Dhimmi Watch: Cultural War by Proxy

October 4, 2005

Cultural War by Proxy

Here is another new piece by European writer Wolfgang Bruno.

In our clash with Islam, our opponents have at least one major advantage over us: At the beginning of the 21st century, the West has indeed lost its way and sense of purpose. We want to defend "Western civilization", but are we even sure what that is anymore, or was it lost in the multicultural fog somewhere? Is the West primarily defined by its Judeo-Christian religious heritage, or is it something else?
The Western Left has a clear goal: The destruction of the society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Their bets are now on Islam. Religious people in the West tend to view secularists as anti-Christian hypocrites, and not without some justification. Devout Catholic Italian Rocco Buttiglione was rejected as the European Union's justice commissioner because of his conservative, religious views. At the same time, the EU has extensive relations with the brutal theocracy in Iran, and few Islamic organizations, not even terrorist group Hamas, ever seem to be too extremist for the EU to cooperate with them. In the USA, the ACLU makes sure that prayer in public schools is just fine for Muslims, but banned for everybody else.

Even though left-wingers may usually be the worst offenders in appeasing Islam, that does not mean that right-wingers are blameless in this either. Economic liberalists are frequently naïve when it comes to cultural and religious differences. Theirs is the blind belief that immigration will always be "good for the economy", ignoring the troubling aspects of Muslim immigration. More pronounced is the fact that many members of the religious Right are even more skeptical of the secular Left than they are of Islam. Quite a few of them tend to view Islam as a potential ally against secularists, and want to cooperate with Muslims in a misguided attempt to revive "religious values" in their own societies. This line of thinking may be the Achilles heel of the Bush Administration.

As Hugh Fitzgerald says, the Faith-Based Initiative put forward by President Bush will turn out to be a fund for fate-based Muslims, a nice supplement to Saudi money, and will help support Islam in the USA. In other words, American taxpayers will be supporting a system that in every single one of its canonical texts inculcates hostility to infidels, and further mandates Jihad as a duty for all Muslims, in order to ensure that Islam comes to dominate the entire globe. At the same time, rumor has it that individuals associated with the Bush administration think that people such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina are "no longer in the game", since they have abandoned Islam completely and are not religious. This is a serious miscalculation, and yet another indication that the Bush administration has no idea what they are doing regarding Islam.
Muslim immigration to the West has enabled groups of Jihadis to use modern technology against Western society itself. Less talked about is the fact that it has also created the first, organized international groups of dissidents challenging the very foundations of Islamic teachings. Nobody has ever before published a book similar to "Leaving Islam", the anthology of testimonies by ex-Muslims edited by Ibn Warraq. And only with the advent of the Internet did it become possible for Ali Sina to make a movement such as Faith Freedom International, exposing the intolerance of Islam in real time, with people from all over the world being able to read it. It is highly unlikely that Islam can be reformed, but if it should, then a litmus test of real change would be whether Muslims could freely leave Islam. Ex-Muslims thus hold the key to one of the most important questions of our age. It is gross negligence of Western leaders to overlook this, but spend hundreds of billions of dollars on propping up what could become an Islamic state in Iraq.

Religious groups claim that only religion gives people the backbone and moral clarity needed to stand up to Islam. There may be some truth in this, as Europe managed to stop and even scale back Islamic aggression in days when it took its religion seriously. Indeed, today's post-Christian Europe does appear weaker. But again, reality is not always as simple as this. Who has more moral clarity: Atheists such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, who risk their lives every day by challenging Islam, or the late Pope John Paul, kissing the Koran? The biggest weakness of the West right now is our inclination to blame ourselves for whatever happens, and for reaching out to "win the hearts and minds" of people who profess to want to kill us and destroy our civilization. Isn't guilt, the idea of being a sinner, paying for your sins and asking for forgiveness, a deeply Christian concept? Guilt is no stranger to Jewish thinking, either. This obsession with blaming ourselves does not have to be in opposition to religion and need not be cured by it. Some would even claim that it is a quintessentially Christian or Judeo-Christian concept. The idea of compassion, of personal responsibility, sets Christianity apart from Islam, and makes it infinitely superior to it. Non-religious people should take heed of this. The notion of reaching out to your enemies is usually a positive one, but can in an Islamic context also make some Christians perfect dhimmi material.

The West is mired in a cultural war by proxy, where the secular Left and the religious Right battle it out, using Islam as a tool to defeat the other. But Islam is not a tool, and has no master other than Allah and his Prophet. Any "alliances" non-Muslims make with Muslims are only temporary, until Muslims feel confident enough to do without them. It doesn't matter whether you define the West primarily in religious or non-religious terms. Islam is an enemy of both, and will strive relentlessly to subdue them both. At least Christians and Jews are allowed to live in an Islamic state. Non-religious people have only the choice between conversion to Islam or death.

We can't begin to do anything, until we in the West come together in agreement about basic principles concerning the value of Western Civilization. Until this is done, we will not be able to recognize and fight the danger of Islam. The most interesting and promising development is the alliance between non-religious persons such as Ali Sina and devout religious persons such as Robert Spencer. This is where the dynamic heart of the Islam-critical movement is today. And if the Bush administration were smart, they would support them in every way they can, including financially. Italian writer Oriana Fallaci has labeled herself a "Catholic Atheist". Not a believer herself, but still deeply attached to the religious heritage that makes up an important part of her culture. Maybe the end definition of the West will be a society similar to what the USA is today: Secular by form, but religious by nature.

Wolfgang Bruno is a European author. He is writing a book about the Internet movement of ex-Muslims. All of Bruno's essays can be republished and reproduced for free by anybody who wants to, as long as credit is given to the author.

Posted by Robert at October 4, 2005 7:13 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

That link to the ACLU that says that “praying in public school is okay for Muslims” includes this paragraph:

Her family contacted a Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asked the school district to reconsider. Eventually, the district acknowledged it had no policy preventing a student from praying on his or her own during free time, and allowed Yasmeen to use an empty classroom to unfurl her prayer rug, face Mecca and touch her head to the floor in a few moments of worship.

That’s right: the school district had no policy preventing a student from praying on his or her own, and during free time, and in an empty class room. Not just “a Muslim student” but “a student.” That means that Christians can pray on their own, during free time, in empty classrooms.

Contrast this with what the ACLU actually does fight: forcing children to engage in/listen to the religious propaganda of others a la “morning prayers”, “commencement prayers” and football “pre-game prayers”.

So I think this shows that the nasty characterization of the ACLU is unfounded. There was no involvement of the ACLU in the case cited, only CAIR. And Wolfgang Bruno is lying when he says that the ACLU makes sure that prayer is just fine for Muslims while banned for everybody else. As it turns out, anyone can pray on his or her own, during free time, in empty classrooms. Please, don’t take my word for it. Click on the link in the article and go read the original yourself.

But then again, why bother with facts when perceptions are much stronger than truth?

*************************************************************

The Western Left has a clear goal: The destruction of the society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Their bets are now on Islam.

This is a shameful and pathetic new low. We never wanted to see the whole world modeled on the USSR, and even a devoted liberal hater like Bruno should know that.

I have been a left-wing liberal my whole life, and never once have I heard a liberal say anything nice about the Soviet Union. If I did, I’d tell the offender to go read “Gulag Archipelago” by Solzhenitsyn. Or “The Long Walk” by Rawicz. Hell, I tell people to read these books anyway.

[Please spare me the links to some fringe web site. They don't represent the Left any more than the far-right militias and skinheads represent the mainstream Right]

"Our dreams" weren't vanquished 15 years ago, but the jihadis' wildest dreams did come true 15 years ago. Whether the Left was enamoured with the USSR and whether "our dreams were vanquished 15 years ago" is a moot point. It's just more of the age-old "accuse them so we don't get blamed" blather.

WHO was funding the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and WHO was fighting them?

Are we safer now that our Big Enemy isn't afraid of dying for his cause? We can say what we like about the Commies, but at least they weren't suicidal. They finally gave up the Cold War, for the betterment of their future and so their children could have better lives... can we imagine that the Muslims will soon do the same?

Even at the border between North and South Korea, there is a neutral-ground meeting room where the two sides can discuss diplomatic things. Can anyone here even imagine Hamas or Iran holding serious diplomatic negotiations with Israel?

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, "M.A.D" as it was, WORKED. The Commies didn't nuke us becuase they knew that WE would nuke them. And they told their people that the US wasn't nuking them because they would nuke us. Whichever side was right, it worked for almost fifty years, until the threat ran it's course.

Does anyone think that Jihadis will hesitate for one second to nuke us just as soon as they can?

The day will come when we will "miss" our old Soviet nemesis, if it hasn't already. Rejoice, Red baiters! Did up J. Edgar Hoover and tell "her" the good news. You won the cold war! We beat the Soviets in Afghanistan! And guess how Afghanistan repaid us for Reagan's largesse?

How did Iran become an Islamic Republic? Because "we" funded, backed, and empowered the Shah... after he lost an election, we helped him stage a coup....this is the same Shah that sh*t on his people and ignored the rising ire of the Mullahs. Why did we back him? Because as long as we backed him, he wouldn't allow communism to get a foothold in Iran (too bad he didn't; anything would be better than what they haven now.)

Why did "we" turn a blind eye toward the growing religious laws in Pakistan all through the 80s? And why did we pooh-pooh their attaining nukes and sabre-rattling with India? Because Pakistan "let us" fund the jihadis of Afghanistan and served as a way station for aid, money, and ammo.

And--(horrors! Don't forget!) India has three COMMUNIST states. (But without them, leather would cost twice as much, as Bengal and Kerala are pretty-much the only places that allow cow slaughter and leather production, so don't get too riled up.) But in both, as well as in Tripura, Communism was VOTED in... "freedom on the march", anyone?

