The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The paradox of Muslim weakness > Comments

The paradox of Muslim weakness : Comments

By Sadanand Dhume, published 6/6/2008

Islamists, even when not in power, wield fear and faith to pressure their societies in conservative directions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Islam brooks no form of dialogue that contains ANYTHING that smatters of direct or indirect criticism.It cannot afford to because it is afraid of rational scrutiny and any belief system that is guilty of this admits to a known and feared inferiority.
It is basically the remnants of bronze age thinking and thus in the 21st century it is an anachronism that has outlived its use-by-date.What keeps it alive is the use of intimidation and violence. They depend for iteir survival on keeping its adherents in ignorance.Look at the example of the Taliban, the scourge of the world.Lovely freedom-loving people,arent they..Everyone of them ignorant bigots ...they dont even understand their own religion.

What has any Islamic community been able to offer the world from its sciences?Look at the contributions of non-Islamic countries' contribution from India and China.Where Muslims are beginning to make their contributions are from the shelter of liberal democratic and secular societies. Most Islamic countries are feudal in their political and social structures.

Why have millions of Muslims migrated to other countries?I should have said FLED to other parts of the world.It is because they want something better for their children and grandchildren.They want freedom from fear and intimidation. They have had a gutful of the politics of repression and hate.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Friday, 6 June 2008 1:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The power of religion in indigent societies is more potent and influential upon its believers than political power or military power, especially in Muslim societies where religious and political power are inseparable and is exercised by theocracies. And as the author correctly states the believers of Mohammed are vulnerable to the most fictional conspiracies and tend to scapegoat others for their own ills and those of their countries. It’s this unshakable belief in the evil of others, in this case of the West in general and of the American Satan in particular, that makes Muslims extremely dangerous to Western civilization.

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.com
Posted by Themistocles, Friday, 6 June 2008 3:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article.

One of the key points would be:

<<Reminded daily that they are recipients of God’s final revelation, a large minority of Muslims - perhaps between 10 and 15 per cent - embrace the Islamist idea that the cause of their backwardness lies not in a failure to embrace modernity but in a failure to fully embrace their faith.>>

I suggest this is the problem in the West also. Our vulnerability to highly organized, highly motivated groups who are opposed to our values lies in our spiritual weakness and denial of that foundation from which we derive our date 6/6/ 2008.....

That the events in Jerusalem way back then, are pivotal in history cannot be denied. The world began changing then in ways that cannot be fathomed by the shallow minded.

The outpouring of the Grace of God, the self sacrifice of Christ Jesus, his command to spread the world of love and Grace, and to make disciples of all nations..... this, without question is what gave us the best of 'today'.

Sadly, the West has not used it's freedom for the best choices. The great Apostle Paul said

<<You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.>>

Have we done that as nations? no.. we have increasingly served the sinful nature, and served self rather than loved others in His name.

So..shame on us, we need to repent.. yep..repent.. turn around, turn back, embrace the truth of God in Christ and begin that process which Paul describes as:

"Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 June 2008 5:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author singles out Islam but I would say most religions "wield fear and faith to pressure their societies in conservative directions".
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 6 June 2008 5:31:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A...et tu, tu quoque.

No "Christian" nation on the planet is a theocracy, other than the Vatican (which is hardly a "nation"). Yours is a very thin response.
Posted by viking13, Friday, 6 June 2008 9:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting article which will inevitably draw the Islamophobes like cats to exposed meat (so to speak). As it has done thus far.

Viking, your comment got me thinking - which "Muslim" nations do you think are theocracies, and on what basis would you nominate them as such?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 6 June 2008 11:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ.. Saudi Arabia is one

In spite of all that.. there are those (many of them) who regard SA as in spiritual decline, a state of apostasy, and unIslamic. In fact..the 'real deal' awaits the present 'corrupt worldly' regime to be removed and the 'true' Muslims installed.

Well.. without offering any opinion on those well documented facts, (you can draw your own conclusions) it does underline what the author was saying.

As for you? well.. the truth of the condition described "not fully embraced their faith" applies also, but in your case, by your own words, you don't recognize any need for that. Isn't freedom wonderful?:)

Not only do you get to be an unbeliever you can also call folks like myself "Insufferable godbotherers".. without total impunity and safety.

Q & A.. In the proclamation of Salvation since the advent of Christ, where the Grace of God is made known to all mankind irrespective of race, tribe or culture, the most you will encounter is an invitation and persuasion. Anything more would be out of character with the Gospel itself and the Lord Himself.

