UPDATE: I just arrived in southern California for the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s weekend conference, after leading an all-day private seminar yesterday in San Francisco, and see that Robert Mackey has revised his piece. The passage in which he claimed that I said that Captain Zaharie was a suicide bomber now reads this way: “That photograph of the pilot’s T-shirt, and his support for Mr. Ibrahim’s political movement, led the anti-Islam blogger Robert Spencer to link Captain Zaharie with an Islamist cleric who has endorsed the tactic suicide bombing. However, the only evidence Mr. Spencer cited for his suggestion that Mr. Ibrahim is an Islamic extremist comes from the now-defunct website MalaysiaWatcher.com and another site, SarawakReports.org.”
Actually this is false as well, as the evidence that Anwar Ibrahim is associated with Sheikh Qaradawi is not just hearsay from a defunct website, but is photographic, as you can see. But again: what cares the New York Times for facts? Mackey also appends a correction: “An earlier version of this post stated incorrectly that the blogger Robert Spencer had claimed that the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 might have plotted a suicide bombing. Mr. Spencer did not make that allegation in a post on his blog, although he did claim that the leader of the political party the pilot supported was connected to an Islamist cleric who has expressed support for suicide bombing.”
Here again: there are they in the photo, clearly conversing together at some conference or other. The photo is, as far as I know, not doctored. It is unlikely in the extreme that Anwar Ibrahim took the opportunity to denounce Qaradawi. Hence the Times piece is still thoroughly misleading, but better than it was.
Original post:
No one yet knows what exactly happened to the Malaysian airliner that disappeared. The disappearance may have had nothing to do with jihad terror. There is no certainty about much of anything surrounding the flight at this point. Here at Jihad Watch I have posted some published news items that suggest that it may have been a jihad operation, but none of it has been conclusive; nor have I claimed otherwise.
Nonetheless, today the New York Times has a piece claiming that I said that “Captain Zaharie might have plotted a suicide bombing.” As that claim is patently false, I am writing this post and am also going to write to Robert Mackey, the author of the piece, asking for a retraction. Not that I’ll be holding my breath, of course: mainstream media “journalists” have their agendas, and they write to their agendas, and the facts be damned.
In the first part of the piece, Mackey uses such details as that Captain Zaharie had tagged Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” as a favorite on Facebook to try to establish that he is not a jihadist. Zaharie may not indeed be a jihadist, but tagging Dawkins doesn’t establish anything at all. Dawkins, of course, is an atheist. Zaharie is reported to be a “moderate Muslim.” Even a moderate Muslim is a theist, so his tagging of Dawkins may have been a recognition of a formidable intellectual challenge, or a reminder of something he wished to refute, or any number of things. Maybe it was an indication of his broad-mindedness. But since he was known as a Muslim, clearly Zaharie did not go completely down the line with Dawkins, and his tagging of the Dawkins material as a “favorite” doesn’t conclusively establish or rule out anything.
“Pilot of Missing Jet Expressed Interest in Democracy and Atheism on Social Networks,” by Robert Mackey for the New York Times, March 19 (thanks to Ted):
…Captain Zaharie made no secret of his desire to see the opposition People’s Alliance, led by Anwar Ibrahim, win power. That political stance, and the pilot’s evident disappointment with the results of the May 2013 election that Mr. Ibrahim said was marred by fraud, were initially characterized by some conservative journalists and bloggers as evidence of Islamist extremism. That misperception was perhaps fueled by an unnamed investigator’s description of Captain Zaharie as a “fanatical” supporter of the opposition.
As William Dobson observed in Slate, however, hearing that someone is a “fanatical supporter of Anwar Ibrahim does sound scary — as long as you know nothing about” Mr. Ibrahim, who is not a zealot but a committed democrat.
The terms “zealot” and “democrat” are not mutually exclusive; nor are they opposites. As the pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has said, democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you get where you want to go, and then you get off. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Gaza participated in elections, although Hamas has not held another since it won, and the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was unlikely to have done so, either. Anwar Ibrahim may be a staunch supporter of pluralism, equality of rights for all, and republican government, but his support for democratic voting procedures doesn’t establish that.
In one Facebook comment posted in the run-up to that election, Captain Zaharie even referred sarcastically to Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian defense minister who is now overseeing the investigation into the missing jet, as a “real joker!”
How is that pertinent? What does it establish? What does it even mean? Does Mackey have a word count he has to reach, so he is just tossing in any old thing?
In a photograph posted on Instagram by a friend and fellow political activist, Peter Chong, the pilot wore a T-shirt that referred to the May 2013 date of the election the opposition claimed was stolen, alongside the slogan “Democracy Is Dead.”
As Mr. Chong explained to The Lede in an Internet message: “The T-shirt came about after Malaysia 13th general election in May 2013. Malaysians upset that the side who had 47 percent of the votes remained the government, whilst the side with 51 percent remained the opposition. Thus the T-shirt’s message sums it up correctly and thousands were wearing it. It was a way Malaysians expressed dissatisfaction, a peaceful way.”
That photograph of the pilot’s T-shirt, and his support for Mr. Ibrahim’s political movement, led the anti-Islam blogger Robert Spencer to claim that Captain Zaharie might have plotted a suicide bombing.
Click on the link Mackey provides. It goes to a Jihad Watch post from March 16. Find in it where I “claim that Captain Zaharie might have plotted a suicide bombing.” Found it yet? No? That’s because it isn’t in there. Nowhere do I make such a claim. The only mention of suicide bombing comes at the end of the post, where I reproduce the photo above of Anwar Ibrahim with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, with the comment: “Here is Anwar Ibrahim with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the international Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who has praised Hitler and endorsed jihad/martyrdom suicide bombing.”