So come all ye faithful haters of Muslims and liberals! Unite the two factions, and your hate will be so much funner! And just see how you actually drive some weak-minded left-wingers into Islam's poisonous embrace.

********************************************

Please, this isn't rhetoric; I want someone here to answer this. Tell me how any Muslim nation is better than any Communist nation. Tell me how Cuba is worse than Saudi, how Vietnam is worse than Iran, how China is worse than Pakistan. Please, I want to believe. I want to believe that "we" did the right thing when we funded the Muslims and fought the Commies. I served in the United States Marine Corps for four years under President Reagan, and I want to believe that I did something noble.

Did we do the right thing when we abandonned Lebannon and left it for Hamas, Syria, and Iran?

Was it worth it when we sold Stinger Missiles to Iran--even after they killed 241 US Marines--to fund the anti-Commie wars of Central America?

Were we correct to fund the mujahadin of Afghanistan and ignore the radicalization of Pakistan, only because they were fighting the USSR?

Were we right to "let" Islamic Fundamentalism take over Iran, after fighting for so long to keep communism out?

Are we better off now with Islam as the nemesis than we were with the Soviets?

You can tell me the truth... if you can't bring yourself to criticize Reagan, you can always blame the democrats that ran congress.

******************************************

And if Communism is so bad, why are we so enamoured with China? Remmeber the Spy plane incident, the one that ended with the apolgy?

Please don't criticize China too much. We'll need them on our side in a few years when World War Three (Civilization vs. Islam) breaks out.

********************************************

Hugh Fitzgerald says, the Faith-Based Initiative put forward by President Bush will turn out to be a fund for fate-based Muslims, a nice supplement to Saudi money, and will help support Islam in the USA. In other words, American taxpayers will be supporting a system that in every single one of its canonical texts inculcates hostility to infidels, and further mandates Jihad as a duty for all Muslims, in order to ensure that Islam comes to dominate the entire globe

Nice. Can we blame the ACLU for this too?

*******************************************

fanorollins@yahoo.com

Posted by: kj

at October 4, 2005 8:15 AM

... and kj won't see it coming until the leaders he believes in shove it down his throat.

Now, back to work... see you all next week!

Posted by: Gary

at October 4, 2005 8:31 AM

I'm really glad that you come here KJ.

Posted by: Voltaire

at October 4, 2005 8:45 AM

Perceptions about the ACLU aside (and yes, the ACLU has been responsible for much that is good, and yes, the ACLU has been responsible for much that is evil), the "goal" of Western civilization should simply be this:

Improve the planet, this world. Improve our survivability.

Take a few minutes daily to reflect on what you're doing and why. Think about where our civilization is going. We are - and there is no doubt - ruining the world we unfortunately happen to live in. We waste more energy, eat more (at higher caloric rates) and take more land up for nonsensical usage. Minimize your impact. Think about how government can or should be manipulated to make sure the species stays alive. And think about it: it may not matter now too much, but in 20 or 50 or 100 years, it's sure as hell going to matter to your descendants. Ask yourself why global temperatures are going up - and don't kid yourself, they are - and just how much longer we've got if we don't change. If we don't do something a bit more radical and probably pretty damn soon, it might get done for us. If you don't care - well, why are you even having kids? They're not going to make it, or about 95% of them aren't anyway. What's the point?

Or, put another way, don't shit where you live.

so sayeth

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Posted by: Geoff

at October 4, 2005 9:45 AM

Whiny left wing evangelical liberals make the same grating noise whether they are American, British, French, Eskimo......

What were we supposed to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in your left wing liberal opinion?

Give them a free ride?

Move our troops in to engage?

Go to DEFCOM 2?

We did the only thing we could - fund the resistance, any resistance, stop the Communists in their tracks right there right then by the only means available.

This applies to all the stories you can dream up - Iran, Pakistan....

Events, dear boy, World events that needed a response - inspite of the future dangers & allegiances they may have, or not have thrown up.

Please give me your insight into how we should have responded to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I am genuinely interested as quite a few lefty types here make the same noises as you - yet when challenged they have no coherent alternative to what actually transpired in the face of Soviet aggression.

China? Communist? Obviously you have not been there in the last ten years. Whatever China is today, Communist it certainly is not - take it from someone who actually has dealings there
- they are devising & forming a more cut throat version of capitalism than even Arkwright could have dreamt up.

As for China fighting alongside us in any war - dream on. The enemy would have to come from outer space for them to even consider it. The damage done at home in their domestic market to the leadership for siding with the West against anyone would be unbearable.

It seems so easy for Western left wing liberals to criticise the Government of any day in any time when they do actually take some sort of action.

Spouting on about left wing liberal principles is easy when the defence of the realm is not at stake & not in your hands, & you have the benefit of hindsight, 20 - 30 years after specific events. Its what the liberal left do best, being right after the fact.

I have read your posts here & feel that you are much more interested in challenging established contributors here & convincing us of your true Western left wing liberal intellectual credentials than actually contributing anything worthwhile that we can use in the "common cause".

You have me convinced.

Posted by: albion

at October 4, 2005 10:33 AM

Albion,

"You have me convinced."

Ditto here.

thomas h.

Posted by: thomas. h

at October 4, 2005 11:44 AM

To kj:

I may be something of a pedant, but you seem to have misunderstood the link above regarding the ACLU.

You wrote:

"... the school district had no policy preventing a student from praying on his or her own, and during free time, and in an empty class room."

Actually, the link article did not state this at all.

What the link article did state was that:

"the district acknowledged it had no policy preventing a student from praying on his or her own during free time."

The district did not, at any stage, assert that it had no policy preventing a student from using an empty classroom to pray on his or her own during free time.

You then continued:

"Not just “a Muslim student” but “a student.” That means that Christians can pray on their own, during free time, in empty classrooms."

Your conclusion that "anyone can pray on his or her own, during free time, in empty classrooms" is not, in my view, supported by anything contained in the link article, which dealt with one specific instance of Muslim prayer.

The school district concerned does not appear to have made any such announcement.

I opine that the point that Wolfgang Bruno is making is that the ACLU would be dead against a public school classroom being used for prayer by a Christian student in their free time, either alone or in company with others.

I am neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States of America. As such, I am not in a position to comment as to whether the point that I suppose Mr Bruno to be making is a valid one.

Finally, for what it is worth, I believe that your criticism about the "nasty characterization of the ACLU" is not without foundation.

You are correct when you point out that there was no involvement of the ACLU in the case cited (at least none was evident from the link article).

Further, Mr Bruno did not refer to any article or link that provides examples of where the ACLU have actively gone in to bat for Islamic prayer in public schools in the USA.

Again, I am ignorant as to whether or not such cases exist.

Posted by: Anthony

at October 4, 2005 12:23 PM

"Maybe the end definition of the West will be a society similar to what the USA is today: Secular by form, but religious by nature."

This has been the implicit definition of the Judaeo-Christian West all along, based on the words of Christ to render under Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God. And it has become its explicit definition, after many centuries of intellectual debate, social turmoil, legal evolution, political struggles, and religious violence.

But Wolfgang's implication is correct: the secularist pendulum has swung a tad too far in one direction, or has been artificially pushed too far in one direction, and the center of its moral compass needs to be relocated as that which defines its latitudes and adventures of freedom. There is the danger that the vacuum of that center's absence can be filled by other centers (Fascism, Communism, various Gnostic Utopianisms, or... the Absolute Truth and Justice of Islam...)

Posted by: Dr. Pepper

at October 4, 2005 12:39 PM

kj - Although I hate "to feed a troll," I must ask: Do you know what kind of anarchy will be created if hundreds of students demand to leave the classroom to pray at various times of the day or even one time? Empty classrooms? Few schools have them and free time is almost non-existent as today's curricula includes so many mandated programs that must be squeezed into the school day that few have time even to use the restroom or to eat lunch. For accountability purposes, students must be supervised and the number of instructional minutes must be documented. When in the school day are students (or teachers) to find this "free time?"

There is none unless the student wants to give up restroom time, or the 15-minute lunch break. Of course, this will become an additional expense and an extra burden for the school sytem as, by law and common sense, the students must be supervised by school personnel.

Posted by: epg

at October 4, 2005 1:24 PM

Hey, it's not me that says that students should pray in school. It's the GOPers. Of course, they mean only Christians. If it was up to me, there'd be NO mention in favor of any religion in public schools, especially the so-called "religion of peace."*

For the same reason, I'm not going to "demand" or even "request" that science be taught in privately-funded churches/mosques/temples/synagogues /whathaveyous.

That's what christians and muslims just don't get.... NO ONE cares about how you pray in private... just keep your fairytale fantasies away from the rest of us: preach at church and learn at school. That's because YOU and your fellows pay for your school whereas WE ALL have to pay for the school.... and here's an IDEA: have your church start a school, then you can pay for that and you can teach whatever craziness you want. Of course, with the Vacation King in the Whitehouse, taxpayers are being forced to pay for religimous sh*tschool too, but that's a fairly recent development.

If the district in question wants to, they can amend the rules to say that no child may pray (out loud) at school. Of course, they won't because Muslims whine and play the victim at every opportunity. They demand that schools change the dress code so that teenage and every prepubescent girls can hide the "shame" of their beauty (long hair, etc.) under the ridiculous hijab and robes. And the schools capitulate every time... even in such "conservative" areas as Alaska, Idaho, and Oklahoma.

You explain that to me, will you? The ACLU has such a strong pull that they can "make" them accept Islam in the hinterlands of America, with a Red Whitehouse, Red House, Red Senate, Red Court system, Red Supreme Court, and Red Media, but the powerful Christians can't make them accept Christianity? Okay. Maybe in Bizarro World that makes perfect sense. Do you have any idea how Right-wing and Christian these areas are?

The ACLU can “make” them accept Islam and “make” them reject Christianity? It’s your goddammed namby –pamby schools that are taking stories about pigs out of their textbooks, mate. Not us.

