage
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/19/another-brave-artist-displays-his-courage/
Dare I put this here? Well, since this is a forum that is open minded and allows reflection [you know, that freedom thing], I shall,
because These women, who fight the Political Islam on the front lines, one who is a member of Iran's Communist Worker's Party under death threats, and a very strong womans human rights advocate--I think pretty much nails a big part of the problem..
so, here goes...[more lunacy from the Natasha here
;)]
On a left and progressive critique of Islam and political Islam
International TV interview with Fariborz Pooya and Bahram Soroush
November 7, 2004
Maryam Namazie: Theo van Gogh had made a film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch MP (originally from Somalia) of a racist, right-wing political party in Holland, one of whose slogans is 'the boat is full'. Their film 'Submission' is very critical of Islam and its abuses on women's rights. The first question that comes to mind is when you hear opposition to Islam and political Islam, often you hear it coming from the Right-wing in the mainstream. Why is that?
Bahram Soroush: Maybe because the Left is so quiet. If you don't have a Left which is standing up firmly to political Islam, then you have the right-wing taking the field and filling the vacuum. At the same time, I'm not sure if the characterisation that the Right is critical of Islam or political Islam is quite accurate. If you look at their politics, when they are attacking Islamists, they are attacking groups of people; there's a strong racist element in their criticism. Many times they are prepared to accommodate Islam and Islamic groups. And as governments, they follow a policy of appeasement of Islamic states. It is the same with their attitude towards Islam as an institution and a religion. Although one should not put everyone in the same category, what we know as the right-wing critique of political Islam quite happily accepts religious schools, regards criticism of Islam as a religion as blasphemy, as a no-go area, and when you look at the core of their politics, you see a strong racist element against immigrants, against whole groups of people.
Fariborz Pooya: The whole building block of the ruling-class analysis of religion is inhumane, because the world according to the bourgeoisie is divided between various nations and various races at its core - as opposed to the Marxist and progressive analysis and vision of society, which looks at class society, and its analysis is based on the uniformity of societies that exist and class interests… Religion is part of that analysis, part of that vision and a supposed characteristic of people. Apparently it is something inherent, you can't change it and you have to live with it. The ruling class in all countries never discarded religion as an institution and as a political force and actually accommodate it and use it in different forms. In different historical periods - and recently as well, with regard to political Islam - we see how the West-European governments come to terms with it and make use of it. It is the same within European societies as well - in relation to religion, Islam and political Islam. Both the right wing of the bourgeoisie and its left wing regard and accept religion as part of 'people's culture and characteristics'. I agree with Bahram that unlike the Marxist, progressive and humanist movement, the various sections of the bourgeoisie are trying to accommodate Islam and political Islam and work with it.
Maryam Namazie: What we are seeing though is a Left, or what is called the Left, actually apologising for Islam, calling any sort of criticism of Islam 'Islamophobic'. We have heard recently that the editor of the Socialist Workers' Party paper has even implied that secularism is Islamophobic! They are defending religion to that extent. I agree with Fariborz that right-wing governments are defending political Islam 'over there', if not in the West itself. But they are much more 'critical' of Islam and the political Islamic movement. So why does this problem exist?
Bahram Soroush: Historically, the banner of secularism and humanism has been in the hands of society's Left. But that is absent now. It is not just on the question of religion, but on a whole set of issues. I think what is dominating the Left in Europe and North America generally, the prevailing wisdom, is the characterisation of the world, the division of the world between the North and the South, the rich countries against the poorer ones, the North oppressing the South, and, thereby, oppressing 'their religion' too. Their characterisation of a country [in the Third World] is not based on a class point of view; they do not differentiate between the ruling classes and the people there. So, for example, if there's a threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the USA, that Left automatically rushes to the aid of that regime, never mind that it is a reactionary, murderous regime and 99% of the people are fighting it and trying to get rid of it. The worker-communist standpoint is different. The 'Left' is the general umbrella term for a whole movement. However, what we have argued in Iran, for example, has been from a Marxian standpoint. In the 19th Century, a communist was someone who was at the forefront of the fight against religion, nationalism, a champion of secularism and atheism, for the liberation of the human being at its most fundamental level - politically, economically, philosophically. But that has disappeared from what we know as the Left today. So what you have now, what is characterised as the Left, the dominant viewpoint, is radical and socialist only in name. When this happens, then you obviously have the right wing taking the field. But again the criticism of the Right is not from a humanist standpoint, but from an inhumane and racist standpoint. As you mentioned, Ayaan is a member of a party which at the same time is against immigrants. That is a dilemma for a person like Ayaan herself. We can talk about it; about what has made her join that party, for example. But what makes Ayaan an interesting figure in Holland is not that she is a member of the Conservatives there, but what she has said, what she has exposed about Islam and its atrocities, about political Islam. That is why we should not be so much hung up about the fact that she is a member of that party.