I noted that Qaradawi has praised suicide bombing. I say nothing about Zaharie praising it, or plotting it, or anything about Zaharie and suicide bombing at all. Will Mackey retract? I doubt it. If he had any integrity he would, but I am long past expecting integrity from mainstream media journalists.
However, the only evidence Mr. Spencer cited for his claim that Mr. Ibrahim is an Islamic extremist comes from the now-defunct website MalaysiaWatcher.com. It was revealed in 2012 that MalaysiaWatcher and another site, SarawakReports.org, were created by a conservative American blogger and political consultant who was paid to launch personal attacks on Mr. Ibrahim. Last year, the conservative blogger behind the scheme, Joshua Trevino, admitted to Buzzfeed that he had been paid nearly $400,000 by the Malaysian government, and paid smaller sums to several other writers, to produce pieces attacking Mr. Ibrahim as a dangerous Muslim radical.
Again, click on the links. The story is not as Mackey represents it. Trevino and others were paid, yes. There is no indication in the report linked, however, that he or any of the other writers mentioned spread any false information. Qaradawi is manifestly a “dangerous Muslim radical,” and so why is Anwar Ibrahim associating with him, if he is so moderate and democracy-minded? Is the claim that Anwar Ibrahim is a founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought false? No, it is true. And it is well established that the IIIT is a Muslim Brotherhood front. So there is perfectly good reason, quite aside from Joshua Trevino’s bank balance, to be concerned about Anwar Ibrahim, and the implications of Captain Zaharie’s “fanatical” support for him.
Robert Mackey owes me a retraction and an apology. If I hear from him, you’ll be the first to know!
Champ ✿ says
“Possible debris off Australia a ‘credible lead’ for missing Malaysia jet”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140320
Champ ✿ says
UPDATE …
Excerpt:
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 search off Australia ends for day as crews reach site of objects
The objects, spotted by satellites March 16, have not been confirmed to be pieces of the plane, missing since March 8. The pieces, one 80 feet long and a second about 16 feet long, are about 1,500 miles off the west coast of Australia are are considered the ‘best lead’ so far in the desperate search.
More here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/flight-mh370-debris-search-australia-ends-day-crews-reach-site-spotted-objects-article-1.1727815
boakai ngombu says
the grey old lady still slanders … maybe is turning red
hardly a rag of record, anymore … nevermore
Angemon says
“Captain Zaharie had tagged Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” as a favorite on Facebook to try to establish that he is not a jihadist.”
Just like mr. Dude. Is that a trend among jihadis now?
gravenimage says
Angemon wrote:
Just like mr. Dude. Is that a trend among jihadis now?
…………………………….
Actually, no. While Dawkins does engage in more moral equivalence than I think is rational, he *has* condemned Jihad terrorism many times, and singles out Islam as an “unmitigated evil”
I think “Mr. Dude’s” stance as a fanatical Richard Dawkins’ devotee is just a pose.
Chabuco says
Anything to deflect attention from what looks like yet another act of mass murder committed by devout Muslims. Gotta protect Islam at ALL COSTS! that’s the dogmata of the international socialists and the goebbelian MSM led by the likes of Robert Mackey & Co; Historic revisionism, projection and deflection, that’s how they roll.
revg says
Never try and confuse a journalist by offering factual information. It will make their brains bleed.
Bezelel says
muslims should not be allowed anywhere near any type of aircraft or airports or public transportation of any sort, Wait a minute just quarantine them to their own space and don’t let them have anything they can use to destroy anything with.
Jay Boo says
Coincidentally, U.S. first lady Michelle Obama has just arrived in Beijing, China.
No doubt ‘Human Rights’ with a particular slant toward appeasing jihad will be on the agenda including never suspecting Islam and purging all reference to jihad from investigation.
Wellington says
A Muslim can’t help distorting democracy into something it isn’t. Democracy is more than just majority rule. It must also include protection of the minority, free speech, freedom of religion and alignment with a proper moral order and an enlightened legal system. Islam by its very nature, by its very make-up, disallows such things. An Islamic democracy is both an oxymoron and an affront to true democracy. Should any Muslim exist who actually would embrace al the elements of democracy listed above, I don’t see how such a person can still call themselves a Muslim.
revg says
Democracy need not protect any of those things, a republic would. Democracy is majority rule, period. It is the republic which finds individual rights supreme and not subject to tyranny of the majority.
Wellington says
Democracy, revg, is much more than majority rule. Majority rule alone makes a mockery of democracy and is a sham version of such. As an example, if ten people were stranded on a desert island and six were men and four were women and the six men voted to do whatever they wanted with the four women, you would have only sham democracy because, among other reasons, you would be absent a proper moral order and zero protection for the minority. The Founding Fathers of America unerstood all this quite well and that is why so many of them stressed character and the rule of law as much as they did. It also helps to explain the Bill of Rights where the rights of the minority are protected numerous times over.
For the record, America is both a republic and a democracy. I find it instructive how many people continue to get this wrong as well as not being able to distinguish between true democracy and a bogus version of it.
revg says
The founding fathers were quite intelligent, which is why they did not create a democracy. The founded a republic. You could of course, show me where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution the word democracy is mentioned. You could even check the constitutions of the fifty individual states if you wish to expand your search.
The founding fathers knew the inherent pitfalls of democracy. Only poli sci teachers who received a poor education teach that our republic is a democracy. A republic shares many similarities with a democracy, but it is the differences which make all the difference in the world. The same could be said for the male and female of the species. I would not choose a male for my mate, claiming they are “close enough” to a female, the small degree of difference between male and female anatomy makes all the difference in the world.
Do not confuse the definitive difference with the false republics and democracies extant in our world, that are such in name only. Sadly, the US is well on the way to that same fate, it seems.
eib says
Read Alexis DeTocqueville, on the Tyranny of the Majority. Such a state of society is not democratic in the Western sense. It is totalitarian. The ancient Greeks contained democracy into small communities and kept it among small groups of people to guard against a tyranny of the majority. They understood what a fine line they trod.