"I pray not only for these, but for those who will believe because of their word" said Jesus.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

The Lord said nothing about "Subdue them and if they don't believe in me...tax them"..but the founder of another 'great world religion' did.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 7 June 2008 8:03:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking, on the contrary … stamus contra malum.
Look deeper. I was not focussing on theocracy or theocratic states as such but rather God (creator, enlightenment, higher knowing, mother nature, energy force, Mr X, etc), religions and by implication … churches and religious hierarchy. If one believes that everything is of God (and I am not saying I don’t) then in the context of humanity and its concomitant societies, we are as one in God … regardless of religion. Having said this, I believe that it is ‘Man’ in general but the ‘Religious hierarchy’ in particular that have failed God. They have done this by wielding power and control over the masses through misinterpretation and distortion of God’s message, be it through the Old or New Testaments, the Koran, whatever.

David
“The most you will encounter is an invitation and persuasion. Anything more would be out of character with the Gospel itself and the Lord Himself.”
I agree entirely. However, what I have serious misgivings about (and consequently question the motives of the purveyors) is when the Zealots, fanatics or religious fundamentalists say I will go to purgatory, be damned to Hell or be smitten if I don’t listen to their message. This I would argue is out of God’s character.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 7 June 2008 9:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan- ANY discussion of Islamic issues appears to be Islamophobia, to you. This word is bandied about by Muslims and "useful dhimmis" alike, to stifle debate. Since Christianity and other religions are open to ridicule and discussion, why should Islam be excepted?

Those Islamic nations which base their law on sharia are theocracies, to varying extents. The frontrunner would be Iran (despite its claim to be a "democracy" the mullahs have a strong say in who can stand for election). Saudi Arabia, despite its claim to being a "kingdom", has an all-powerful clergy. Turkey, Algeria and Tunisia are clearly not theocracies despite utilising elements of sharia law.

Whether you agree with this is, is of no import to me. This site is about opinion.
Posted by viking13, Saturday, 7 June 2008 2:20:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

I wonder if you can post on an issue without using the term islamophobe half a dozen times? Is everyone who finds fundamentalist Islam distasteful an Islamophobe? Does that make you a Chritianaphobe?

I think i've risen to your challenge to stop the insults and the name calling. Perhaps you could try it yourself.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are two theocracies that I can think of straight up. You might mistakenly believe that Saudi is a monarchy, however in all matters pertaining to society and morality, Saudi is a theocracy. Afghanistan was a theocracy until we overthrew the Taliban.

I think that any country where the religious police have more power than the real police is a theocracy in practice. Whats your definition?
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 7 June 2008 4:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul... 'Christophobia' is alive and well on OLO.. trust me :)

Pericles, CJ, Ginx, and various others very phobic about anyone Christian.

In fact..this Christianaphobia is tainting all Christians.. even though the 'gang' seems to think they are criticizing just the 'religious nutters' like me. Why don't they realize that they are tarring ALL Christians with the ssame brush and inciting hatred and loathing against even he mildest of us.

Does this last para sound a bit wierd? :) of course it does, because it shows just how irrational criticizing those who criticize intolerance really are.
Then we get this verbal frenzy akin to one of Loony Tunes cartoons where the big bulldog is ripping poor old Sylvester the cat to shreds.....and they go round and round with bits of fur flying out in every direction.

Never mind.

Q & A.. you have a point. I was at this country town coffee shop and the local 'believers' team had put "REJOICE IN HEAVEN..BURNNN IN HELL"
on a sign on the wall. I really thought that would turn everyone off to the nth degree. But.. at the end of the night, after a hyper-cringeworthy stuffing up of the 'devotional talk' which was meant to lead into inviting hearers to Christ.. (when faithless me thought "that's it..they'll all go home" a veritable LEGION of yr 12 students went forward trembling to receive Christ. (they happened to be the brightest and best of the region too)

Sometimes we can be like Moses, who when instructed by God "touch" the stone and water will come out.. BEAT IT many times with his stick while ranting and raving abuse at the Israelites. (for which God punished him too)

A gentle and persuasive word is how the Lord taught. Look to Him, not his only partially sanctified followers.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 7 June 2008 6:20:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that Saudi Arabia and Iran may be properly classified as theocracies. However, it's also clear that the vast majority of predominantly Muslim nations are not theocratic - notably Turkey, in today's news. Of course, this is part of Dhume's point.

Point taken about the 'Islamophobes' jibe Paul, but the fact is any discussion about Islam at OLO rapidly becomes swamped by comments that are clearly Islamophobic in nature. The term "Islamophobia" is highly specific in meaning, unlike the general nature of your use of "soft left" (whatever that means).

