Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance in action: Ahmadinejad to meet with Occupy Wall Street

yes

'' ... this consistent embrace of tyranny over the course of over ninety years can no longer be considered accidental. It says something very dark about such "activists"''

Yes, islam is spiritual tyranny, and the left embrace economic tyranny, combined with hatred of freedom (except for themselves). Made for each other, really.

darmanad wrote:

Who are you calling a traitor? Care to explain? How are those who will meet with the leader of a powerful mideast nation, ipso facto, traitors? I'd really like to hear your reasoning on that, Mr Spencer.
.................................

If they plan on taking Ahmadinejad to task, or at least to ask him some tough questions, then no. But if they plan on basking in the presence of a vile dictator, then yes.

More:

Further, how are those who may criticize their government, ipso facto, traitors to their country? I find that extremely odd coming from one who relentlessly and vitriolically criticizes the current administration. Are you a traitor? Would you be insulted if someone called you a traitor for it? You come dangerously close to the the kind of demogoguery from which springs the adage that (psuedo) patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
.................................

Robert Spencer wasn't calling members of "Occupy" traitors per se—just those who would schmooze with a blood-stained monster like the president of Iran.

What would you call them?

More:

I think Ahmadinejad is a dangerous joke. Consistent with his bellicose and often ludicrous rants against the continued existence of Israel, he recently blamed the brouhaha over Innocence of Mohamad on the Jooz.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=285797. I believe there is plenty to criticize about this joke of a leader, much as there was to joke about our own ignoramus Georgie Bush...
.................................

Ludicrous moral equivalence. I wouldn't compare *any* American president with the leader of a violently oppressive theocracy like the "Islamic Republic of Iran".

This is a state that has victims in prison awaiting death by stoning, that hangs gay people from cranes, that oppresses and persecutes religious minorities, that has the death penalty for apostasy, that has legalized the rape of young girls, both in child marriages and as a punishment prior to execution for virgins.

Believing that Ahmadinejad just offers some sort of 'opposing view', when he seeks the destruction of Israel, and "death to America", seems naive—at best. At worst, it's something much darker...

1. You concede that "if,... then no. But if...then yes." But RS didn't so qualify his statement, did he? Sorry, but you are excusing RS's vile accusation by engrafting provisos he did not even bother to suggest. Moreover, why assume those who will simply appear at Ahmadinejad's talk will be toadies? Is listening obsequious "basking?" I don't like Ahmadinejad, but calling those who would appear at his US talk "traitors" is rank McCarthyism.

2. What would I call members of or supporters of the so-called "Occupy" movement who would attend a talk given by the president of Iran while he was in NYC for an important session of the UN? I would call them involved activists. I don't know the entire agenda of the Occupiers, but to the extent they protest the current inequity in the distribution of wealth in the US caused in large part by unethical Wall St and US banking conglomerates, I agree with them. However, regardless of whether you agree with their philosophy or not, it is absurd to tar them as traitors simply for listening to the President of Iran. RS was wrong to do so.

3. Moral equivalence? Don't be too quick to write off those who might compare the immorality of George Bush with that of Ahmadinejad either as naive or "something much darker." Bush, driven by religious fervor, lied and deceived the American people into an unjustifed war of aggression that decimated Iraq causing untold damage to both the Iraqi people and US interests. Remmember watching the US bombs dropping on Baghdad on television as if it were some kind of morally acceptable entertainment? In large part Bush's war has made it much more difficult for the US to criticize human rights violations in Muslim societies. We are rightly perceived as hypocrits.
I don't dispute the litany of human rights deprivations existing in Iran (and all other Islamic societies), but even if all you say about conditions in Iran is true, Ahmadinejad is president of a state that inflicts significant injustice on hundred or thousands of its own citizens. Bush inflicted horrendous injustice on millions of people in countries other than his own. What's worse?

As previously mentioned, I am no fan of Ahmadinejad (I think he is a nut), but cogent arguments can be made that US foreign policy is much more bellicose than that of Iran. Try reading the points of view of some others (with whom I don't entirely agree on foreign policy) who may challenge you to comprehend a slightly different perspective.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175597/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_even_dumb_ideas_have_consequences/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=9fe2ef456a-TD_Bacevich9_25_2012&utm_medium=email#more
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-myths-about-irans-nuclear-enrichment-program.html

" A cogent arguments can be made that US foreign policy is much more bellicose than that of Iran..".

That is insane moral equivalencing; as is your attempt, above, to equate Bush with Ahmadinejad.

You need to read good old James Freeman Clarke, abolitionist clergyman of the 19th century, who having done his homework - having read the best scholars of his time, on the state of affairs then prevailing in all the main portions of dar al Islam at that time - concluded judiciously: "After reading such works as these,—and among them let us not forget Mr. Lane's "Modern Egyptians,"—the conclusion we must inevitably come to is, that the worst Christian government, be it that of the Pope or the Czar, is very much better than the best Mohammedan government."

And *that* is because the core paradigm of Islam is, to be blunt, S & M: domination (up to and including slavery and murder) and submission; as one of the scholars Mr Freeman consulted inimitably put it, at the core of Islam is "A pantheism of force."
'God has no rule but arbitrary will."

Any society suffused with *that* as its basic paradigm - which is NOT the core paradigm of traditional Christianity or of Judaism, no matter what some sneering atheists may try to pretend - is going to be what all Muslim societies have always been, sometimes more and sometimes less, but always ...awful.

The sins and follies of the USA and of other western nations, and other nations influenced by Christianity, and also of other non-Muslim nations, except for the occasional deeply sick aberration such as North Korea, are just nowhere *near* what the Ummah consistently achieves.

Do you or do you not think that Islamic Iran, once it gets hold of nuclear weapons, will use them?

On Israel? On other Infidel countries?

Bear in mind what Bernard Lewis said. And Bernard Lewis knows more about Islam than you do.

He has said that to those who govern in Iran - and that isn't just Ahmaedinejad, it's a whole *lot* of other Islamic 'clerics' - MAD is not a deterrent..it is an **inducement**.

Fancy contemplating a world in which a Muslim nation is, basically, a nuke-armed murder-'martyr'...armed not with a suicide vest or a truck stuffed full of conventional explosvies, but...nuclear missiles. Or thermonukes...

I am unhappy enough about Pakistan having nukes. They haven't used them...yet. But what if they Go Sharia even more than they already have? (And I suspect they've already used them, in a sense, as a means by which to conduct extortion).

But the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran...that is orders of magnitude even *worse*.

I cannot look with equanimity upon the prospect of Atomic Jihad.

The USA and other 'western' nuclear powers do have some kind of moral 'braking device' in place. And the Soviets and the Chinese are atheists; they don't dream of martyrdom in the way the Muslims do. Netanyahu pointed that out, in his speech.

But jihad-minded, sharia-crazed, high-on-hate Muslims...have no brakes at all.

Small correction. I wrote - "And the Soviets and the Chinese are atheists; they don't dream of martyrdom in the way the Muslims do. Netanyahu pointed that out, in his speech."

I should have written, "And during the Cold War the Soviets and the Chinese, being atheists, didn't dream of martyrdom in the way the Muslims do. Netanyahu pointed that out, in his speech". And I should have added that the rulers of post-Soviet Russia and post-Maoist China are still very strongly focused on this world, not on some heavenly bordello full of black-eyed virgins. They don't have the Islamic mindset. I imagine their boss men are not stupid enough to think that a world poisoned by fallout would be worth the candle.

North Korea is the only non-Muslim state that might...but then North Korea is both evil and quite, quite mad.