Muslim culture has none of the subtlety of the West. And that is why they will never make democracy work.
revg says
A large problem in political commentary is that people love the word “democracy” and apply it to political constructs better defined by other terms. Much like people use “engine” and “motor” interchangeably, though they are not. Same can be said for “rims” and “wheels”. One should expect better.
mariam rove says
Exactly. Islam is counter to democarcy. Democracy only for musilsm. Non muslims under their rules are be subjugated only. You are correct Wellington. M
voegelinian says
Democracy, from two Greek words, Demos (“the people”) + kratein (“to rule”).
A democracy is only as good as its people. The Demos of any and all Muslim peoples is diseased; and so is, always has been, and always will, be their rule.
tpellow says
It seems quite obvious that the ‘NYT’ is working to a political agenda of acting as an apologist for all things Islamic.
Instead, it seems that the ‘NYT’ regards its main enemies (whom it wilfully misrepresents) as those who criticise the Islamic supremacist threat to the West.
duh-swami says
I read a lot about the NYT, but I have never actually seen one. It seems to be filled with people not particularly interested in the truth.
William Doohan says
They use to be called Reporters and they reported the news. Now they are ‘Journalists’, and almost all news stories are biased by either Leftist or Rightist agendas. Why the change? Because for several decades now Socialistic college professors have been teaching their students that there is no such thing as objective reality and that ALL views and even the apprehension of reality itself is subjective and can never be objective. While opinion writing has existed almost as long as the printing press itself, this philosophical position has had a corrosive effect not only on news reporting but also the trust that the public use to have in the Press to tell them the truth. The Mainstream Media outlets have lied so often to the public, that that trust can never be re-established until the principle behind it is overthrown.
When it comes to anything involving Islam, terrorism, or the goings on in Muslim countries, I do know of one website that I can go to where the authors tell the truth. It’s right here at JihadWatch and I find myself being greatly impressed, over and over, by Robert Spencer’s (and other contributors) honesty and objectivity.
—————————————————————-
Re: Democracy – Neither a Democratic or Republican system can guaranty freedom if the Legal Rights of Individuals are not protected by the Law. Not ‘Human Rights’, that poetically nonsensical collectivist notion that they have be trying to brainwash everyone with for the past 70 years or so, but the Rights of INDIVIDUALS. That, imho, is the essence of Freedom.
revg says
REPUBLIC, from Res Publica….”the law”, whereas certain things, i.e. individual rights, are sacrosanct and lawfully barred from usurpation by tyranny of the majority (i.e. democracy).
robert4 says
You, “revg” seem to have confused “i.e..” & “e.g.” : http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ie-versus-eg
There is no reasonable expectation that “certain things” is another way of saying “individual rights”.
There is also no reasonable expectation that republicanism is a form of government fundamentally committed to individual rights.
No matter, mistaking Latin abbreviations is apparently a cardinal sin, and craven slandermonger Robert Spencer has already dismissed your intellect.
robert4 says
Furthermore “revg”, “Res publica” does not mean “the law”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica
revg says
Literally, the ‘thing public’. Coming from someone who misused the word “scholar” where it should have been “scholarship”, not to mention the numerous other errors of your postings, your criticisms are to juvenile to mean much anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica
I highly doubt that Mr. Spencer has dismissed my intellect, and I stand in stark comparison to you, in that I have one.
Thanks for playing.
revg says
No, I did not mean “for example”, I meant “that is”, as I was specifically referencing that particular aspect of a republic. Thus is the folly of poorly educated trolls making false assumptions.
robert4 says
Indeed, “revg” is correct to notice that I made an error of adjectival form, among others. Be that as it may, such mistakes are easily acknowledged and easily rectified — much like the than/then minimal pair that, for Spencer, disqualifies Aslan’s more formally published oeuvre.
However, “revg” remains stubbornly incorrect in insisting that “individual rights” are a “particular aspect of a republic”.
revg says
http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm
revg says
A republic and a democracy are very similar. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Individual sovereignty means the state must recognize the natural rights of the individual. It isn’t rocket science.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
robert4 says
Thank you, “revg”, for pointing me to the homepage of an electorally unsuccessful minor political party in South Carolina. The party’s view of what a republic is is, however, far from convincing. (All the more so in the light of their political failures in the republic that they should understand best.)
revg says
I yes, shoot the messenger to discredit the message.
revg says
And yet, you have no problem with Wikipedia for your own definitions? Pretty hypocritical of you.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
robert4 says
Thank you, “revg”, for pointing me to the homepage reproducing the look and “feel” of a late-1990s Geocities page. However, if this is your appeal to authority, it falls flat.
The second website appears to be more contemporary, but it undercuts your argument by citing the Roman republic. Slaves in the republic did not enjoy individual sovereignty, and certainly not in the political sense.
revg says
And yet you use Wikipedia?
Also, slaves were not considered people, even in the early USA, though they were accorded 2/3 personhood for population counts. If they were sovereign, they would not be enslaved.
Your lack of comprehension shows the more you post.
Not the brightest troll we have had here.
robert4 says
I am not “shooting the messenger” – I am simply saying that the low-quality website of a failed political party in a small state is not in itself sufficient evidence supporting your understanding of what a republic is.
Nor do I find this particular website convincing.
robert4 says
I linked to Wikipedia because its form and format is widely known. But this is beside the point. You have made a specific claim that individual rights are fundamental in a republic. The burden of proof, then, is on you.
revg says
I have presented sufficient evidence. Disprove it. You cannot.