******************************************

What really caught my eye above was the outright lies about the ACLU. The ACLU works to ensure that the civil rights of people in America are not violated by--for instance--making children subject to unwanted, unrequested religious propaganda. But the bible thumpers think that everyone that isn't a believer NEEDS to be converted and/or reminded of their second-class status.

Every school has a "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" or somesuch Christian club. They meet at school, pray at school, etc. But they can't make every student listen to prayer.

That's why they don't have prayers at football games. Having prayers at public-school sports events would FORCE people that don't believe to listen to prayers directed to a god in whom they don't believe, a god that hates THEM for not believing.

Just imagine if there was a civil liberties organization in Iraq, the Christians, Yezidi, non-believers, atheists, etc. would be safe.

Some people seem to get their jollies by constantly deriding the ACLU as some kind of whacky, communist organization that hates America, hates Christians, hates Christianity, etc. So they just throw out lies like "In the USA, the ACLU makes sure that prayer in public schools is just fine for Muslims, but banned for everybody else." That is a lie, plain and simple. The ACLU "makes sure" that students aren't subjected to unwanted proselytizing.

The Muslim girl cited above was given permission to pray privately, in an unused classroom, and only during her free time. The article clearly states that there was no rule forbidding private prayer (sorry for the mischaracterization Anthony, please do be pedantic with me; I want to be correct) and therefore the authorities let the poor thing pray during her free time and in an unused classroom.

So what is the answer for my fellow anti-jihadis? Should the school district pass a rule that forbids private prayer in school? Should they allow prayer, but not Muslim prayer? Should they allow prayer, but only Christian prayer?

*--According to President Bush
******************************************************************
Whiny left wing evangelical liberals make the same grating noise whether they are American, British, French, Eskimo......

Whiny right wing evangelical liberals make the same grating noise whether they are American, British, Nazi, Shi’ite.....

I cannot speak for the ACLU, being English, but no doubt our own Liberty & Amnesia International are the Anglo versions on this side of the pond, & from what I have read of them they are made of the same smelly stuff.
England will be under Sharia within twenty years, so get back to me when you get to Ellis Island.

What were we supposed to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in your left wing liberal opinion?

Apparently, the correct thing would have been to left Brezhnev have Kabul. That way the Taliban wouldn’t have risen up and given Bin Laden safe refuge while he planned the destruction of the WTC.

We did the only thing we could - fund the resistance, any resistance, stop the Communists in their tracks right there right then by the only means available.

So we HAD to stand by while Pakistan developed nukes and gave concession after concession to the madrassas and Mullahs? We had to pay Pakistan to LET US fund the mujahadin?

This applies to all the stories you can dream up - Iran, Pakistan....

So I’m dreaming about Iran, Pakistan….? I guess I was dreaming about Lebanon too? There was no massacre of US Marines in Beirut? And we didn’t turn tale and run? And we didn’t sell Stingers to the terrorists to pay for fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Guatemala?

Events, dear boy, World events that needed a response - inspite of the future dangers & allegiances they may have, or not have thrown up.

That’s bull and most people know it. Why did the Soviet invasion of a backwater hellhole “need a response”? Did our “response” to the Communism-ization of Vietnam work out in our favor too? How about our “response” to the Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia? How many trillions of dollars have we spent keeping the Commies out of North Korea?

Like I said before…. Let Brezhnev have Afghanistan… that way, by now they’d be about as much a threat as Ukrainia or Uzbekistan. After the commies took Afghanistan, maybe they would have taken Iran next.

China? Communist? Obviously you have not been there in the last ten years. Whatever China is today, Communist it certainly is not - take it from someone who actually has dealings there- they are devising & forming a more cut throat version of capitalism than even Arkwright could have dreamt up.

I’ve never been there. Well, I’m just going by what Rush said… they were evil Chi-coms when Clinton ordered Wen Ho Lee to sell them all of our nuke-you-ler secrets. I agree that capitalism is the wave of the future for China. But not democracy.

As for China fighting alongside us in any war - dream on. The enemy would have to come from outer space for them to even consider it.

Does the big black meteorite in Mecca count?

The damage done at home in their domestic market to the leadership for siding with the West against anyone would be unbearable.

Something tells me that they would also give strong consideration to what would happen to their import markets, especially the one that revolves around Walmart….

It seems so easy for Western left wing liberals to criticise the Government of any day in any time when they do actually take some sort of action.

Yeah, I’m soooo ashamed to be a left-wing liberal. God© knows that right-wing conservatives have never criticized the Government.

At least we are RIGHT after the fact… it’s your side that says America shouldn’t have gone to war with Hitler, that FDR set us up for the Pearl Harbor attack, that we shouldn’t have “let” Stalin have the Baltic states, that the Marshall Plan was a bad idea, that hippies cost us the war in Vietnam, that Kerry was wrong and we should have kept fighting, that helping the Mujahadin of Afghanistan was noble, that we did right by rushing to defend the Saudi Royal Terrorist Leaders in ’91, that Clinton should have bombed Iraq after the USS Cole, and that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam tried to by yellowcake—no, wait, because he ignored the United Nothing—no wait, because he needed to be disarmed—no wait, because it’s better to fight them there than here—no wait, because the Shi’ites deserve another country.

I am so glad that you are in touch with your feelings.

You have me convinced.

Too bad Robert Spencer isn’t convinced. Your opinion and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (who are under boycott by me because they are “too good” to do business in Israel.)

This isn’t Right-wing haters of Liberalism and Islam, matey. This is Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch.

Posted by: kj

at October 4, 2005 2:43 PM

As always, we (most, myself very Much included) don't hate liberals.

But we do protect you from your enemies.

At least until your leaders start looking like the people we've already beaten once, 60 years ago.....

Posted by: Gary

at October 4, 2005 4:10 PM

O/T Re: aclu

Defenders of nambla
that's the north american man/boy love association
(spit, spit).

The aclu seems to lean to pedophiles. Or is that bend over?

Posted by: the poetess

at October 4, 2005 5:37 PM

Poetess:

You may want to check frontpagemag.com for an item posted in the last month or so about the origins of the ACLU. Apparently, even in its founding years, it was also about what might be described as "free love" in the sense of married persons being free to be as adulterous as they wished. I think it was a Jamie Glazov interview, just can't remember who he was interviewing. You should be able to find it in the Archives without too much difficulty.

Posted by: waterdragon52

at October 4, 2005 6:00 PM

kj seems to see it as a zero-sum game...either the commies were bad or the Muslims. I submit that both Cuba AND Iran are social monstrosities, only extent being the difference.

Let us all remember that while the Soviets fought the Muslims in Afghanistan, they supported them against Israel. The Soviets and their satallites were the prime facilitators of Palestinian terrorism in the 70s and 80s. No one should mourn the passing of the Soviet empire.

The protacted warfare in Afghanistan and Angola - the "Reagan doctrine" in action - was an indispensible factor in bringing about the Soviet collapse...(and the economic rot notwithstanding, it was a political volcano - the August '91 coup, that spelled the end of empire).

I've thought long and hard about the ethics and strategic utility of our support for the Afghan Muhajadin. It could have been handled differently; we could have arm-twisted the Pakistanis into letting us decide which faction got what, instead of conceeding that prerogative to them. Even then, the country could still have disintegrated into the post-Najibullah fratricide.

But to have looked the other way while the Soviets invaded, brutalized and virtually annexed a neighboring country...one that never threatened them in any way...to have pretended not to know as they super-imposed the "social revoltion" (read: KGB-KHAD police state) on a tribal populace...as they poisoned water wells and shelled rural villages in order to empty the countryside (migratory genocide) and destroy the social base of the resistance. No, this was not an option from either a moral or strategic standpoint.

No one could have forseen the collapse of the Soviet Union (certainly not the experts); it wasn't a historical certainty. Had Reagan not challenged the Soviets via the arms build-up and his support for 'national liberation movements,' the history of the 80s could have played out very differently. The tribute the Soviets were extracting from Western (mainly German) financial institutions could have kept them afloat indefinitely.

But to have looked away as the Soviets raped Afghanistan would have rendered us culpable. History would have bitten us in the ass one way or the other. At least this way, a threatening super-power with imperial ambitions and a totalitarian essence has been effectively vanquished.

Imagine the war against Islamism with the Soviets still around to complicate things.

Case closed.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 4, 2005 6:51 PM

In the USA, the ACLU makes sure that prayer in public schools is just fine for Muslims, but banned for everybody else.

The ACLU has never tried to stop students using their free time how they see fit. They only oppose prayers that have official sanction.

Posted by: Viking5

at October 4, 2005 8:11 PM

ACLU = The Anti-Christian Libertine Union!

Posted by: jovan66102

at October 5, 2005 2:27 AM

The ACLU refused to challenge California's egregious violation of the separation of church and state when the school system unvieled middle school books that had students practice Muslim prayer, take a Muslim name, wear Muslim clothes and make a game based upon greater jihad.

I'd like to read a response from Viking and kj regarding this issue lest your respective credibilities disappear entirely. How do you account for this bizarre reluctance on the part of the ACLU to fight to maintain the hollowed fire-wall separating church and state? Would the organization have behaved similarly if it was Christianity that was being so obviously prosletyzed?

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 7:45 AM

kj: "This isn’t Right-wing haters of Liberalism and Islam, matey. This is Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch."

Liberalism has become a form of dhimmitude.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 7:47 AM

Good show, Cornelius. I like how you argue.

Now.... I hate to say it, but I keep thinking of another Cornelius whenever I see your name... he was a scientist... :P (hint: his wife's name was Zeera)

Posted by: Gary

at October 5, 2005 9:45 AM

Poetess chortles: The aclu seems to lean to pedophiles. Or is that bend over?