Maryam Namazie: That's a question for me then. Does it not matter if the critique of Islam and political Islam is coming from a right-wing perspective? I agree with Bahram Soroush about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the MP. She has actually said she is not comfortable with some of the positions of that party, but she says it has given her an avenue to be able to critique Islam and defend women's rights. In a sense, it shows the absence of a Left in which she can become a member and an MP of. Again I'm not sure about all her comments, because we don't speak Dutch and we can only look at the things that have been translated. Bahram says we should not be so hung up on the fact that she is a member of a right-wing party, but some might disagree.
Fariborz Pooya: I think the danger is, if the worker-communist movement does not occupy the centre stage in the fight for secularism, if it does not broaden its appeal against Islam as a political movement in Europe, naturally the centre stage will be filled by the right-wing critics of Islam. And that's a disaster. The scenario they are actually fighting for and advocating is a race war, a religious war, the exclusion of everybody else. So it's a dark scenario. It's doubly important for the progressive, humanist, socialist and worker-communist movement to cover that centre stage quickly. It saddens me that people from the Left, in the name of socialism actually, are totally supporting a reactionary political Islamic movement, which has not even an iota of progressiveness about it. It's not even like a national-liberation movement that at some stage in the last century people could have argued with possibly having some element of progressiveness in it. There is nothing progressive here. It's a totally reactionary, fascistic political movement. It's important to criticise it from a humanist point of view, from a class-interest perspective, and to show to the population at large in Europe that it's OK to criticise Islam from a progressive point of view; it's beneficial to society; it helps the lot of children; it helps the lot of women; it helps society in general and improves the lot of the general population in Europe to have a very clear progressive and socialist criticism of Islam. It's critical and essential for European society actually to raise that humanist criticism of Islam.
Maryam Namazie: Fariborz says that political Islam is a fascistic movement and it's dangerous. So my question to you is, if Islam and political Islam are being criticised from a racist perspective, is it OK to support that perspective then, because the aim is to get rid of and eradicate political Islam?
Bahram Soroush: No. The right-wing's presence actually is a problem; they are in fact part of the problem. The apologists for Islam point to them to say that by criticising Islam you are joining the racists, and all that. Moreover, many times in the past, these forces have actually collaborated with and helped foster the political Islamist movement in the Middle East. The Western governments poured arms and millions of dollars to boost that movement against the Left. I think something that much of the Left in Europe actually forgets is that the Islamic movement that they are supporting is now responsible for genocide; for massacring an entire Left generation in Iran, not to mention all their other atrocities. They were a force that came into existence as a right-wing, anti-socialist, anti-Left movement, supported vehemently by Western powers at that time in order to stop the progressive and Left-wing, socialist 'threat' to society. It's only after 9/11 that their relationship changed; past friends becoming present foes. I'm sure there are many genuine activists amongst the Left who at the moment are supporting the politics of their organisations because there is not a strong enough alternative…
Maryam Namazie: We are the alternative and they should be listening to us…
Bahram Soroush: Exactly!
Maryam Namazie: Briefly, irrespective of what perspective Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is actually in hiding now because she has been receiving death threats) are coming from, what would you say about their death threats and about Theo's assassination? Just one sentence. Because there are some on the so-called Left who say that he deserved to die because of his racism.
Fariborz Pooya: That comment is outrageous. No one deserves to die because of their views or the views that they have expressed. Actually that shows the essence of the political Islamic movement. It is a violent movement; it is an atrocious movement, and it needs to be stopped. They will start with van Gogh and Ayaan and then try to impose their dark scenario and rule in the West over the rest of the population.
Maryam Namazie: What is a progressive and non-racist perspective on Islam and the political Islamic movement - in one or two sentences?