Enough feeding the troll for one day anyways. Go upstairs and kiss your mom.
robert4 says
Furthermore, your comment on slavery in the United States strikes an odd note. Since a slave was not considered a legal person and only 2/3rds of a person for representational purposes, then certainly sovereignty in the early US republic was *not* invested in individuals.
revg says
Yes it was, in those individuals who were no slaves.
revg says
“who were not slaves”.
WVinMN says
You are confusing the way in which a governmental system is devised as opposed to how it is applied. Republicanism by definition DOES empower the individual over that of the majority. Or the “mob”, according to early 18th century western political philosophers such as John Jay. Now, did the US republic APPLY the definition of individual liberty as spelled out in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence? No, not universally until the emancipation, and not entirely until the end of institutionalized racism. That said, the defining characteristic of republic remains a commitment to individual liberty.
robert4 says
To paraphrase “revg”, early US republic was a republic that vested sovereignty in a ruling mob of individuals.
revg says
You paraphrase poorly.
robert4 says
Oh? So sovereignty was invested in individuals, but not all individuals… but only the individuals belonging to the group (white males) that violently dominated and subjugated a minority.
Got it.
revg says
Wrong again. Go read some history. Come back when you know that of which you speak, and do not devolve to trite revisionist clichés.
robert4 says
oh really, “revg”, white males were not ruling the pre-1865 US republic? Slavery was not violent? Not subjugation? Please, go on…
revg says
When you devolve to telling half-truths as a means to support your preconceived notions, it exposes you for the liar you are.
gravenimage says
I believe it is *quite* clear that “robert4″—unlike the very civilized Wellington and revg—has absolutely no real interest in democracy, republics, minority rights, and individual rights—whatever terminology one might us to describe them.
He is just another of a long line of obfuscating trolls infesting JW of late. Ugly and terribly tedious.
EYESOPEN says
@WD:
re: Entire post – Home run!
mortimer says
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORS:
Do the right thing. Admit Robert Spencer did not make the remark. Be accurate. Earn your reputation. Hold your head up high.
APOLOGIZE.
duh_swami says
Any publicity is better than no publicity. The NYT is giving Robert free advertising space. Anyone who has not already made up their minds about Spencer may look up Jihadwatch . and tune in. Some will stay.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Being slandered by the New York Times is the highest form of backhanded compliment. Be sure to mention Walter Duranty in your letter to Robert Mackey, who along with his Gray Lady cohort is pulling the same stunt around the Islam.
Nick says
This has appeared on the article:
Correction: March 20, 2014
An earlier version of this post stated incorrectly that the blogger Robert Spencer had claimed that the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 might have plotted a suicide bombing. Mr. Spencer did not make that allegation in a post on his blog, although he did claim that the leader of the political party the pilot supported was connected to an Islamist cleric who has expressed support for suicide bombing.
revg says
When caught lying blatantly, explain it away as a reasonable assumption.
robert4 says
That appears to be the case here, which raises an interesting question: How will Robert explain today’s lie about Reza Aslan?
revg says
I saw no lies. Perhaps you need “reading is fundamental”.
robert4 says
It appears you, “revg” responded as I was composing a more illustrative version of what I wrote above. Please find the offending post here : http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/reza-aslan-biblical-story-of-noah-barely-four-verses-long
How will he “explain it away”?
robert4 says
That appears to be the case here. Ironically, Robert is caught lying in his very next blog post : http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/reza-aslan-biblical-story-of-noah-barely-four-verses-long
How will he “explain it away”?
revg says
There is no lie for Robert Spencer to explain away. Maybe you should have someone else read it to you. Go upstairs and ask your mom.
robert4 says
There is, of course, a lie that RS needs to address. He cites someone else’s words and attributes them to RA – i.e., he is lying.
revg says
“He says the story of Noah in the Bible is barely four verses long.”
Is this the point you are attempting to dispel? Your lack of comprehension shows. So you believe RS should have said “the reporter quotes Asshat as saying that…….”.
Or just take the reporter at their word, that Asshat did say that, and use quotes to represent it as such?
You are a troll.
robert4 says
But the reporter didn’t quote RA as saying that. Do you understand the problem here? RS is attributing words to a person who did not say those words. Even in the most forgiving reading of the weasel-worded JW title, RS is attributing to RA an argument that he did not make.
That is lying. How will Robert address it?
revg says
Maybe English is your second language.
tpellow says
“Fitzgerald: Just one question for the New York Times”
(2010).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/fitzgerald-just-one-question-for-the-new-york-times
Walter Sieruk says
As for the subject of the Masrasas ,these mind programming centers are explained about ,in part, in the book SECRETS OF THE KORAN by Don Richardson. For on page 69 under the subtitle “Dangers of the Madrasas” it informs the reader that “The world needs to be warned. At least 40 millions Muslim youth in the world’s religious schools, called madrasas, are avidly memorizing the the entire Koran plus a generally extremist body of related traditions – the hadiths. ..these schools become breeding grounds for potential terrorists…When male students, isolated from family and friends on madrasas, reach puberty and their hormones are active, there no girls to date. Instead Muslim clerics easily shift to focusing the male student’s attention on Koranic verses that promise sex in heaven with dark-eyed houris. Students can only fantasize about martyrdom followed by the sexual release Muhammad promised. This is an unspeakably cruel brainwashing technique, and the Koran is its perfect guidebook.”
Bezzle says
“Owes you a retraction”?
Sue his ass for libel.
Wellington says
revg: We must continue to agree to disagree. I completely reject the notion that America is not a democracy. It is true that James Madison in The Federalist Papers confined the word “democracy” to a pure democracy like that of ancient Athens, but it is equally clear that he, Jay and Hamilton considered the America that was coming into being a representative democracy. And what of a nation like the UK? Of course it is not a republic but it is most definitely another representative democracy (though one in big trouble due to Muslims and PC/MC). I would close by asking you this: If America is not a representative democracy, what polity is?
robert4 says
This is an important question, “Wellington” and I hope you get a reply.
revg says
America is a republic. As I said, please show me where it states otherwise. If you can show me where, I will gladly agree with you.
