Re: GIVE YALE THE FINGER


"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142835533.285510.106280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bob Cooper wrote:

But first you have to understand them, which I don't think you do!

I understand you're a Muslim, which means you wish to either kill me or make
me a dhimmi.

LOL. Dummy is more like it :-)

I may be dumb, but I can read:

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold
that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book,
until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

And, please spare me your standard, "that has been explained elsewhere,"
or "that verse is taken out of context," or any of the other clever evasions
you may come up with. The meaning is crystal-clear.

I understand that, in spite of enjoying the benefits of liberty,
justice and freedom in this country -- not to mention economic benefits -- you
harbor and express virulent anti-American views.

I am NOT against America [how could you even imagine such a thing!] ;

Unless you unreservedly reject the verse above, you are, by definition,
against America, at least to the extent that you oppose the First Amendment
of the US Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.

I am only against the current foreign policy. I am against American
military presence overseas and invading/bombing other countries, both
of which, in my view, are hurting long term interests of this country.
The United States' BEST assets are its ideals of democracy, freedom,
equal opportunity, and good governance. Instead of promoting these
through diplomacy and trade, Americans have taken a militaristic and
imperialistic approach which is causing needless resentment and is
actually a hindrance to democracy in some countries.

Your accusation of imperialism is FALSE and DEFAMATORY. Was it
imperialism when the US took military action against the Serbs (including lots
of bombing) to put an end to the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans? And,
that question is not rhetorical. I expect an answer.

And, regarding Iraq, has the US taken a single drop of Iraqi oil? No, and God
knows they haven't anything else worth taking. On the contrary, we have given
them billions in aid, and, far more importantly, the blood of thousands of young
men and women in the US military. And, we have freed then from the murderous,
totalitarian regime of a mad dictator. All in an effort to allow them to establish
their own democracy. That doesn't fit any definition of the word "imperialism"
that I've ever seen.

I am also against US support for Israel.

As you have every right to be. Now, contrast that with your fate should you
express *pro-Israeli* views in any Muslim country in the world.

I understand that you
frequently make comments I believe can reasonably be construed as
apologizing for and even condoning terrorism.

Absolutely not. My point consistently has been that lying about your
enemies, whether it's al-Qaida or Saddam) and obfuscating core issues
is counterproductive. Blaming Islam, when the underlying issues are
mostly political---begging for a solution---is extremely dangerous and
can lead to unintended consequences, as we have seen already. It would
not solve any problem.

Explain to me the underlying political issues that justify slaughtering
six-year-old Russian children on their first day at school, thousands of
unknowing innocents in New York skyscrapers, Israeli kids in pizza
parlors, Spanish commuters, Moscow theater-goers, people in night
clubs in Bali and trains in London. Then, explain to me the underlying
political issues that justify the videotaped decapitations of Daniel Pearl
and Nick Berg.

And then, explain to me the "political" reason why the perpetrators
scream "Alahu Akbar" while performing their grisly tasks. I'm really
curious about that. What are Allah's politics?

And, finally, explain to me why there is so little sincere condemnation from
you -- or, indeed, any of the world's Muslims -- for these outrages, while
Danish cartoons have you frothing at the mouth at the drop of a hat.

And, I understand -- from a
recent post in this thread -- your view of freedom of speech does not include
the freedom to "insult" others. That is not freedom of speech at all, and it's
another idea that I hate.

Again, you didn't understand. My point was that defending bigotry in
the name of freedom of speech is unconscionable. Of course there would
be ignorant people in every society who would publicly insult [not
criticize] ethnic or religious minorities or their cherished religious
beliefs. But rather than defending such behavior, it behooves the
majority to denounce these bigots, if and when these insults have
surfaced.

Anyone who agrees with your assessment that the speech is insulting and
bigoted -- minority or majority -- is perfectly free to join you in speaking out
against it. Conversely, anyone who disagrees with you is perfectly free to
support your opponent. You just don't get it, do you? You see, the key is
who gets to decide what is "insulting" and "bigoted". In our system, it's the
individual, not the government, and not the church (or mosque). The
government stays out of it, barring imminent danger of violence, pornography,
and such. Now, such freedom comes at a price, to be sure. People are
allowed to say outrageous and insulting things; people are allowed to be
bigots. But, we -- most of us -- think the price is worth it.

Now, what do I misunderstand?

Just about everything :-)


You are totally wrong. I am in favor of democracy in Saudi Arabia:
political parties, primaries, elections, freedom of speech etc.

But not freedom to "insult" anyone? Who defines "insult"? If I said,
"Hitler was a shithead and Mussolini sucked," would I be arrested, and, if
not, why not? What about if I said, Mohammed was a seventh-century
caravan robber, and -- even worse -- compounded my crime by drawing
a cartoon of him?"

First of all, you need to realize that in no country is the right of
free speech absolute. As you already know, TV and radio are regulated
industries in this country. Some of the greatest minds in our country
have sat down and drawn up a list of seven non-George-Carlinian bad
words that you cannot use on the airwaves (cable excluded). Using the
'N' word for African Americans and the 'K' word for Jews can also get
you into a lot of trouble.

Different issue. To ne, freedom of speech means freedom from *government*
regulation of speech. As you well know, Michael Graham was fired by WMAL
for making allegedly bigoted comments about Islam. I criticized WMAL for that
-- as is my right -- but I never claimed it was a free speech issue in the First
Amendment sense. WMAL is a private employer. They have a right to set
station policy, and they have a right to fire employees who violate it. They were
wrong, but there was no government involvement and, hence, no violation of the
First Amendment. In a way, they were exercising *their* freedom of speech.