The ACLU defends the rights of people to have any idea and any discussion they wish. They regularly have defended "right-wing" extremists the likes of the KKK, Rush Limbaugh, and the NRA; so stop trying to make petty little gay insults part of your argument.

Waterdragon whines: You may want to check frontpagemag.com for an item posted in the last month or so about the origins of the ACLU.

Yes, get your information about the ACLU from frontpagemag.com... and learn about Christianity from the Atheists Union, and learn about the Holocaust from Mel Gibson, and learn about Global Warming from Rush Limbaugh, and learn about Islam from George W. Bush.

Apparently, even in its founding years, it was also about what might be described as "free love" in the sense of married persons being free to be as adulterous as they wished.

WHAT!?!? You mean the ACLU actually thought that grown up Americans should have sex with whom they wanted? Now that IS beyond the pale! It's the responsibility of the Government to patrol our bedrooms and bathhouses to make sure that only CHURCH-authorized sex takes place. Right? This is the conservative idea of what "less government" means I guess.

**********************************************

kj seems to see it as a zero-sum game...either the commies were bad or the Muslims. I submit that both Cuba AND Iran are social monstrosities, only extent being the difference.

No, what "seems" to be the truth to you isn't. The commies and the Mobots were bad. Remember, I suggested that you read "The Gulag Archipelago" and "The Long Walk"?

Iran is a social monstrosity and Islam is a humanitarian crisis. But the difference isn't only extent. The difference is the possibility for things to be made better, a la the USSR giving up the one-upmanship and nuclear brinkmanship...not only have they disbanded, but even at the height of the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, they backed down and chose reason over bluster.

China slouches ever closer to capitalism, whether they let democracy occur remains to be seen... but why should they? They already have MFN trading status with the rest of the world, and were even handed the Olympics.

Anyone who says that the people of Cuba are suffering more than the people of Haiti, most other Caribbean nations, pretty-much all of Africa, and all Muslims hellholes put the Z in crazy. Or they are the average man on the street in Miami. But I repeat myself.

Good point and no one mourns them, but we will eventually regret losing the enemy that care more about self-preservation than its dogma. Time will tell, but it seems to me that practically everyone in the know agrees that a nuclear strike against the West, by Jihadi terrorists, is inevitable. Maybe it won't be nukes; maybe it will be germs... or gas... or a virus. But it's going to be something big, something the Soviets never did because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

So why was there an option for us to run away from Lebanon as the Syrians, Iranians, PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah came in and destroyed the Christians? Answer: we didn't care, because the Mobots weren't commies, and "certain important people" thought that Islam was better than communism. So what if the backwater rednecks and bumpkins of Afghanistan became part of the USSR?... are they better off now, having repelled the Soviets, than the people of Lithuania, who capitulated?

I think that Lech Walensa's Solidarity movement in Poland had a lot to do with the collapse of Communism too. And you know what? We didn't do much to support them. And they haven't turned to Sharia either. And they didn’t shelter Al-qaeda either.

But to have looked away as the Soviets raped Afghanistan would have rendered us culpable.

More excuses for Reagan's "police the world" nation-building folly and the blowback from the Taliban... give it a rest, will you? Reagan made a mistake by helping Afghanistan, plain and simple. I don't have to love the commies to say that I prefer them to the Muslims.

But to have looked away as the Chinese raped Tibet would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Pinochet raped Chile would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Nicaragua raped the peasant farmers would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Pakistan raped Bangladesh would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Indonesia raped East Timor would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Pakistan raped Kashmir would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Milosevic raped Bosnia would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Turkey raped Armenia would have rendered us culpable.

But to have looked away as Syria raped Lebanon would have rendered us culpable.

History would have bitten us in the ass one way or the other. At least this way, a threatening super-power with imperial ambitions and a totalitarian essence has been effectively vanquished.

And what has filled it's shoes? Jihad. The DEW line, SDI, and "democracy in the Middle East" isn't going to stop Achmed when he shows up in DC, NYC, Dallas, etc. with his suitcase nuke.

Imagine the war against Islamism with the Soviets still around to complicate things.

It probably wouldn't have happened. I like the way you say "no one could have foreseen the collapse of the Soviet Union... it wasn't an historical certainty..." and then credit Reagan with it's collapse. If NO ONE could have foreseen it, then how did Reagan "foresee" it? Did Nancy's astrologer tell him, like she set other important national foreign policy? Or did Reagan take a gamble?

Case closed.

Not really. "Mind closed" would be more accurate.

Don't think that just because YOU can't imagine an alternative that nobody else can. BTW... the airwaves are abuzz with talk that "no one could have foreseen" that terrorists were going to use airplanes as missiles to attack important American landmarks... and that "no one could have foreseen" the collapse of social order in Iraq... and that "no one could have foreseen" the majority Shi'ites taking over and making Iraq another Iran... and that "no one could have foreseen" that Saddam's WMDs really weren't a threat... and soon the talk will be that "no one could have foreseen" civil war.

EXCEPT: that many people did foresee these problems. The FBI and CIA foresaw the attack on 9-11 and even issued a Presidential Daily Briefing on it. We have been warned from many sides that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster and that the BEST-CASE SCENARIO is one of Sharia and Iran clonery.

The case isn't closed... a one-sided debate with yourself wherein you think long and hard about ethics and utility may end with your conclusion, but it doesn’t end for anyone else, except for maybe Alan Colmes.

*************************************

Viking5 attempts to use reason: The ACLU has never tried to stop students using their free time how they see fit. They only oppose prayers that have official sanction.

It really is that simple. But the monkeys refuse to see. They HAVE TO BELIEVE that the ACLU is evil, just like they HAVE TO BELIEVE that Islam and liberalism are in lockstep to destroy America.

********************************************

Jovan proves me right: ACLU = The Anti-Christian Libertine Union!

Right on, man. Where do I sign?

********************************************

Cornelius comes back for more: The ACLU refused to challenge California's egregious violation of the separation of church and state when the school system unvieled middle school books that had students practice Muslim prayer, take a Muslim name, wear Muslim clothes and make a game based upon greater jihad.

Let's see the link, Corny.

I'd like to read a response from Viking and kj regarding this issue

So let's see the link. Let's get all the facts out in the open, lest this turn into another "The ACLU makes sure that prayer in public schools is just fine for Muslims, but banned for everybody else" lie.

...lest your respective credibilities disappear entirely.

Oh no! My credibility will disappear entirely! Now what do I do?

How do you account for this bizarre reluctance on the part of the ACLU to fight to maintain the hollowed fire-wall separating church and state?

Let's see the link, junior.

Would the organization have behaved similarly if it was Christianity that was being so obviously prosletyzed?

I hope like hell they wouldn't. But let's see the facts on the case and then form our opinions, shall we? It remains to be seen whether it was a "cultural" experience or a "preaching" experience. BTW... public schools most certainly do allow Christian preachers to come to school and preach....for students that voluntarily attend.

So let's just read up on your little accusation and see whether ALL students were FORCED to engage in Muslim "indoctrination" in a classroom setting as part of the curriculum.

I do look forward to your rational response. I want to read all about this case, and if it comes to pass that the ACLU is forcing non-Muslim kids to be preached to by Muslims, I will condemn the ACLU and take action with phone calls, letters, etc. I will stand corrected. So get me the link and let's see what this is all about.

The comments may get archived, so if you would like, you may email me at fanorollins@yahoo.com, and we can post our findings in more current comments areas as the facts shake out. I'm sure that Gary would love to see me eat crow and admit that the ACLU did a bad thing, right Gar?

***********************************************

Cornelius tries to further equivocate: Liberalism has become a form of dhimmitude.

No, it hasn't. Liberalism, as you and your ilk are fond of reminding me, reaches it's height with communism. Recall that the Commies never let the Mobots walk all over them.

One may find dhimmis and dhimmitude in all flavors of polictal beliefs: just consider the anti-Israeli spew vomited by Pat Buchannon, David Duke, and Ralph Nader (sure they're all republicans NOW, but Nader is still far-Left.)

Consider the efforts of right-wing republicans like James Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Bush, George W. Bush, Condi Rice, Grover Norquist, and the idiots at "more in common than you think" movement.

They are all completely enamoured either with Islam as a lifestyle or with the good, old-fashioned Saudi petro-dollar, but the end result is the same: pure, unadultered, dhimmitude and propaganda for Islam.

The latest scene in this tragicomedy just played yesterday: a court ruled that Bush MAY take our tax dollars and hand them to "faith-based" groups to provide social services that USED to fall under government purview.

The trouble with the bible thumpers is that they think that "faith-based" means "Christian" (actually that's what the Catholics think, the Protestants think it means "Protestant" but what they hell)... it doesn't. "Faith-based" means just that: based on faith as opposed to based on science and reason.

So the Scientologists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Hare Krishnas, the Mormons, the Branch Davidians, the Heaven's Gate Cult, the Moonies, the (fill in your most-despised cult here) will receive government funding to preach.

I now that there is a provision (for now) which requires that no govt. money go to preaching (nudge-nudge, wink-wink!) but what keeps some money in one pot and some in another? I.e., if the Moonies are given money with which to "counsel drug addicts" and they also raise money to preach, how can we be sure that the money doesn't just go to one general revenue fund that is drawn from by "preachers" and "counselors" alike? And when the preachers ARE the counselors, what the hell's the difference anyway?

The answer is: "There is no difference." And don't think that some of that money isn't going to be recycled back to the GOP so that they can get more power and give more tax-payer more to the faith-based morons.

Of course, most of you are saying "yeah.... and that's bad because?" since you like the GOP to take over. But you've forgotten one little part of the plan: Muslims are also considered adherents of "faith based" programs. So that means that, in a nutshell (please read carefully)

OUR TAX MONEY IS BEING HANDED TO MUSLIMS FOR DA’WA AND JIHAD.