The founders spoke at length about democracy, and would have created a democracy instead of a republic if they had thought it a better idea. They realized the folly of tyranny of the majority, and founded a republic instead. The differences may be minimal, but are of great importance.
Trying to diminish the difference is hazardous. It shows disrespect for the work of the founders, for the rule of law, and for proper education. Please illuminate yourself, obtain a good teacher of political science.
Wellington says
America is a democratic republic. Just because the actual word “democracy” doesn’t appear in this legal document or that one does not change this. As for the Founding Fathers fearing mob rule, that is quite true. They did. BUT, this does not mean they did not create a democracy. A democracy was definitely created but one with checks on mob rule, an example being the Electoral College.
BTW, your distinction between a republic and a democracy in your 5:10 P.M. post above is simply wrong. You asserted that sovereignty in a republic is rooted in the person but that in a democray it is rooted in the group. This too I completely reject. Ancient Athens invented democracy and there was no “groupness” about that democracy. Sovereignty was very much rooted in the individual in DEMOCRATIC Athens. By contrast, before Augustus Rome was a republic (after 509 B.C.) but not a democracy and during the five hundred years of the Republic sovereignty was most definitely rooted in the group, the groups being the 193 centuries and the five classes. So, you see, revg, you have gotten things exactly backwards about where sovereignty resides re republics versus democracies (if they are not both). Also, you didn’t answer my challenge. I’ll state it again. If America is not a representative democracy, what polity is?
robert4 says
Very good point, “Wellington”
revg says
That is redundant. And incorrect. A republic contains much of the same political framework, with specific differences.
Calling something a democratic republic is like saying tomato ketchup.
Or any number of redundant statements. Have you ever had cucumber ketchup?
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-redundant-phrases-to-avoid/
Wellington says
It is not redundant and it is not incorrect and referring me to a site called” DailyWriting Tips” does not change what I have asserted. And I’ll state it again: America is both a democracy and a republic.
Hey, how about answering my challenge (which I will not state for the third time) or responding to what I wrote about democratic Athens and Republican Rome. Try thinking for yourself for a change without the crutch of a link to this or that. Go ahead, give it a shot.
revg says
And are you a human person?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1351222/posts
Do I need to define redundant?
robert4 says
I haven’t had cucumber ketchup, “revg”, but it exists: http://www.theheartofnewengland.com/food-HistoricCucumberKetchup.html
While “ketchup” is generally understood to be tomato ketchup in contemporary American English, it’s far from the only ketchup that exists.
Likewise, a democratic republic is far from the only kind of polity understood to be republican. I can think of several off the top of my head: parliamentary republics, Islamic republic, socialist republic, people’s republic, and San Marino’s “Most Serene Republic”.
revg says
Democratic republic is a redundancy. I am sorry if ketchup is not specifically tomato.
robert4 says
Since “revg” thinks that “democratic republic” is a redundancy, I suggest he visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where individual rights are, by his definition, scrupulously observed by the state.
It’s not mob rule, that’s for sure!
revg says
Yes, I did comment earlier about those places that use the terms democratic or republic in their names, but are such in name only. Sorry you missed that.
Calling something by a name does not make it what you call it. People call islam a religion.
revg says
I guess maybe they use democratic and republic as a double positive, similar to a double negative, thus negating both terms.
robert4 says
Ok, “revg”, so republics that don’t support your definition of what a republic is are conveniently ignored when you talk about republics.
Let’s ignore N. Korea for a moment so you can address the slaveholding US republic of the Constitution, or Roman republic of patricians and plebes and slaves.
revg says
I see you are no student of history. Slavery definitely predates even the Roman republic. Guess what religion today is the only major group of humanity that sanctions and participates in enslaving others? For the rest of us, slavery is no longer an established part of life, with slaves not being privy to the rights of the rest of the populace. That such slavery was once commonplace does not change the political entities of the day. I am sorry if you are too simple to separate non-related concepts like those.
Names are names, whether an entity lives up to the name it takes is something quite different. It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand either of these constructs. I am glad you asked. The term “democratic” seems to be quite in vogue in naming nations that are clearly not so. But then again, Lenin did claim that democracy was indispensable to socialism. Or should I say, Vlad Lenin said “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.” Even that is disputable though, will you remind us of that too? I highly doubt he used those words, he likely said it in Russian. There, I mentioned it before you could make more banal claims of that sort.
robert4 says
Ok, “revg”, I guess you’re right. Individual rights haven’t been valued in the overwhelming majority of republics in world history. Thanks for clearing that up.
revg says
Are you a moron or do you just impersonate one rather well?
gravenimage says
When hideous tyrannies like Iran and North Korea call themselves “republics”, this is just whitewash—not an indication that the term republic has no real meaning.
Surely “robert4” knows this. He is just trying to devalue the term.
revg says
I disagree with your take on history. Please show me.
I also do not understand your challenge. Since I have definitively proven that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, and that democratic republic is a sophomoric redundant term, why does any other polity affect that point?’
If I tell you that I am not British, to what affect is it reasonable to ask me to tell you the name of someone that is British? It isn’t germane to the topic by any means. If you wish to undertake looking for such an answer, you are free to do so. It has no bearing on the subject being discussed.
Wellington says
You have proven nothing. The fact that you think you have is quite telling in itself. Hey, about that challenge and democratic Athens versus Republican Rome? Waiting.
revg says
Yes, You made claims that I said were wrong, and asked you to provide documentation. You are correct, I am waiting.
gravenimage says
Wellington and revg, I believe your only real disagreement is semantics—you both agree that the United States has not just majority rule, but checks and balances and legal safeguards for minorities and individual rights.