Bahram Soroush: It is difficult to say it in one sentence. In essence, it's from the standpoint of the human being, from a humanistic perspective, against religion as an ideology, against political Islam as a political movement, in defence of women's rights, in defence of children's rights, in defence of political freedoms and the right to freely and safely criticise any religion.
The above is an International TV (http://www.anternasional.tv/english) interview dated November 7,
http://www.maryamnamazie.com/tv/on_left_progressive_critique_of_Islam.html
Oh, one more thing, Welllington,
so what, flunk me, You know, I have the college ed, I choose not to write in that elitist stuck up male polemic style anymore--
besides, what good does it do, seriously,
have any idea how many eloquent and brilliant minds in this country are so bogged down in usury debt thanks to Sallie Mae and the whole corrupt student loan industry that they are in literal debtors prisons,
meanwhile we outsource even our white collar and technical jobs to India and Malaysia for that cheap labor.
So, the whole protocol of English grammar and style no longer impresses me, not only that,
but there are women of genius, and no matter how much genius they create,
its always about their sexuality that they are judged by, Hannah Ardent, probably one of the most brilliant thinkers who wrote against Totalitarianism
and what does Academia focus on?
Her affair with Heidegger, they know MORE about that, than they do about the substance of her books.
So please, yawn yawn Yawn yawn Yawn. Flunk me, big fn' deal.
If the Democrats were true to form, they would contract CAIR to Photoshop images of the hijab onto women shown in campaign press photos !!
I think that empowering muslim women would just make more jihadists that are female. They are as brainwashed as the men.
When any of them - woman or man - want to leave islam - that is when we get empowered individuals that make sense.
The base of the whole problem is the koran and the teachings. They can go on for years, decades even, without causing too much of a problem - but it never lasts very long before islam/muslims start their junk against infidels again. All it takes is a few radicals at the right moment to start it all over again. And with the lull in their jihad - the infidels go back to sleep and it is harder than hades to wake them up again.
We are waking up, and we are only a few, but we see that the muslims have already been working their brainwashing in our colleges and brainwashing our children for a couple of decades in some instances already! They are being helped along by the left wing idiots too. We are, as a whole, so politically correct that we are afraid of offending muslims that so many I run across are afraid that facts of the koran and what the koran sanctions sets them at odds with their own instead of those who either want them dead, converted to islam, or subjugated. Too many are falling for the lies - and they look at the coy, virginal little muslimettes and go - oh no! these are nice people.
Well, reread Geert Wilders speech to his parliament. He mentions the number of muslims directly correlate to the percentage of violence. Muslimettes are right there with their males in it all. Whether it be the same problem as the 'battered wife' syndrome, or they actually believe in mohammed just as their men believe.
Which takes me right back to the koran. It is a circle that I go in and go directly back to the koran as the problem.
I am sorry - I don't care how much one wants to feel that we should honor this book - it is a book that ranks right along with books on war tactics against us while using some god as an excuse for them to hate, kill and/or subjugate anyone who isn't with them. A fascism - either you are with us or you are against us.
I am a woman and don't feel sorry for muslim women. Especially when they are Westerners, and are right along with their men deceiving us as to what islam is - because that is what they believe in.
islam needs to be taken off of it being in the religion category and put on equal ground with communism and nazism. Sorry, I know that sounds really radical - but it is the truth. And I know it won't happen. Everytime we look at them cross-eyed they whine up a storm. We find hate propaganda in their schools - and they attack us, and sometimes physically. And what moron said that our tax money should be paying for their private schools?!!?
Italian writer Oriana Fallaci, said: “A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no difference between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that it the end of it. Islam is the Koran, and nothing other than the Koran.“
[(Oriana Fallaci”The Force of Reason” post-script page 305 February 2006)]
Wise and true words.
article on % of muslims and % of violence:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4DE15EF9-A76C-4DD4-81E2-75683AEED74D
Natasha,
The substance of your message comes through loud and clear, and I think all posters on this forum share your outrage over Islamic misogyny, and many will agree, too, about the objectification of women, not just in modern society, but in most societies historically. Here, the focus is on Islam, and a staple of discussion for a long time has been the absence of outrage on the Left about this issue. As to the communist or socialist subcontext of your message, that is somewhat outside the purvue of this forum. However, I note that David Horowitz over at FrontPage (I have no idea what your views about him are) started out as a 60's Leftist radical, had a change of vision, and found a way to channel his considerable talents into fighting the same fight as we are.