**********************************************

Gary bolsters the case that Cornelius is wrong: Good show, Cornelius. I like how you argue.

He does do a much better job than most, Gary.

Posted by: kj

at October 5, 2005 11:40 AM

kj,

These are some of the links to the California Middle School story. You might note that none of them are from mainstream news sources. Some might consider that proof that the story has no credibility. Others who are conscious of liberal/left bias in the mainstream media would find it not the least bit surprising...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25997

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/135

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000412

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/922

KJ: "Anyone who says that the people of Cuba are suffering more than the people of Haiti, most other Caribbean nations, pretty-much all of Africa, and all Muslims hellholes put the Z in crazy."

CORNELIUS: Interesting logic here. First of all, please detail for me one Carribean country besides Haiti that is economically worse off than Cuba. Second, in what Carribean country - Haiti included, are human-rights workers, journalists and yes even librarians incarcerated on a regular basis? Third, I would suggest that Turkey for one is a more Democratic, enlightened society than Cuba: my proof is that Turkey has multiple political parties, a robust, independent press, a market economy, etc.,...all of which are lacking in Cuba. This is not to suggest for a minute that Turkey is the ideal for what a country should aspire to, just that it is not "worse off" than Cuba. .

KJ: "Good point and no one mourns them, but we will eventually regret losing the enemy that care more about self-preservation than its dogma."

CORNELIUS: The Soviets were facilitators of terrorism...aimed not just at the Israelis, but at the UK (through their covert assistance to the IRA), Spain (ETA), France (BNLF, CNLF, Direct Action), West Germany (RAF), and Italy (Red Brigades). I don't regret ANYTHING about the disappearance of the Soviet Union save for its ability to adaquately protect its nuclear stockpiles.

KJ: "Time will tell, but it seems to me that practically everyone in the know agrees that a nuclear strike against the West, by Jihadi terrorists, is inevitable. Maybe it won't be nukes; maybe it will be germs... or gas... or a virus. But it's going to be something big, something the Soviets never did because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction."

CORNELIUS: This argument is superfluous. The Islamic threat exists, I concur. Thank God the Soviet threat no longer does.

KJ: "So what if the backwater rednecks and bumpkins of Afghanistan became part of the USSR?"

CORNELIUS: What contempt you show for these people. The rape of their land means nothing to you. No comment on the migratory genocide which produced 6 million refugees; the killing of over 1 million Afghanis, the overwhelming majority of whom were non-combatants, the torture chambers of KHAD operating 24-7.

And the amazing thing is, until the "social revolution" was super-imposed by Moscow in April '78, Afghanistan was relatively stable with a fairly progressive (by today's standards) government ruling in Kabul. If the Afghan's had just been left alone to their own devices, there might never have been a Mujahideen or Taliban. But Soviet imperial lust precluded that possibility. Too bad you can't see as much.

Then you proceed to go on this wild goose chase about other political/military phenomenon occuring throughout the world during the post-war period. How lame that you would take a policy objective and - in order to render it validity (or the reverse) - insist upon its application to all circumstances at all times. Chile's repressive dictatorship was as internal matter, not a foreign invasion. The Turkish rape of Armenia was well before the US had assumed global responsibilities. Most of the others had no direct bearing on US national security. But none of this matters to you kj.

KJ: "It probably wouldn't have happened."

CORNELIUS: Here we have the apogee of denial; KJ is suggesting that had the Soviet empire survived, there would be no contemporary Islamist movement (or its militaty corallary, jihad). The fact that Iran had undergone its Islamic revolution in '79 (before Afghanistan), that the conservative tide in the Muslim world began in the early 70s, that Soviet imperial ambitions in Afghanistan were itself a principle catalyst for jihadism, none of this matters in kj's universe. Perhaps because he is wedded to the Noam Chompski school of blaming America for the world's ills.

The revival of Islam was an historical inevitability linked to the de-colonization of the Muslim world. The fissures and contradictions exposed modernity...along with the clout and patronage of oil-rich, fundamentalists in the Persian Gulf eccelerated the re-assertion of religiosity (and thus, jihad) within Dar ul Islam.

Europe would be facing its Muslim demographic timebomb and the world its jihad-nightmare today whether the Soviets still existed or not...and if you believe otherwise...well, I'll leave that to our readers to interpret.

KJ: "I like the way you say "no one could have foreseen the collapse of the Soviet Union... it wasn't an historical certainty..." and then credit Reagan with it's collapse."

CORNELIUS: I do indeed. Reagan's defense build-up negated the ability of the Soviets to use diplomatic/military pressure to bully the world into a state of acquiesence. His support for insurgencies in Afghanistan and Angola exhausted the Soviets on a parrallel level. In short, had it not been for Reagan, it might be a very different world today (a world whose passing you apparently lament the passing of).

KJ: "If NO ONE could have foreseen it, then how did Reagan "foresee" it? Did Nancy's astrologer tell him, like she set other important national foreign policy? Or did Reagan take a gamble?"

CORNELIUS: Reagan was a visionary. Had a more timid government been in power in the 80s (Carter/Mondale), there is every chance the Soviets might have avoided the existential crises that ensued.

You proceed with a rant about the ability to forsee 9-11 and the problems in Iraq. What that has to do with the Soviet demise, I'm not sure of.

KJ: "I do look forward to your rational response. I want to read all about this case, and if it comes to pass that the ACLU is forcing non-Muslim kids to be preached to by Muslims, I will condemn the ACLU and take action with phone calls, letters, etc. I will stand corrected. So get me the link and let's see what this is all about."

CORNELIUS: Refer to links above. Let's see if you're man enough to keep your word.

KJ: "One may find dhimmis and dhimmitude in all flavors of polictal beliefs: just consider the anti-Israeli spew vomited by Pat Buchannon, David Duke, and Ralph Nader (sure they're all republicans NOW, but Nader is still far-Left.)"

CORNELIUS: This is certainly true. But it is only the liberal/left that has engineered and nourished the social construct from which dhimmitude flourishes: multiculturalism/political-correctness.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 4:12 PM

Corrections:

"The fissures and contradictions exposed BY modernity..."

"(a world whose passing you apparently lament)"

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 4:27 PM

Hi Cornelius,

The WND piece reports that children are made to repeat Muslim prayers. This crosses a line for me, and I understand the parents' anger. This is not an insult to Muslims, I'm sure they wouldn't want their kids saying Christian prayers. It's good to learn about Islam but kids shouldn't be made to practice it.

However, the hysterics are evident in this statement "We can't even mention the name of Jesus in the public schools". This is a conservative mantra, but Jesus is no more banned from religious studies classes than Mohammed or Buddha. He can't be invoked as a Saviour in a school, but he can be studied as a historical and religious figure, just like any other.

As I've said above, I don't think it's wrong for kids to learn about any religion, but saying prayers goes too far. I don't know if any of the outraged parents called the ACLU to ask for their help, and if so, what response they got. And I don't know how they would react if Christians got the same treatment.

This is something of a diversion from what I originally said. I'm not going to claim that the ACLU is unbiased. But I stand by my original statement: the ACLU has never filed a lawsuit to stop Christian students praying by themselves in their own time on school property.

But while we're on the subject, there are some cases in which the ACLU has defended Christians in school. See for example

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159

The ACLU went to bat to allow students to wear anti-abortion t-shirts and to distribute Christian literature on school grounds. So maybe we could tone down the great-Satan ACLU talk just a bit.

Posted by: Viking5

at October 5, 2005 6:08 PM

Viking, the ACLU abstained from participating in a lawsuit against the California middle-school curriculum. Doesn't that speak volumes to you?

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 6:16 PM

Here is the ACLU policy on religion in schools:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9007&c=139

It certainly does seem that this case is out of line with their stated policy, and that is disturbing.

Posted by: Viking5

at October 5, 2005 8:11 PM

I appreciate the acknowledgement Viking. It will be interesting to see if kj is similarly forthcoming.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 5, 2005 10:53 PM

You open your rebuttal with a cheap shot at the “liberal” “mainstream media”:

Others who are conscious of liberal/left bias in the mainstream media would find it not the least bit surprising...

You mean the left-wing bias in the Washington Times, FOX news, and the Wall Street Journal? Did THEY print this story? Or are they “left-wing”?

It’s all about the money. Follow the money. FOX news recently sold ten percent of itself to the bastard that told Guiliani that America was to blame for 9-11 because of our “foreign policy”… obviously he meant our policy with Israel, since this is the only facet of our foreign policy that makes jihadis see red. So while they may not become more “left-wing” it should be obvious that they will become more pro-Islam.

First of all, please detail for me one Carribean country besides Haiti that is economically worse off than Cuba.

It depends on what you mean by “economically worse off than Cuba”…. If you want facts on the matter instead of appeal to emotional perceptions, get your facts where I (and George Bush Sr.) do, form the CIA:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/index.html

Compare the infant mortality rate, the life expectancy, the percentage of people with HIV/AIDS, the literacy rate (be careful…. “literacy rate” in Cuba is defined as “percentage that can read and write” while “literacy rate” in the other Caribbean nations I checked was defined as “percent over age 15 that have attended school.” Even still, Cuba blew most of them away.) I checked St. Vincent, Dominican Republic, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Lucia.

Nice try, but the “communist dictatorship” of Cuba does a better job of governing that the free-market democracies of many other Caribbean nations… and without the benefit of American tourism. Fellow JW/DW enthusiasts that are as old as me may recall the “glory days” of Havana tourism as alluded to on “I Love Lucy.”

What changed? Why don't tourists keep going to Havana? Because Cuba went communist. Meanwhile, just look at the tourism industry in Hong Kong. What a bunch of hypocrites. No, I never said or thought that Castro was an angel. But China has killed, oppressed, executed, and imprisoned way, waaaay more people than Cuba.