Re "Chritianaphobe" (or is it "Christophobia"), I haven't written anything at all here about Christianity nor Christians. I don't have any problems at all with ordinary Christians - it's only when they try to impose their religious values on me and other non-Christians that I object to them. I would feel exactly the same about Muslims, Buddhists, Jews etc, except they never presume to try and proselytise the way Christian godbotherers do.

If a certifiable frootloop like Boazy wants to hide his irrational fear and hatred of Islam behind his own God delusion, that's fine by me. But it's hardly "Christophobic" to point out when some idiot who happens to be a Christian fundy is repeatedly spouting hateful Islamophobic claptrap all over this forum.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 7 June 2008 8:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Pericles, CJ, Ginx, and various others very phobic about anyone Christian." (BOZO babble)

Silly bugger!

I'm 'phobic' about YOU!
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 7 June 2008 11:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, when all else fails, resort to insult.

>>Pericles, CJ, Ginx, and various others very phobic about anyone Christian.<<

That's garbage, Boaz, and you know it.

You must be extremely short of ideas if you feel the need to identify me as having a fear of Christians.

I don't share your beliefs. But then I don't share the beliefs of any religionist, of any persuasion.

And I certainly don't fear you.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 8 June 2008 12:36:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But you've all missed that basic point about Islam:
its weakness in the modern world, is its paradox

that paradox is that Mohammed himself prophesied that accurate comprehension of Islam as He taught it, would only last for three generations after him

Of course the situation is as it is, because it could not be any other way. The system of Islam is internally structured to be nigh on impossible, unless also understood as a way to more deeply embed the human consciousness into both the Judaic and Christian traditions combined.

Those Muslims who deny Christianity and Judaism, and not practising their faith, but at the same time, more and more Muslims these days, are attempting to cause Islamic belief to become more like the belief of Christians. There is a website called the Ammam Message where you can discover that for yourself. The point of Islam originally was always about shocking new believers into facing the fullness of necessary accountibility in which it is possible to sustain belief in One God. Realistically, Islam has, over the past 1400 years, caused many more of the world's population to believe in One God than ever before, in which many of those believers have become Christian thereafter.

I'm not one to bear a grudge against Islam, and in fact learn much through associations with Muslims, but at heart I am not likely to want to become one because there are just too many disagreements between Muslims about what Islam is, in which the basic messages are too often lost. The Christian message will ring far more powerfully to Muslims after all Christians stop trying to blame Islam.
Posted by Curaezipirid, Sunday, 8 June 2008 2:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Curaezipirid,
Would you mind elaborating on your last sentence.

I do not claim to be religious and I don't know if Christians blame Muslims for anything religious.

I blame Islam for world wide acts of terrorism, heavy violence between Muslims and the cause of many social problems here in Aus.

The acts of terrorism are in the name of Allah and the social problems here is because Muslims don't seem able to compromise to get on with others, even in a minor way.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 8 June 2008 2:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.sappho.dk/arrangementer/geert-wilders-tale.html

Here is a very topical speech by Geert Wilders to the Danish Parliament.

As a Member of the Dutch Parliament, he was invited to speak to the Danish Parliamment because the citizens of both countries are becoming alarmed at what they are see and are experiencing on a daily basis and Wilders relates it back to the contents of the Koran itself.

The real paradox is why the west is tolerating so much intolerance from the Islamists. It is a problem that only they can rectify, and somehow I cant that happening.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 9 June 2008 5:02:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it is true that Islam in places like Iran and Syria concerns itself more with religious rights than with human or civil rights it is an evolving faith. Christians in countries like Iran, Syria and Iraq have long been persectuted, to a leser extent in countries like Lebanon where there is a larger more vocal Christian population. [And a segregated population where Shiite Hezbollah supporters and Sunni government supporters are more regionalised]

From history we know that human rights were not the foremost concern of the Christian Church. Thankfully the Christian faith in the main evolved with the exception of a few remaining bizarre sects (but they have little global impact).

The way I see it, Islam is following the same journey as Christianity - noted for it's own Inquisitions (Middle Ages, Spanish and Roman) to suppress heresy in all forms especially from various sects. Papally appointed judges (like Imams) would sit in judgement on claims of religious heresy sometimes known to be as stringent and unbending as Sharia law.

Will globalisation soften the edges of Islam or will economic disparities continue to fuel fundamentalism?

Fairer and more equitable economic policies and education (modernisation) will go a lot further to lay the ground for a secular Islam and defuse the conditions that breed fundamentalism. As will continued exposure to the West and other religions.

"So while talk of Islam’s inroads in Washington, London and Paris may indeed be overblown, the special conditions in the Muslim world ensure that the threat to liberal democracy in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Islamabad is not about to disappear any time soon."