So each society has certain taboos that are
above and beyond free speech issues, and you cannot take your taboos
and impose them on other cultures. If there is democracy in Saudi
Arabia and the overwhelming majority uses the power of legislation to
protect its core values, I still see that as democracy in action and
not a problem.

That's because you have no grasp of the concept of protection of minority
rights that is the cornerstone of the US Constitution. Such protection is an
integral part of what *I* consider "democracy". Some of that protection
is built into the Constitution itself, but most of it resides in the first ten
Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. I suggest you read
them. What good is a "democracy" where the majority is free to impose
it's will on the minority. In the twinkling of an eye, the minority would have
no rights at all.

For example, without the First Amendment, the vast majority of voters,
who happened to be Christians, could (and probably would) have voted
Christianity in as the State Religion. That was the sort of thing the Bill of
Rights was designed to prevent. And, it has.

What if the Christian Right in this country gains 90% of
the vote in Congress and in three-fourths of states and changes the
Constitution to its liking? Would you still consider the US to be a
"democratic" country?

See above. The only way that could happen is if they passed a Constitutional
Amendment repealing -- at a minimum -- the First Amendment. That is so
far-fetched and unlikely -- leftist hysteria notwithstanding -- that the question, in
my opionion, is purely hypothetical.

I, for one, would be unalterably opposed to anything like that. But, hypothetically,
if they somehow managed that, no, I would no longer consider the US to be a
"democracy" meeting my definition of the word.

The ironic thing about your question is that if Muslims ever attained a
similar position, that is *exactly* what would happen -- with your cheerful
approval.

But I do understand that Saudi democracy may not end up exactly like the
American democracy, just as British democracy is not the same as
American democracy.

It would certainly not end up anything like either American or British
democracy if you had your way, because it would be based on sharia,
wouldn't it? Which is to say it would not be democracy in the western
sense at all. It would be something akin to the laughable pseudo-democracy
we see in Iran, at best.

People like you get confused between "democracy" and the right of free
speech. You see them as one and the same. They aren't. Democracy simply
means rule of the majority through an electoral process. Free speech is
above and beyond that.

Not to me. For me, freedom of speech, along with rule of law and protection
of minority rights, are integral components of what I understand by the word
"democracy". I think the modern usage of the word implies those things
to most people.

For example, in much of Western Europe it's illegal to deny the Holocaust.
So shall we say that there is no democracy in Western Europe?

No, there's lots of democracy in Western Europe. But, you raise a good
point. The Holocaust Denial laws are grossly undemocratic, in my opinion,
and I condemn them unreservedly.

On the other hand, there are countries
which are not fully democratic but have plenty of freedom of speech,
Pakistan for instance.

Pakistan! LOL. Have they repealed the Blasphemy Laws?

As I pointed out above, you are also confused
between cultural taboos and freedom of speech. What's not taboo in your
culture, you think should also be permissible in other countries, which
is unrealistic to say the least.

My position is simple. I agree with the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances."

And, the government should not have anything to do with enforcing "cultural
taboos".

About twenty years ago, I left the United States to work in one of the
Gulf countries. It was very painful to see people being treated and
paid according to their nationality: Americans and the British were
paid the highest. At the bottom of the ladder were poor folks from
Philippines and South Asian countries. After I complained about this
openly shameful discrimination, I was fired immediately.

Interesting. I am (seriously) sorry for your unpleasant experience.

But, I can't help but be curious as to whether you had foreknowledge
of this situation when you accepted the job, or whether these things came
as a complete surprise to you? And, I can't help but suspect the former.
And, if that's the case, I wonder why you went?

Actually, I had thought that Americans were the highest paid because
they had skills which others didn't have. But that wasn't the case.

Then, why were they paid more? Doesn't make economic sense, does it?

The Gulf Arabs suffer from inferiority complex and tend to judge people
by their ethnicity.

Then, I respectfully suggest the Gulf Arabs seek therapy :>)

It's been a while back and things might have
changed but when I was there, White Americans and Britons were
considered superior and were paid more. If they hired an American of
any other ethnicity by mistake [hiring was done by recruiters
overseas), he was let go after one or two years. Even civil service
pay scale guidelines included provisions that Americans and Britons be
paid additional allowances. That was put in place by British
advisors---who still serve in high level governmental posts---to
attract more Britons and Americans to the Gulf. The private industry
was not much different.

And, was it also painful for you to see the treatment of women (e.g. not
allowed to drive; or leave the house alone; or vote (oh wait -- men aren't
either, are they>); or conduct certain business without the approval of a
male relative; forced to walk around covered from head to toe, etc., etc.)?
But, perhaps these things came as a surprise to you, too?

Actually, women in the Gulf country that I was in have had lot more
freedom. They drive, work as doctors, engineers, bankers, run
businesses etc. They were greedy and materialistic for the most part
but that was my impression, which could be very wrong :-)

I'm not surprised that was your impression.

I didn't mean that their working as doctors or engineers was
"greediness." I meant, in general; however, I could have been biased
because of my own personal experiences:-)

But, you neatly avoided my question about SA, didn't you? Care to
read it again and respond this time? When your "democracy" is
installed in SA, would those things change?

What things? Do you mean, would women be allowed to drive cars? I bet
it would happen, especially if women also vote.

Hallelujah! Free at last!


.