While the GDP per person was less in Cuba that some (but not all; I won't quote because I want you to visit the CIA factbook site and read it for yourself) of the other nations I list, check the major industries under the Economy listings….tourism is not even mentioned for Cuba. If it was…. if Americans were allowed to vacation in Cuba… probably Cuba would be wealthier (per capita) than America, it would definitely be wealthier that Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Kentucky.

Second, in what Carribean country - Haiti included, are human-rights workers, journalists and yes even librarians incarcerated on a regular basis?

It’s Caribbean. Let’s see the links. Where in Cuba are people starving? We in Cuba are children unable to “afford” to attend school?

Third, I would suggest that Turkey for one is a more Democratic, enlightened society than Cuba: my proof is that Turkey has multiple political parties, a robust, independent press, a market economy, etc.,...all of which are lacking in Cuba. This is not to suggest for a minute that Turkey is the ideal for what a country should aspire to, just that it is not "worse off" than Cuba. .

And (as has been mentioned many times by the staff of this site) Turkey is slowly, inevitably, turning to Jihad. Was “Mein Kampf” on the Cuban bestseller list recently? Did Cuba massacre a million Armenians? Is Cuba being infiltrated by Jihadis? Is Cuba shitting on its Jews and its Kurds? Is Cuba demanding entry into the EU?

Now you have cherry picked you responses. Let’s compare Saudi Arabia to China or Iran to Vietnam. Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim nations “were better off economically”… but where would YOU rather live?

[I don’t have time to answer all of the rejoinders, so let’s just cut to the ACLU issue. I will answer the rest of the letter next week.]

Okay, here we go.

First of all, none of the links above cite any statement by the ACLU, in fact several of them don't even mention the ACLU. And the links that did mention the ACLU didn't mention anything in particular, just the same old "Can you imagine what the ACLU would do if they were baptizing Muslim kids?” etc. etc. (You can verify this yourself on any webpage by clicking the "edit" button on your task bar and clicking "find (on this page)" and then typing in ‘ACLU’ or whatever else you wish to search for.)

One is left to assume that the ACLU is held in contempt because of something they DIDN'T do. Of course we could compile lists of people and organizations with millions of entries if we wanted to mention those that didn't do something.

For example, how often does Arnold Shwartznegger say anything about Islam? How often did Benjamin Franklin say anything about Islam? How often does Dan Quayle say anything about Islam?

The distinction here is between those that actively promote a cause or agenda and those that say nothing. The ACLU also doesn’t say anything about bestiality, does that mean that they promote bestiality?

Whenver I think of bestiality I always think of Bill Bennet. Please recall that Bill Bennet never mentioned gambling in his so-called “Book Of Virtues” and later turned out to be an over-the-top gambling addict. (He also never mentioned bestiality.)

Secondly, it appears to me that the school in question is a charter school. Charter schools are given much more autonomy than run-of-the-mill public schools. Otherwise, we would have read reports that all of the schools in the district were forcing kids to become Muslims, and could you imagine what the ACLU would do if they were all baptizing Muslim kids, etc.

Third, the principal is quoted as saying that she only received three concerned phone calls from parents. If people are dense enough to not care, maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

Fourth, the entire “Indoctrination program” only lasted three weeks.

Apparently the course textbook was approved for use in California schools. My personal opinion is that they should teach about the real history of Islam, with the expansion, jihad, slavery, dhimmitude, genocide-of-all-infidels, suppression of women, etc. intact.

But this was supposed to be about the ACLU… in particular, let me quote myself in the comments above (scroll up to verify for yourselves)

And as it turns out, this is exactly what the administrators said, that they were teaching a “culture”… naturally a culture so imbued with religious tomfoolery will have overtones of religion. So we can’t really teach kids to say “Hello” in Arabic without them learning the “Allah aksalam” or whatever they say. It is transliterated as “hello” but it means “God is great” … of course, “God is great” is also a bit of a transliteration as well. With an idiom-free, proper translation, it should read “Allah is great.”

In a likewise manner consider the Spanish “Adios” which is taken to mean “goodbye.” This is because it is what Spanish-speaking people say when they part company. It is their “version” of “goodbye.” But it doesn’t mean “goodbye” it means “with God”, a shortened form of “Go with God” aka “Go with God on your side” or whatever.

Anyway, the school officials said it was cultural, not religious. This doesn’t excuse them sugarcoating the jihad, but this is supposed to be about the ACLU and the ACLU doesn’t write school textbooks. Then I said
So let's just read up on your little accusation and see whether ALL students were FORCED to engage in Muslim "indoctrination" in a classroom setting as part of the curriculum.
While it was part (a small, three-week part at that) of the curriculum, and it was a classroom setting, I would be curious to know what the curriculum for that period was prior to and after the three-week Happy Islam bullshit fest. Did they have a similar three-week focus on Buddhism? I distinctly recall someone giving me a copy of the Buddha Sutra and telling me they got it from a hotel in California, where it was placed side-by-side with a Gideon’s Bible. Did the charter school in question have a three-week course on Mexican culture? On Jewish culture? On the Chinese culture?

Again, while some of this is troubling, we are supposed to be talking about the ACLU, and the ACLU is not involved with this matter, except to the extent that they are excoriated in the articles, like they are excoriated at every opportunity that certain people find.

Then I said,I do look forward to your rational response. I want to read all about this case, and if it comes to pass that the ACLU is forcing non-Muslim kids to be preached to by Muslims, I will condemn the ACLU and take action with phone calls, letters, etc. I will stand corrected. So get me the link and let's see what this is all about.

As it turns out, just like expected, the ACLU isn’t involved in this case at all. As I stated above, we could work for the rest of our lives compiling a list of people that are guilty “by omission.” You merely use this issue, just like you use this forum, and a place to push forward your political agenda.

And when you do, if I have the time, I will call you on it.

So get back to your little right-wing sites and find me some evidence that the ACLU was actively involved in promoting Islam, and then you will have won. I can’t denounce the ACLU based on what I have read so far.

The ACLU is probably too busy stopping bible-thumping Christians that are trying to force all of us to recognize their god in the pledge of allegiance, at football games, and at commencement speeches…. Not to mention the steady creep and rot of Creationism in its happy, nu-perfect guise, Intelligent Design.

So you have “proven” that the ACLU stood by while a couple of kids were given a song and dance about Islam… big deal. Who else was standing by? Did Darrell Issa do anything about it? Did McClintock or Shwartznegger do anything? Did Dubya do anything about it? Of course they all did nothing. None of them will criticize Islam, for financial reasons. But if you imagine that the ACLU did nothing for “political correctness” or because they’ve “declared war on christianity” you think the sky is falling.

Should I forget, please remind me to get back with you on your other “points.”

*********************************

I would like to answer a few.

The Soviets were facilitators of terrorism...aimed not just at the Israelis, but at the UK (through their covert assistance to the IRA), Spain (ETA), France (BNLF, CNLF, Direct Action), West Germany (RAF), and Italy (Red Brigades).

All of the victims of these organizations, even if you include the PLO and it’s adherents would not add up to the number of people killed every year by Muslims in Muslim hellholes like Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. Hell, you can even lump in the American “Soviet-backed” organizations such as the petty-by-comparison Black Panthers, SLA, etc.

This reminds me of the Muslim apologists trying to equivocate Islam with Christianity... there is no comparison.

The ETA… what a laugh. They’ve killed—what, at most 10,000 people, EVER? That’s one week in Sudan. That’s one DAY in Bangladesh in 1970 or East Timor in 1975. Give me a break. Left-wingers make lousy terrorists. Just compare “our” Unabomber Ted Kazynski or Lewinski or whatever to the “right-wing” Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph (btw there were no restaurant marquees in Berkeley that said “Run Ted Run” or “Ted Eats Here.”)

And that reminds me, China treats it’s people much worse than Cuba, and China has meddled (to put it mildly) in American affairs in Vietnam and Korea… AND they invaded Tibet and killed 2 million people… and they are occupying 10% of Kashmir. So why is it that right-wingers always lie about Cuba being the worse? And why are American capitalists and industrialists so enamored with China? The respective answers are: the Cuban republicans in Miami make them; and CHEAP LABOR, BABY!!!

I don't regret ANYTHING about the disappearance of the Soviet Union save for its ability to adaquately protect its nuclear stockpiles.

Reserve your judgment until we find out which America cities get nuked. You may wind up eating those words, I hope that it doesn’t come to pass, but like I said before, the authorities assure us that it is all but inevitable. (Just imagine how many Soviet nukes we could get rid of with that quarter-trillion dollars wasted so far in Iraq. Shit, we probably could have BOUGHT them all with that much cash.)

Cornelius gets liberal on me: What contempt you show for these people. The rape of their land means nothing to you. No comment on the migratory genocide which produced 6 million refugees; the killing of over 1 million Afghanis, the overwhelming majority of whom were non-combatants, the torture chambers of KHAD operating 24-7.

I don’t have contempt for them, at least no more than I have for all religiously insane fools. “Rape of their land”? I hear the same blather about Israel in “palestine”. Please be specific.

“Migratory genocide that produced 6 million refugees”? Big deal. Do you think that the people that spent 8-10 years in (UN- and US-funded) refugee camps in Pakistan are any less miserable than those in the shantytowns and Hoovervilles back in Taliban-town?

“The killing of over 1 million Afghans”… you’d make a good liberal, you know that? There were over a million deaths in the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties, and over a million deaths in the Egypt-Yemeni war of the fifties, and just look at the Sudan. Why don’t we care? Is it okay for Muslims to kill Muslims, but not for Commies to kill Muslims?

That sounds a lot like Iran.

If the Afghan's had just been left alone to their own devices, there might never have been a Mujahideen or Taliban.

Yeah, there sure hasn’t been any other rise in Muslim supremacy in the region. Especially not in Pakistan and Iran.