It is true that most of us are arm chair pundits, but we do what we can in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in. But if you think about it, just being able to find each other via the Internet and to discover there are like minded people out there is, in itself, not inconsequential. Your blog is a similar attempt to reach out to the world, and I commend you for setting it up and running it. I wish you well in your endeavors.
As pertains to your statement "...I choose not to write in that elitist stuck up male polemic style..." Well, I guess that applies to me, as well as to most of the other posters here, as you surely intended. But really, the style in which you write should be dictated by why you write. If it is to vent and let off steam, then there are no rules. If it is to persuade, to win hearts and minds (god I hate that phrase, but you know what I mean) then venting/ranting is usually counterproductive, however good and righteous it might make you feel personally. In most cases I stop reading at the first hint of profanity or personal insults. As for language usage on this blog, the several injunctions that have been issued about this go beyond mere issues of etiquette. Over the top posts on JW/DW are sometimes quoted by our adversaries to paint the site in an unflattering light, so everyone here has an interest in keeping things clean.
Re: Natasha's writing style
ya know.......? Complaining about a 'posters style' seems sort of like complaining about the lack of crumpets with the tea ON THE TITANIC
But maybe I am also just one of those PO'ed women who see nothing but sheeple on both sides of the so-called political choice. I don't think we will wake up until we are donning our headscarves to do a little grocery shopping...that is, IF there is any of our fiat money left.
Natasha your question about "Bhutto" my impression is that she was much like the old Naseem, wanted Sharia light. what these people do not realize is that you cannot make lightness out of pure evil.
And l thought if really wanted to make changes she would not openly go out in crowds and put herself and more importantly her supporters in harms way. so her killing served no purpose, but to muddy up the waters even more. matyr thinking is too deep with muslims.
And to those who whine about people driving SUV'S its none your business and sounds like CLASS ENVY, a tool that the Democrats love to use against hard working people!! If you want to drive in a tin can that is YOUR business, but leave people like me who drive larger vehicles alone! ps l drive a Dodge Mini van, and FULL size van, extended at that! My rather large dogs do enjoy comfort,, and well fits a lot of kids especially when you drive down to Cedar Point!
Zena,
You're welcome to your SUV as long as you don't complain about how much it takes to fill it.
If it gets more than 25 mpg that's great.
This Republican has been buying fuel efficient cars for more than 20 years, ever since my Nova (which got 20 mpg) died.
To each his own.
"Hannah Ardent" --Long-Winded Natasha
You mean Hannah Arendt?
You are so over the top it's incredible. What I did bother to read of your dissertation diatribes we already know here on JW. What, you think we're ignorant and uninformed about Islam here on JW and also ignorant and uninformed about the specific abuses females experience on this patriarchal planet? Hello - we know.
Concerning your long-winded, tedious, and prolix posts, to quote you, "So please, yawn yawn Yawn yawn Yawn."
BTW, I didn't say you were a "lunatic," I said your ranting no-paragraph long-winded "style" (if you can call it that) makes you LOOK like a lunatic. There's a huge difference there - but you're so caught up in spewing your self-important verbiage you didn't take the time to distinguish.
Look up this word: Logorrhea. I believe you have it.
Here, I did it for you:
Main Entry: log·or·rhea
Pronunciation: \ˌlȯ-gə-ˈrē-ə, ˌlä-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: circa 1892
: excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness
— log·or·rhe·ic \-ˈrē-ik\ adjective
Logorrhea is also connected to bi-polar disorder(mania).
"Hannah Ardent"
-- from a posting above
Who is not to be confused with (much less played in a movie by) Fanny Ardant who, in turn, should not be confused with Inessa Armand.
I, personally, have joined a chapter in Act for America. There are other organizations people can join if they prefer. But 'armchair' people are not what the muslims are - so I chose not to be either.
We allowed the left to take over our schools. Now we need to just get off of our behinds!
Last night I wrote that I was tired of this not defining our enemy, or naming a war after only one of the tactics used against us infidels - and Daniel Pipes just sent an article about this very subject:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5629
Natasha's on a roll, like an i8 wheeler with no breaks going down a long steep grade.