Unfortunately, there are well-meaning people, some in quite high places, who believe that the ballot box in and of itself will—somehow—guarantee a civilized result.
EYESOPEN says
Sorry Wellington. I’m afraid I must disagree with you here as well. Just to refresh: U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”
The following excerpt is from Wikipedia, but for all that says it like it is:
This clause, sometimes referred to as the Guarantee Clause, has historically been a part of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-a-vis state governments. The Guarantee Clause mandates that all U.S. states must be grounded in republican principles, such as consent of the governed. [10]
The Constitution does not explain what exactly constitutes a republican government. However, the Federalist Papers give us an insight as to the intent of the Founders. A republican form of government is distinguished from a democracy which the Founding Fathers had no intentions of entering; as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
I, personally, have never heard the United States form of government – as it was given to us by the Founders – referred to as a “Democratic Republic”. That sounds more like what the mainland Chinese kept referring to themselves as: “The Peoples Democratic Republic”. Forgive me for picking, dear Wellington, but it seems to me that with so many referring to our form of government as a “democracy”, it seems a slippery slope that, if we are not very, very careful, will prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And we all know what that will lead to ultimately, don’t we?
Wellington says
Sorry, EYESOPEN, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Madison in Federalist Paper #10 was dealing with the problem of faction and pointed out that “a pure democracy, by which I mean a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” By contrast, Madison felt that a republic (which in this particular instance I and numerous others through the years, including many Presidents and Supreme Court justices, have treated with as a synonym for a representative democracy that is not lead by a monarch) would avoid the problems of faction because of the representative factor and sheer size.
It is important to distinguish between a pure democracy, like that of ancient Athens and (initially) the Massachusetts Bay Colony, by which all the voters themselves attend legislative functions and a representative democracy, like that of the American Republic or the UK, by which a small number of people are elected directly or indirectly by the people to represent them. Madison confined the word “democracy” to only pure democracies, not representative ones. Representative democracies can be republics, monarchies or some other kind of political entity. America is, clearly, both a republic and a democracy, and that is why so many folks over the centuries, like President Lincoln and President Kennedy, have talked about America in terms of being a democracy, as illustrated by the two quotes I have already provided to revg. Here is yet another quote from an American President referring to America as a democracy: “We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed.” This is from FDR’s First Inaugural Address. Many, and I mean many, more references to America as a democracy can be found in the writings of one President after another. Do you really think that all these men were wrong about America being a demoracy? C’mon.
Interestingly, and as I have already tried to point out to revg, you can have a republic without it being a democracy. The Roman Republic from c.509-c.30 B.C. is such and example, whereby power was concentrated in collective entities like the Comitia Centuriata and the Comitia Plebis Tributa rather than in individuals.
I actually had a long talk about this with a friend of mine who used to serve in the New Hampshire legislature and who is now a Professor of Government at a small college in the northeastern United States. LIke me, he expressed interest that so many people don’t understand that America is both a republic and a democracy, just as, once again, so many Presidents of the United States have indicated over the centuries. As further proof, isn’t it telling that the two major political parties in America are called the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, embodying in these very names the fact that America is a democratic republic.
Hope you are doing well. Take good care, my friend.
revg says
Keep repeating the same lies over again, maybe someone will believe it.
revg says
So if we were discussing this earlier in time, the American form of government would have been Whigism?, or maybe Know-nothingism? Maybe someday it can be socialism or libertarianism, since those parties still exist.
revg says
I also asked you to provide proof of the democracy in the USA. Finding reference in the legal document that founds the nation or any of the states would be a good start. Saying that they aren’t there but it doesn’t matter proves nothing. Still waiting on that too.
Wellington says
Aside from the fact that you have still refused to answer my challenge and also will not address what I have written about Athens (a democracy) and Rome (a republic) which DIRECTLY refute your 5:10 P.M. assertion, I will now provide you “further proof” that America is a democracy. I provide you two quotes to substantiate my contention, the first is from President Lincoln and the second from President Kennedy.
Here they are: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” This was from Lincoln. Do you really want to argue he was talking here about a polity that wasn’t America?
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” This was from Kennedy. Again, do you really want to argue he was talking about a polity that wasn’t America?
Or does your ignorance extend so far as to lump Lincoln and Kennedy as yet more folks (like myself) who didn’t (don’t) understand the wisdom you keep trying to proffer?
Your turn.
revg says
Again, now you are getting silly. When I say America is not a democracy, you ask me to name a nation that is. Not even related to the discussion, is it? Some claim Canada or Germany, but I haven’t studied their governments, so I do not know. I know that the United States is a republic. Now I am starting to think you are not so intelligent as I once thought you were. Republics and democracies share MOST features, to call any entity a democratic republic is sophomoric redundancy. No way around that. You can get all caught up in terms like representative democracy or representative republic and so forth and so on, but the simple term republic is proper, the rest are not. Constitutional republic is at least correct, though again an unnecessary embellishment. Some think more words makes one sound more intelligent, reality is that it merely underscores ones’ ignorance.
“Here they are: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” This was from Lincoln.”
Where in that does he state that America is a democracy? So if he had said that something was expressing his idea of socialism, that would mean America is socialist? Far from it. Keep trying.
I am sure that Kennedy probably did mean it in the vein you intend, as perhaps Lincoln did. That does not change anything. Plenty of commentators today call people exercising voting rights as taking part in democracy. It is a succinct way of relating the concept of rule by the people, albeit not completely correct.
Some like to refer to the difference between “small d” and “capital D” democracy. People engaging government being democracy; America being a Republic, not a Democracy. I guess people exercising “republicanism” isn’t as easily understood or stated. Since people exercising power and voting is part of both systems, “exercising democracy” is a simple way of expressing the way the people of a republic vote. It doesn’t magically transform the republic into a democracy or add a redundant term to the mix. You can argue it until you are blue in the face, you would still be wrong.