But Soviet imperial lust precluded that possibility. Too bad you can't see as much.

No, I can see as much. It is too bad that the commies invaded and did what they did. But the Shah of Iran was deposed by his own people in 1979, and I doubt that the befuddled old king of Afghanistan would have lasted much longer. I don’t know how I can convince you of the simple fact that I am glad that the USSR is gone. I JUST read "The Gulag Arhipelago" like two months ago. Stark examples of the wretchedness and abuse of the hyper-evil Soviet empire are still fresh in my mind. But that doesn’t mean that I prefer the Islam to communism. At least communism has hope for progress... as evidenced by the dissolution of the USSR.

Cordially,

Posted by: kj

at October 6, 2005 1:01 PM

Well I just called Charter Oak Intermediate School, and they are NOT a "Charter School"... their school district is named after the "Charter Oak" tree.

What does this prove about the ACLU? Absolutely nothing. Just as I thought.

Now if a couple of Muslim kids had tried to make the district give them some free Dawa time, and the school objected, and then the ACLU stepped in and helped the Muslims sue the school, I would be all over them. Too bad for Cornelius, Gary, Wolfgang Bruno, et al. that this didn't happen.

Again, why do we expect the ACLU to get involved when no one else does?

First of all, it seems to me that the ACLU doesn't get involved in anything until there is a complaint. In on of the articles linked above the principal of Dhimmi Intermediate is quoted as saying that only three parents complained. I guess none of them called the ACLU.

I told you before (months ago) that my daughters attend Kindercare and they had a "people of the world" or somesuch poster that showed a smiling Mexican in a Sombrero, a smiling Chinese-or-similar smiling in pyjamas and pointy hat, etc. One of the people shown was a presumably-Muslim woman in full black tent with hijab AND veil. I told the director that I didn't want my girls to think that it was normal to hide one's face in public. She didn't have much of an answer, but the poster was gone soon thereafter.

Posted by: kj

at October 6, 2005 1:16 PM

Wow, the hatred just Boils out of kj, eh?

Not one reference to all the mistakes his gods have made...

Wish I could stay for more of this, but a busy weekend ahead, Happy Thanksgiving to all Canadians here!

Posted by: Gary

at October 6, 2005 1:54 PM

KJ: You open your rebuttal with a cheap shot at the “liberal” “mainstream media”:

You mean the left-wing bias in the Washington Times, FOX news, and the Wall Street Journal? Did THEY print this story? Or are they “left-wing”?

CORNELIUS: It's possible the Washington Times ran an article and several op-ed pieces on it. It's also possible Fox ran at least one story (I didn't have cable back then). Contrary to popular opinion, the 'Wall Street Journal' is only conservative on its editorial and op-ed pages. It's hard news is very mainstream.

Anyway, I'll try to research whether or not there was any reporting of this story at these institutions.

KJ: It’s all about the money. Follow the money. FOX news recently sold ten percent of itself to the bastard that told Guiliani that America was to blame for 9-11 because of our “foreign policy”… obviously he meant our policy with Israel, since this is the only facet of our foreign policy that makes jihadis see red. So while they may not become more “left-wing” it should be obvious that they will become more pro-Islam.

CORNELIUS: For the record, it was 5%...and I'm troubled by it too. But since we're on the subject, would you agree that Fox News and the Washington Times have been more aggressive and objective than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times in reporting on Islam in general and jihadi violence in particular? For example, The Wash. Times ran literally dozens of stories on the Muslim slave trade in Sudan over the last decade. How many did the NY Times run?

You made some compelling points about Cuba vis-a-vis its neighbors. I'll study the data ASAP.

KJ: It’s Caribbean. Let’s see the links. Where in Cuba are people starving? We in Cuba are children unable to “afford” to attend school?

CORNELIUS: This is your response to the issue of Cuba's arrest of journalists, human-rights workers and even librarians. Here, you ignore Castro's human rights record and concentrate on economic well-being. Down the page, you claim that Cuba is better than Saudi Arabia even though the latter is richer. Which is it? Isn't freedom a significant quality of life issue? Doesn't it factor in on what country is "better" than another? You've admitted as much about Saudi Arabia. Why then, don't you apply the same criteria in the Carribean? Infant mortality rates notwithstanding, isn't St. Kitts (and every country in the Carribean save for Haiti) "better" than Cuba by virtue of their relative freedoms?

KJ: And (as has been mentioned many times by the staff of this site) Turkey is slowly, inevitably, turning to Jihad.

CORNELIUS: Agreed. But it doesn't change the fact that Turkey is today a country with much greater freedom than Cuba.

KJ: Was “Mein Kampf” on the Cuban bestseller list recently?

CORNELIUS: No. But the indoctrination of the Cuban people by its own government is more pervasive and thorough than anything going on in Turkey.

KJ: Did Cuba massacre a million Armenians?

CORNELIUS: Did Cuba massacre a million Native Americans? No. I guess this makes Cuba "better" than the USA.

KJ: Is Cuba being infiltrated by Jihadis?

CORNELIUS: Neither one of us know the extent of Cuban cooperation with Iran...except that the two countries are quite close.

KJ: Is Cuba shitting on its Jews and its Kurds?

CORNELIUS: In point of fact, over the last decade, the Turks have legalized Kurdish-language television and radio broadcasts; they've legalized the teaching of Kurdish in the schools of Western Turkey. The Kurds are better-treated now than at any time in Turkey's modern history. Only a demagogue would claim this is tantamount to "shitting" on an ethnic minority.

KJ: Is Cuba demanding entry into the EU?

CORNELIUS: No. Quite a validating argument.

KJ: Now you have cherry picked you responses. Let’s compare Saudi Arabia to China or Iran to Vietnam. Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim nations “were better off economically”… but where would YOU rather live?

CORNELIUS: I concur. Would you concur that living on St Kitts is better than living on Cuba, given the relative freedom available in the former?

KJ: First of all, none of the links above cite any statement by the ACLU, in fact several of them don't even mention the ACLU. And the links that did mention the ACLU didn't mention anything in particular, just the same old "Can you imagine what the ACLU would do if they were baptizing Muslim kids?” etc. etc. (You can verify this yourself on any webpage by clicking the "edit" button on your task bar and clicking "find (on this page)" and then typing in ‘ACLU’ or whatever else you wish to search for.)

For example, how often does Arnold Shwartznegger say anything about Islam? How often did Benjamin Franklin say anything about Islam? How often does Dan Quayle say anything about Islam?

CORNELIUS: Viking had the objectivity to acknowledge that "It certainly does seem that this case is out of line with their stated policy, and that is disturbing."

How sad that you can't find it within yourself to admit that the ACLUs refusal to participate in the lawsuit betrayed not only stated policy but an obvious difference in the way it approaches Christianity and Islam.

KJ: Secondly, it appears to me that the school in question is a charter school. Charter schools are given much more autonomy than run-of-the-mill public schools. Otherwise, we would have read reports that all of the schools in the district were forcing kids to become Muslims, and could you imagine what the ACLU would do if they were all baptizing Muslim kids, etc.

CORNELIUS: Means nothing. The prosletyzing of religion in public school - charter or otherwise - is a violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The ACLUs silence speaks volumes of its betrayal of its stated mission and its embrace of multiculturalism as a substitute for constitutionality.

KJ: Third, the principal is quoted as saying that she only received three concerned phone calls from parents. If people are dense enough to not care, maybe it wasn’t so bad after all.

CORNELIUS: There was enough concern in the community that the case went to litigation.

KJ: Fourth, the entire “Indoctrination program” only lasted three weeks.

CORNELIUS: I don't give care if it lasted only 3 hours. What kind of argument is this?

KJ: Apparently the course textbook was approved for use in California schools. My personal opinion is that they should teach about the real history of Islam, with the expansion, jihad, slavery, dhimmitude, genocide-of-all-infidels, suppression of women, etc. intact.

But this was supposed to be about the ACLU… in particular, let me quote myself in the comments above (scroll up to verify for yourselves)

Anyway, the school officials said it was cultural, not religious. This doesn’t excuse them sugarcoating the jihad, but this is supposed to be about the ACLU and the ACLU doesn’t write school textbooks. Then I said
So let's just read up on your little accusation and see whether ALL students were FORCED to engage in Muslim "indoctrination" in a classroom setting as part of the curriculum.
While it was part (a small, three-week part at that) of the curriculum, and it was a classroom setting, I would be curious to know what the curriculum for that period was prior to and after the three-week Happy Islam bullshit fest. Did they have a similar three-week focus on Buddhism? I distinctly recall someone giving me a copy of the Buddha Sutra and telling me they got it from a hotel in California, where it was placed side-by-side with a Gideon’s Bible. Did the charter school in question have a three-week course on Mexican culture? On Jewish culture? On the Chinese culture?

And when you do, if I have the time, I will call you on it.

Should I forget, please remind me to get back with you on your other “points.”

CORNELIUS: I've never read such a pile of temporization, justifications and rationalizations in my life. The ACLU CHOSE to look the other way in a blatant case of religious prosletyzing in public school...right down to the recitement of prayer, and you can't find it within yourself to admit the organization dropped the ball. Impressive.

KJ: All of the victims of these organizations, even if you include the PLO and it’s adherents would not add up to the number of people killed every year by Muslims in Muslim hellholes like Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. Hell, you can even lump in the American “Soviet-backed” organizations such as the petty-by-comparison Black Panthers, SLA, etc.

This reminds me of the Muslim apologists trying to equivocate Islam with Christianity... there is no comparison.

CORNELIUS: Interesting analogy. The KGB terror campaign directed at the West was a willful game of murder, mayhem and intimidation...different only from the Islamists in scope. But scope seems to be your only criteria for identifying evil.