I try and read all the posts. Self abuse sometimes. By the time I read to the bottom, I have to scroll to the top to see what the topic is.
Obama knows that his cozy association with some muslims is frowned upon by some voters, so he attempts to low key that by eliminating that kind of exposure. He uses the same concept by trying to distance himself from White and Farrakhan. It should not be seen, by them, as personal, it's just business. And I am sure that is how they see it. The muslimah's, however have a slightly different bone to pick. While White and Louis are way beyond 'hurt feelings', muslims seem to wallow in them.
The Rev and the Rev, understand Obama's distancing, while the muslimah's, operating in the world of hurt feelings and distrust, are quick to complain.
So now expect to see more muslims in photo ops with Obama. The complaint has been noted, damage control in effect...
Natasha - defending women is a GOOD thing, and as a woman I applaud you for it; but you may want to consider finding a forum that specializes in fighting for womens rights, because Jihad Watch is not designed for that purpose. Having said that, there are headlines on JW that lend themselves to defending women, so may I suggest releasing your fight towards womens rights for those headlines - but this particular headline is not one of them. Take care.
As for Nawaz Sharief, he was the PM when Kargil happened, so it's ridiculous for him to claim that the generals like Musharraf acted on their own. I have no idea how you simply accept that at face value. Fact remains that Sharief laid out the policy, Musharraf implemented it, and when the Indians, despite risking a nuclear attack from Pakistan, repelled the Paki attacks despite heavy casualities, the Pakis were left looking for scapegoats. Of course, it was easy for Musharraf to get on top of this, since he led the military effort, while Sharief botched it on the diplomatic front.
Bottom line: just accept that Pakistan is a hostile country, no matter who's in power.
Apparently, many American Muslims are becoming disillusioned with Obama as well.
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/06/18/out-of-the-picture-obama-volunteer-bars-hijabis-from-photo-op/#comments
ok,
if you insist on the entitlement to class privilege/driving SUVs, etc.,
then why complain about Sharia? Or Islam? why not just save yourself time and send a check to Saudi?
as for not feeling sorry for women--in Islam, yea, those girls born into it, no choice of their own, to hell with them, right? Sounds a bit 'racist' to me
as for bi-polar, Darcy, you inspire me, you remind me of a painting by Grosz--but you know since I'm bi-polar mania and all, I suppose too,
any objections of Islam, is probably bi-polar as well right?
Thats what the progressives and left have been saying, maybe they are right, maybe,
maybe why they take the stance they do. After posting here, I do understand that now. Shame.
Because any solidarity with humanists or non-racists or non-sexists or non-misogynist patriarchal capitalist pushers,
you probably kill it. No wonder the Islamists are winning...maybe it really doesn't matter eh...
now I understand why feminists don't bother. Thank you Darcy for revealing that to me. I guess I shall have to apologize to Them. The women I do know who Do work for human rights and not just against Islam but for women's rights here in This country, against class oppression of women, eg sweatshop labor, etc.,
against racism, I suppose I should state for the record, Thank you. Thank you for reminding me of what my values really are,
I oppose ALL FORMS OF OPPRESSION AND MISOGYNY AND HUMAN RIGHT ABUSES, not just those that favor the 'white capitalist class'
or 'white women'.
If that makes me bi-polar, Good. I'd rather be bi-polar and fight all forms of brutality and despotism AND FASCISM.
And thank you, for reminding me, the years and years of capitalist propping up of none other than Islamist nations [in fact they still are] for that wealth and privilege in this country,
they had the guns, why we just gave them the bullets under free trade and global greed. They were our allies for years right, to fight off those evil reds I believe. And by invading Iraq, the Iranian Shite hegemony truly is stronger now...
what a tangled web we weave huh, to 'protect white privilege'.
So, yes, of Course several here don't care about little girls in Islam, but they are a nice 'token' huh,
to get people joined in on the whole anti-immigration people of color march, yea, makes sense.