I am still waiting for the word democracy in our Constitution. That is the key. You cannot magically assume it into existence. Show me. Or quit denigrating the form of government of the United States. People have been trying for long enough to democratize the US, Wilson was instrumental in getting that ball rolling. There is a reason Lenin called democracy indispensable, even Wilson clearly associated democracy with socialism. Democracies devolve into socialism all too easily.
revg says
You did not write anything about Athens or Rome, you made false claims that I asked you to corroborate. You could do so along with your support documents from the US government showing that we are a democracy.
Wellington says
You’re flailing. Even Kennedy and Lincoln aren’t good enough and you still know better. As for Athens and Rome, I taught about them for some thirty years and yet you assert I made false claims about these political entities. Done here. But good luck residing in that little world of yours.
revg says
Hopefully you have retired and are no longer poisoning minds with your incorrect assertions. With teachers like you it is no wonder our youth are so poorly educated.
tpellow says
And who, but Mr Mark Thompson, is now a CEO at ‘NYT’, willing to bring with him all the religious preferences he showed when he was at BBC:-
“Christianity gets less sensitive treatment than other religions admits BBC chief ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106953/Christianity-gets-sensitive-treatment-religions-admits-BBC-chief.html#ixzz2wY9jRE5r
bill says
. As the pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has said, democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you get where you want to go, and then you get off.
I am sure Adolf would have said something very similar!
Wellington says
revg: You know, you should learn to be more gracious. You’re entitled to your opinion, but when someone like me provides numerous counters to an opinion of yours, you should at least acknowledge that an alternative opinion from yours has been embraced by many, and in this case many notable individuals.
I will here provide you yet more examples which confirm my take on this issue rather than yours. Example #1: Alexis de Tocqueville, argubaly the most astute foreign observer of America of all time, entitled his work, “Democracy in America.”
Example #2: President Truman in his 1949 Inaugural Address contrasted democracy with communism numerous times. If you read the address there can be zero doubt that the democracy above all which he was talking about was America. It is crystal clear.
Example 3#: The higher education Program entitled “The American Democracy Project.”
Look, if you or anyone is going to argue that America is not a democracy, fine, do so. But you have to take into account that many highly influential and powerful people have asserted exactly what I have asserted, to wit, that America is indeed a democracy as well as being a republic. Don’t counter me. Rather, counter Presdents Truman, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Alexis de Tocqueville, the American Democracy Project, etc., etc., etc. Stop with the insults and start by conveying to me why so many people like myself have gotten this issue wrong and yet you got it right.
revg says
And Obama was planning on visiting all 57 states, so that makes it official.
Wellington says
That’s it? That’s all you can write after I have provided numerous examples which support my take on this issue and not yours?
And here is what is worst about what you’ve written to me: You have referred to me as a liar, e.g., “Keep repeating the same lies over again…” in your 5:20 P.M. post of March 22nd. How pathetic. We have a disagreement and you call me a liar for this?
I have lied about nothing. What I have done is argue my position time and time again. I have not called you a liar. I have only said you are wrong. And yet you are so insecure in your arguments that you have to stoop to calling me a liar because I disagreed with you. Even assuming I am wrong about this issue and you are correct, your reference to me as a liar says a lot about who you really are. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Done with you forever.
revg says
You provided NOTHING. People have been trying to subvert the US into democracy for over a century. So what?
Show me in the Constitution. Put up or SHUT UP.
Appealing to “some guy said” is the essence of flailing.
gravenimage says
Wellington, I know your background is in American law—I trust your take on this.
Despite this dustup here, I hope you are doing well and enjoying the spring weather, my friend.
Mazo says
If JW wants to obfuscate the article, get it right.
The reason he mentioned that Zaharie said Hishamuddin was a joker, was to emphasize Zaharie’s opposition to the current Malaysian govt., which is ruled by the UMNO.
The UMNO, as the ruling party, would have a motive for pinning the blame on Zaharie, who openly criticized the UMNO Minister Hishamuddin, who is overseeing the current investigation.
Wellington says
Thank you, gravenimage. You have wonderful kindness in your heart as you have great intelligence in your mind.
Not to belabor the point (which, nonetheless, I am about to do), to assert that the American Republic is not a democracy is simply ludicrous. Numerous Presidents and Supreme Court justices, among others, have done so many, many times over. And, as that great English historian, Paul Johnson, noted in his history of America (which is magnificent despite some factual errors), no polity in today’s world is more democratic than the USA. As Johnson observes, America has over 80,000 different political units——from the federal government to state level to county level (except, of course, for Louisiana which has parishes) to sub-county level——thus making it (easily) the most democratic country on earth. As an example, in my own home state of Pennsylvania there are over 2,500 government divisions, from county to city to borough to township and even to one town, Bloomsburg, which is the county seat of Columbia County.
This is not just a matter of semantics. Far more. It is a reality for all those who can see reality. Some can’t. Still, I don’t mind being disagreed with by anyone. But what I do mind is being called a liar for stating what I state. Herein lies my real grievance with revg. I don’t really care if someone calls me wrong (even if they are clearly wrong), but I do very much care when I am accused of mendacity. Then it becomes personal. I cannot let it lie (perhaps a double entendre here).
I will say what I’ve said many times. Yours are some of the most on point comments of anyone who posts here regularly here at JW. I feel as though we’re kindred spirits in a most important fight, arguably the fight of fights of our lives. Take good care, my West Coast friend. Bye for now.
revg says
Quite the contrary. When the founders went well out of there way to avoid any use of the term in the founding documents, to attempt to insert it into our government is ridiculous, bordering on the criminal.
I have considered that use of republic and democracy together is redundant, because of the numerous similarities between the two. In that assertion I am correct.