KJ: The ETA… what a laugh. They’ve killed—what, at most 10,000 people, EVER? That’s one week in Sudan. That’s one DAY in Bangladesh in 1970 or East Timor in 1975. Give me a break. Left-wingers make lousy terrorists. Just compare “our” Unabomber Ted Kazynski or Lewinski or whatever to the “right-wing” Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph (btw there were no restaurant marquees in Berkeley that said “Run Ted Run” or “Ted Eats Here.”)

CORNELIUS: What a laugh? Tell that to the families of the victims of ETA violence. Strange how flippant you can be about premeditated mass murder.

KJ: And that reminds me, China treats it’s people much worse than Cuba, and China has meddled (to put it mildly) in American affairs in Vietnam and Korea… AND they invaded Tibet and killed 2 million people… and they are occupying 10% of Kashmir. So why is it that right-wingers always lie about Cuba being the worse? And why are American capitalists and industrialists so enamored with China? The respective answers are: the Cuban republicans in Miami make them; and CHEAP LABOR, BABY!!!

CORNELIUS: What a pathetically simplistic view of a complex world.

KJ: Reserve your judgment until we find out which America cities get nuked. You may wind up eating those words, I hope that it doesn’t come to pass, but like I said before, the authorities assure us that it is all but inevitable. (Just imagine how many Soviet nukes we could get rid of with that quarter-trillion dollars wasted so far in Iraq. Shit, we probably could have BOUGHT them all with that much cash.)

CORNELIUS: This does nothing to advance your bizarre premise that jihad wouldn't be the problem it is if only the Soviet Empire still existed.

KJ: I don’t have contempt for them, at least no more than I have for all religiously insane fools. “Rape of their land”? I hear the same blather about Israel in “palestine”. Please be specific.

CORNELIUS: Again, an entirely dismissive attitude about human tragedy on a massive scale. The Afghan war created the greatest refugee crises in modern history. And the fact that 4 million refugees returned home after the demise of the Taliban is a glaring testimonial that these people prefer life in their ancestral homeland.

KJ: “The killing of over 1 million Afghans”… you’d make a good liberal, you know that? There were over a million deaths in the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties, and over a million deaths in the Egypt-Yemeni war of the fifties, and just look at the Sudan. Why don’t we care? Is it okay for Muslims to kill Muslims, but not for Commies to kill Muslims?

CORNELIUS: There are certain responsibilities commensurate with being a super-power. The US was indeed involved indirectly in helping the royalists in the Yemeni Civil War (who lost) and the Iraqis against Iran. Our silence in Sudan was unconscienable. Our help to the Afgan people fighting off the Soviet invader was absolutely appropriate given the time and circumstance.

KJ: No, I can see as much. It is too bad that the commies invaded and did what they did. But the Shah of Iran was deposed by his own people in 1979, and I doubt that the befuddled old king of Afghanistan would have lasted much longer. I don’t know how I can convince you of the simple fact that I am glad that the USSR is gone. I JUST read "The Gulag Arhipelago" like two months ago. Stark examples of the wretchedness and abuse of the hyper-evil Soviet empire are still fresh in my mind. But that doesn’t mean that I prefer the Islam to communism. At least communism has hope for progress... as evidenced by the dissolution of the USSR.

CORNELIUS: Until the above paragraph, you put the entire onus of Afghanistan's terrorist trajectory on US help of the Mujahideen. Nice to have you acknowledge it was Soviet Imperialism that set things in motion.

You have also written to the effect that if the USSR still existed, jihad wouldn't be threatening us. Care to amend that one?

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 6, 2005 3:17 PM

'But the Shah of Iran was deposed by his own people in 1979'~ kj

Soviet (read: Communist) forces grow until even Carter manages to sit up and take notice. But not before dithering so long over whether or not to support the Shah of Iran, that he was ousted and replaced with a Muslim government.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jan-feb/grinter.html

Way to go Carter!

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles/4toos_vge.html

Posted by: Gary

at October 6, 2005 6:31 PM

Cornelius, you should also remember that kj (or at the very least, giaour) considers anyone who believes in a Higher Power as having something wrong with them, if not insane. (I believe the phrase giaour used was 'mentally deficient,' a phrase also used in Nazi Germany by their so-called 'psyciatrists' as a way to marginalize the Jews and others.) btw, kj, where is your side-kick these days?

Posted by: Gary

at October 7, 2005 9:46 AM

So Cornelius, are you going to admit that the ACLU did not fight to make students convert to Islam? Of coures you won't. You can't. The ACLU is the great Satan of the right-wing.

I WOULD rather live in Cuba than Turkey, or any other Muslim hellhole. You say that Turkey treats its Kurds well; Spencer and Fitzgerald say otherwise.

You say a jihadi bought "only" 5 percent of FOX? The article posted here at JW said it was 10 percent.

Would I rather live in St. Kitts that Nevis? It depends on whether I need a job or not. If I am wealthy, or living on my investments, or retired, yeah, probably St. Kitts.

If I need a job in construction, engineering, or education, I'd probably be better off in Cuba.

What a pathetically simplistic view of a complex world.

Really.... "Liberal? BAD! Conservative? GOOD!"

You, Gary, et al. CANNOT admit that anything is worse than liberalism, who can't admit that anything is worse than communism... not even Islam. Any gains made by Islam must be traced to something or someone liberal. Like the ACLU.

In Bizarro Con-Rep world, the sole measure of anyones value is the extent to which he or she pledges fealty to Lord Bush.

The ACLU is "anti-American" and solely committed to fighting Christians... just like the DA after Tom DeLay is a partisan democrat on a frivolous witchunt... despite the fact that he has prosecuted more democrats than republicans.

****************************************

No, Gary. You are wrong as usual.

You blame the Iran matter on Carter, like you and your clones blame everything on any liberal in the vicinity. Its become reflexive:

Someone mentions the KKK, you mentioned Senator Byrd.

Someone mentions Iran, you mention Carter.

Someone mentions shark attacks, you blame environmentalists.

Someone mentions 9-11, you blame Clinton.

Yeah, Gary.... Carter "dithered" while Soviet forces grew, where, in Iran? Or Afghanistan?... and what did Ford and Nixon do? And what did Reagan do besides throw money at the jihadis? Oh wait... he DID do something else: he threw money at Saddam Hussein! And Saddam used the money to fight Iran. BUT Ollie North sold Iran stinger missiles at the same time. Oh well, let's not talk about that shall we?

*****************************************

Where is Gaiour? He told me that he's been seeing this slut in Canada on the side... it seems her chump of a husband lives in America part-time. Name of Larry...Terry... something like that. So when he's away, Gaiour slips in there and really takes care of business!

Posted by: kj

at October 7, 2005 12:35 PM

KJ: So Cornelius, are you going to admit that the ACLU did not fight to make students convert to Islam? Of coures you won't. You can't. The ACLU is the great Satan of the right-wing.

CORNELIUS: My friend, this is a total straw-man argument. The ACLU charter says nothing about converting people to Islam. It expressly vows to fight to maintain the separation of Church and State. It declined to do so in California. But you don't have the integrity to admit it dropped the ball. My grudging admiration for you dropped more than a couple of notches over this one.

KJ: I WOULD rather live in Cuba than Turkey, or any other Muslim hellhole. You say that Turkey treats its Kurds well; Spencer and Fitzgerald say otherwise.

CORNELIUS: The liberation of the Kurdish language inside Turkey is a fact. Neither Spencer or Fitzgerald would deny it.

KJ: You say a jihadi bought "only" 5 percent of FOX? The article posted here at JW said it was 10 percent.

CORNELIUS: The article I read said 5%.

KJ: Would I rather live in St. Kitts that Nevis? It depends on whether I need a job or not. If I am wealthy, or living on my investments, or retired, yeah, probably St. Kitts.

If I need a job in construction, engineering, or education, I'd probably be better off in Cuba.

CORNELIUS: If I was a writer or a journalist or a librarian or an entrepenuer or I had children who I wanted to endow with more than an carefully indoctrinated education, I'd choose St Kitts hands down.

KJ: Really.... "Liberal? BAD! Conservative? GOOD!"

CORNELIUS: No my friend...as you suggested, in many respects, I'm more liberal than you are.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 7, 2005 2:43 PM

Have we established that the ACLU blew off this case? Did any of the outraged parents go to them for help? None of the articles I read said so. If they are guilty of inaction I regard that as a lesser crime than refusing assistance. I understand that they might be reluctant to take on a case that is essentially about bias in textbooks (a very sticky subject with no clear way to predict legal success). Then again, I have to reckon that if Christianity was getting an easy ride while the faults of Islam were laid bare, the ACLU might just be tempted to risk it.

Posted by: Viking5

at October 7, 2005 5:32 PM

Viking,

How unfortunate that you decided to backtrack. Can you imagine for one minute a class cirriculum in a public school that had students reciting Christian prayer that the ACLU wouldn't involve itself in.

KJ's arguments were pathetic: "it was ONLY a 3 week course"..."reciting these prayers is tantamount to teaching 'Adios' in Spanish"...

I couldn't believe my eyes.

Posted by: Cornelius

at October 7, 2005 5:52 PM

Cornelius, saying "imagine what the ACLU would do if..." is just an appeal to prejudice. I don't know what they would do. What I asked in my above posting is what they did do. That to me is more informative than what they might do in a hypothetical situation.

I stand by my point that if nobody called the ACLU, then it is less worrisome than if they refused help. If I had a complaint over second amendment rights, you could condemn the NRA as hypocrites if I called them and they told me to get lost. But if I wasn't an NRA member and I didn't have any communication with them, it would be expecting a bit much to demand that they find out about my case and intervene on my behalf of their own accord.

Posted by: Viking5

at October 8, 2005 5:44 AM

You are in willful denial Viking. There were plaintiffs in the lawsuit; the ACLU could have offered its services and no doubt would have if Christianity had been the offending religion.

But that's ok. You're entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: Cornelius