This has always been so, there has never been much in the way of liberal democracy in these nations so there is no threat as such only a sense of hoplessness that liberal democracies might one day emerge.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 9 June 2008 8:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all.

"The real paradox is why the west is tolerating so much intolerance from the Islamists." asks Banjo ...

It's simple mate.. we have people who, like J.Edgar Hoover simply 'deny' that the Mafia exists:).. and sadly, at the moment they seem to hold sway in world politics.

You see..there is nothing to fear or be concerned about if you just 'deny' that it exists.

After all.. why would you wish to place a slur on the whole Italian community just because a few hundred of them are involved in unsavory activities. AAh yes.. J Edgar had the right idea didn't he.

By the time you are having to do post mortems on the people killed on the level crossing, its a bit late to do the ground work for boom gates.

Don't worry. nothing will happen.. there is nothing to worry about, all the things we experience like Bali are all 'our fault.. and in any case, that was sensationalized and amplified and I guess Newscorp made a killing out of it all.

So.. take our eaze.. relax... enjoy.. eat drink and be merry...for..

You see, 10 nice people of a particular faith, means that none of the nasty kind can exist.. its a kind of soft left version of David Copperfield magic.. "10 good eliminates 2 bad"

But in the long run it should not be about the magic of 'how many good and how many bad'..it should be about the 'spell'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 9 June 2008 9:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
Not my question old son, but still a pretty good one by Bigmal

Did you get the link to the speech by Geert Wilders? (must see what google has to say about him) I think I should print it and send to all our pollies in Canberra. I will Email to quite a few people I know. Too many are acting like the proverbial ostrich.

I asked Curaezipirid if he would elaborate on his last sentence. He said Christians should stop blaming Muslims. What DO Christians blame muslims for? Anything religious that you know of? I found his post interesting but could not understand the last sentence.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 9 June 2008 10:11:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo.. aah..sorry for the mixup.

Yours.. "what DO Christians blame muslims for?"... good point.
If Newscorp is asked 'probably everything'!

I think Curae is just alluding to the general jingoist mentality of "We good/they bad"...but it might also be that he/she is hinting at the level of press reporting of various disturbances in the world in which Islamists have featured.

Perhaps he/she feels we should be examining our own foreign policy more closely? I don't know. I also don't know that 'Christians' are the ones blaming Muslims for all the world ills.... unless Curae feels that to be 'Western' is to be Christian at the same time?

I would rather see Westerners exploring the 'faith of our fathers' but not because of it being at the root of our culture, no, rather, because life takes on its true meaning and greatest fulfillment when our lives are taken up with the love of, and obedience, to the Almighty in Christ.

So.. maybe I can make a 'grabber' like this ? :) "Less blaming and more believing"

When an individual has a good knowledge of the values and teaching of the New Testament especially, the nature of Islam will become much clearer.

The paradox of the topic is not something which will stay static.
They have 'intense enthusiasm' but no military strength...now, but if I were them, with all that cash, I'd probably be saying "there are more ways to skin a cat than blasting off his fur with an M1A1 Abrhams tank shell :)

Another "grabber"... "Why beat em, when you can BUY em"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 6:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
socratease,

We, in the West, owe a debt to the Muslims for preserving Greek science & philosophy during and after fall of the Roman Empire and during the West's Dark Ages. Spain was occupied by the Moors for centuries and re-captured by the Europeans, wherein significant knowledge passed from the Spainish Moors to provide a foundation for then contemporary modernisation of the West, perhaps the first step towards The Enligtenment.

Sadly, in the sixteenth century, the Christian West slave-traded white Moors into Brazil to work on suguar planations. Not a very pleasant way, to repay the Moors.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:35:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul took the words out of my mouth re Islamophobia & CJ Morgan

CJ Morgan please define Islamophobia.

So, is it Islamophobic to state that Muslims seem to have a genetic predisposition for persecution complexes? I feel it is a valid conclusion reached after 13 years of working with the culture in Australia. Admittedly, it is hardly a worthwhile opinion because it was not given to me by a university lecturer.

The article mentions that we only hear of foiled attacks these days. Was it really that long ago that people were killed in London? What is an acceptable time frame to pass before former events are not relevent? Fuzzy wuzzy KevO7 feels Hiroshima is relevant. But conversely Islamophobics defile the PC manifesto if they should have a random thought about a terrorist attack that happened less than a decade ago.

I just read about a terrorist trial in the weekend paper about page 9,112, one short paragraph, in one of the weekend magazine inserts. The enlightened left at the SMH certainly are leading by example by not behaving like stereotypical Islamophobes.