However, the opposite may also be asserted, that the differences between a democracy and a republic are key, and make the two irreconcilable.
At any rate, only someone of questionable scholarship would attempt to use both terms together, or to assert that our nation is a democracy.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/democracy.htm
Wellington says
Take it up with the statements of Presidents Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. While you’re at it, try knocking down Alexis de Tocqueville and Paul Johnson. Remember, if I’m wrong and you’re right, they are wrong too.
You get that? THEY ARE WRONG TOO.
Forget me. Address these six men (and if you’d like another six—–or twelve—–or…., let me know because I will provide them—–but first start with these six men. Tell me why they are wrong as well as me. Your turn.
Oh yeah, I will end with this: Not only is America a democracy but if America is not a democracy, tell me what polity is? Or are there no democracies in the world? Or do you remain so ignorant as to think that only majority rule constitutes a democracy? And even if you are this ignorant (which I suspect), America is all about majority rule and thus defeats even this simplistic and uninformed argument of yours.
Truly, you are limited. Very. Again, your turn.
revg says
Keep arguing anecdotes. It’s cute. I guess you are afraid to read the Constitution. The USA is a republic.
So sorry about your denial.
Wellington says
BTW, the link you provided (Ideas on Liberty) is written by a nobody). And he’s wrong. I already read it long ago and dismissed it as simplistic and even dumb, of evidence that a little knowledge is a bad thing.
Meanwhile, I give you Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, et al. Waiting.
revg says
So let me see, you give me what you think, with no backup, and then I give you real and correct commentary, (and actually provide it), and your answer is “it’s wrong”. Tell me how? Details. You are the nobody, and he is correct.
Giving names of people who have dropped the d word out of simplicity or stupidity (fdr especially) really doesn’t prove much.
Again, as a default, you could always show me where it is in the Constitution. After all, it is the supreme law of the land.
You seem to avoid that. Of course, because it disproves your juvenile scholarship.
revg says
The United States is not based on majority rule. That is your biggest faux pas. The US is a republic. Majority rule is a part of things, but not supreme. Individual rights are cherished over the rule of the majority.
The rights of the person are inherent and inalienable, contrary to democracy where they are subservient to the rule of the majority.
So trivial, yet so essential. Sad that it is over your head.
Wellington says
What elections are not dependent on majoritry rule (please, not the Electoral College, which would, in a rare circumstance {1876,1888 and 2000}, still represent majority rule over a different kind of majority rule). Name them. I say you can’t.
Meanwhile, why do you not convey to me how Lincoln, FDR, Truman and JFK (among so many Presidents) didn’t grasp the wisdom of what you’re trying to convey, i.e., that America is not a democracy. Again, forget me. ADDRESS THEM. Get this? Address their error, not mine. Make sure it theirs.
revg says
There is much much more to the US government than elections. Even in those, as you already see, the majority does not always rule.
I already explained the references from politicians. Simplicity, populism, appeal to the lowest common denominators of intelligence. The same persons who would tell you islam is a religion of peace.
It seems on some levels you have lowered yourself to that lowest common denominator.
When you cannot prove your point, you attempt to use quotable quotes to make up for scholarship?
The republic that is the USA does share similarities with a democracy. Some of our government functions are referred to as democratic processes, though that is a misnomer. Even socialist nations have elections. A motorcycle and a semi both have wheels. That does not make a motorcycle a semi. Nor does it entitle a truck driver to call his semi a “motorcycle truck” because it has most of the things attributed to motorcycles. The differences make all the difference in the world. Same goes for a democracy and our republic. They are not the same, though they share similarities. The differences are the key, and negate the use of the term democracy in the description of our republic. Unless of course, you are a politician appealing to low information voters.
Wellington says
You’re nothing but a damn snob (e.g., “low information voters” who focuses on one point, i.e., that the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution. Meanwhile, references to American democracy by prominent persons I have given you aplenty and you write them off as really of no account. I’m sure if I gave you another dozen references (or two dozen or three) to America as a democracy from important folks, you’d still just deny that America is a democracy. Stunning. I wil close here by asserting that not only is America a democracy but, a la Paul Johnson, it is the single most democratic nation on earth——-as well as being a republic. Bye.
revg says
Ah, so now you call names, because you have nothing to offer. I speak the truth, whether or not you identify with it is up to you. Are you so blind-sided by your false belief in America as a democracy that you are unable to understand that politicians, like newspapers, are by design made to appeal to the mediocre?
It is not snobbery to be aware of the world.
You really should find a good political science class/teacher to set you straight.
revg says
Paul Johnson does not impress me either.
dumbledoresarmy says
Taking a trip back through the archives (since my reading of jihadwatch has been a bit interrupted over the past couple of weeks) I find a thread chockful of distraction and diversion.
I therefore did as I always do in such cases: I went right back up to the top and reread the posted article.
If anyone has googled their way in here and is reading this now or hereafter, I advise them to do the same; and to form the habit of so doing, in any thread in which there is a flurry of obvious troll activity (whether boggarts or dementors) or in which there is a lot of distraction or diversion.
And since a poster called ‘revg’ has made hysterical accusations against ‘Wellington’, accusing him of lying, and calling his scholarship “juvenile” (!!) I will add that I have been reading here at jihadwatch for eight years now, during which period Wellington has posted regularly; and I have come to trust Wellington’s judgement; he knows what he’s talking about. He recommends De Tocqueville’s classic “Democracy in America”; I have read at least some of that monumental work, and it is worth reading.
The poster calling itself ‘robert4’ is, most probably, a mohammedan in a mask; if not, it is a dhimmi fool or tool. It is of very recent appearance at this forum, and it is not to be trusted. Its generally sneering and aggressive tone – as when it calls Mr Spencer “Bob”, as it has done in other threads – is a pretty good indicator of the level at which it operates. Ignore it.