There are many of you here that do a great job of analysis and for that I do enjoy reading and still believe this sight is not only needed but beneficial. However, I will say, some of the attitudes here do more to disenfranchise those who would work in solidarity to Do something about the very real and dangerous threat to us all. But, alas,
it won't happen that way, history repeats itself. I've come to the conclusion however, whether its brown shirts or red-brown shirts, its the same,
just two faces on one coin. I suppose bi-polar really translates as the capability to understand the similarities of both sides of that coin,
and that, I sure have. Just know this however, the leave it to beaver white privilege society IS NOW A MINORITY,
keep preserving that class status quo for as long as you can. I don't believe you have the majority support for those views you once had, not even in the right. Which is why, yes, Obama has the support he does--travesty isn't it?
Stalin and the Hitler pact, yes, but, lets not forget, when Hitler invaded Russia--what resulted after that.
Not only that, but not only did the US capitalists assist in the Reich, they also, assisted in helping Nazi's flee to South America and continued supporting them. US foreign policy is no angelic system...by no means.
You can keep your elitism and all that goes with it...to those of you that this applies to.
I think the most tragic thing is, when I talk to leftists about the dangers of Islam, its always the same--go to the right wing, the bigots, sexists, imperialists, class snobs, racists...
its tragic, it really is. And I truly, truly didn't want to believe that...
but Darcy, people like you,
CONFIRM WHAT THEY SAY.
so, when the Islamists take over...don't just blame the left.
Natasha - you're really ill. Seek help. It's called "mania."
You remind me of a painting by Bosch. You know, the one with all the imps and devils.
You really have problems, that's obvious. Crazy.
People like you, Natasha,
CONFIRM WHAT THEY SAY
about nutjobs.
Shlomo_Michael: Three points. 1) Reagan did ship food to the Soviet Union because he was a compassionate guy but he refused to ship certain foodstuffs which were long-term storable as well as many other items that ordinary people in the USSR didn't need. But the Democrats wanted to prop up the Soviet Union for silly reasons related to bogus, squeamish concepts about stability and the current world order and Reagan nixed that. He knew, unlike virtually anyone else, that he could kill the USSR with his approach. And he did. It was a great achievement and liberals are still clueless about it.
2) Yeah, Havel and others marched in the streets but that was because they knew they had hard-bitten champions in the West like Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II backing them up. Also, the Communist hierarchy in Eastern Europe in the Eighties and early Nineties was worn out and even itself realized that Marxism was vastly inefficient and unworkable. It just gave up. But whenever tyrants are still invigorated, peaceful protest is useless and very dangerous. Non-violent resistance only works to the extent that either the society being protested is essentially decent but has erred or exhaustion has set in with the control freak folks (like the example I gave above). Respecting the former situation and as an example of it, what Gandhi really proves is the basic decency of the British Empire. If the Russians, Chinese or even French or Belgians had been in India, Gandhi would have been shot.
By the way, I have to reflect here that Gandhi would be my choice for the single most overrated individual of the twentieth century, though he remains the subject of unworthy admiration to this day. He was a fool many times over. He advised Churchill, who had active contempt for him, that he should try and make peace with Nazi Germany in 1940-41. Gandhi ridiculously believed that the reason why Muslims and Hindus hated each other was because of the British presence, never mind the fact that deep enmity between said groups had been going on for centuries before the British arrived. In fact, the only thing keeping the Muslims and Hindus from slaughtering each other was the British presence, bitterly and tragically proved literally within days of Britain leaving India in 1947. He also thought really weird things such as the superiority of the female gender because he believed it didn't possess the capacity to enjoy sex. He was a sacerdotal oddity who was admired by Western elites and effetes who had "gone native" (an early form of multiculturalism). Anyway, the larger point here is that protest and all that only works in proportion to the non-savagery of an authoritarian regime. If Havel et al. had tried their protests in North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq (which, once again, would still exist if we followed your line of thinking) or Castro's Cuba, they would have disappeared. Please wake up about this.
3) Bush's imperious behavior, as you put it, has kept us safe here at home since 9/11, has seen pro-American governments installed in France, Germany, Italy, Denmark and elsewhere and has not thwarted proper action by Europe to Iran and other tyrannies because Europe has been feckless in this regard (and many other regards) long before Bush became President.
There might be another reason somebody gave the ladies the bum's rush. One of them was so good looking that Michelle would bark by comparison. Yes, I have seen that before; it's the Boss' Wife Syndrome. Queen Bees don't like sharing.