If the author had stated that there has not been another major attack since NY that would be incorrect as well. Remember the train attack in Spain?

It could, however, be said that efforts by the US government and other countries such as Australia have minimised the risk.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy Joe: << CJ Morgan please define Islamophobia. >>

Sure, how about the Wikipedia definition:

<< Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims. The term itself dates back to the 1980s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism. >>

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia ]

Cowboy Joe: << So, is it Islamophobic to state that Muslims seem to have a genetic predisposition for persecution complexes? >>

Yes, such a ridiculous claim would have to qualify. "Genetic predisposition"? So people inherit Islam genetically? Duh.

<< I feel it is a valid conclusion reached after 13 years of working with the culture in Australia. >>

"Working with the culture"? Yeah, right. What are you, a prison guard from Baxter or something, as well as being a rodeo rider? A many of many talents, it seems.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:37:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ... I agree with you (partly)..AND the Wikipedia definition.

yes.. "genetic predisposition" is incorrect.. it is not islamophobic however, it is simply 'wrong'. 'Cultural' predisposition would be correct.(in varying degrees across the whole community)

Lets test the Wikipedia definition in regard to the Quran?

1/ "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,"

COMMENT. In the case of the secularist who does not know Christ as his Lord.. this might be true. For Christians it is a case of hate the sin, love the sinner, for Christs sake.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm

umm..where is the 'Hate' CJ? Amazingly, and irrationaly, you claim that drawing attention to hate speech in the Quran is.. 'inciting hatred',- truly the mind doth boggle..and boggle more.

Here are the verses pointed out to me (in all sincerity by the way) by the "Men in white" at the MBS festival. I've never used them myself (prior to meeting them), but I might now.

88. They say: "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
89. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

look at John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...."

WOW.....want more ? read on......

90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious.
92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

Check this also, 'The Ultimate Crime'
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/SHIRK/crime.htm

But of course.. little is said of "Christ-phobia" in the Quran or the more enthusiastic elements of the Muslim community...maybe it's time it was?

I notice Wiki does not use the term 'irrational' in regard to dread and fear....but I'll use it of you.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 9:10:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, for someone who denies that they have a "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, [a] fear and dislike of all Muslims", you sure do put on a convincing display of exactly that.

You disguise it as pseudo-erudite discourse on the meaning and relevance of the various scriptures, but underneath it all is a fundamental, all-consuming fear and hatred of Islam, that is blindingly obvious to all but you.

It is fascinating that your latest hobby-horse is the sudden recognition that there are Islamic verses that say things like "we don't believe Jesus was the son of God", and that Muslims are told that to say otherwise is, in their eyes, blasphemy.

Blasphemy, incidentally, still commanded the death penalty in Christian Scotland until the eighteenth century.

You fail to see what to me are the overwhelming similarities of the two religions. Shirk talks about the crime of denying the existence of Allah, the Bible says the same thing about God.

"I am the LORD thy God... Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

The difference here is in the subjective interpretation, of course. It is impossible for a religious person to hold the two beliefs simultaneously, so each finds the other's interpretation to be threatening.

To an atheist, of course, these are simply two versions of the same story, and as such of interest only in that it is their similarity that causes so much pain and anguish.

But I guess that is the nature of religion. If you're not on my team, you need to be eliminated before the world can be at peace.

The great paradox.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 10:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you CJ, Wikipedia will suffice as the word probably isn't in the dictionary.

Sounds the opposite to an element of what constitutes an assault. If the person being assaulted feels threatened the action can be deemed assault.

So -- dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," This is classic neo-think i.e. Political Correctness. How is this to be proven? No problem -- CJ and others now have permission to pretend as if any criticism about anti-social behaviour, or mass murder based in religious philosophy is promulgated by dread or hate. Presumably if one both dreads AND hates it doesn't qualify. Presumably the left of politics can denigrate Christianity at will because they do not hate or dread Christians. Artists can create obscene art depicting Jesus and not hate or dread Christianity. Leftists are masters at accusing others of wrong doing when they have done the same.

If someone dislikes only 30% of Muslims that they meet are they in the clear?

If I tell CJ I do not hate and do not dread, (in fact I spend less than 5 minutes in a month thinking about the religion) I will be called a liar.

'stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation.' -- My auto mechanic is Muslim. Eight days ago I supported a Muslim lay person trying to deliver a religious lesson to some very disrespectful individuals.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 6:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow.

I want what Cowboy Joe's having - not.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued (OLO time limit)

The point is CJ that name calling can be effective, as there is little defence in countering your verbal abuse. Such behaviour stifles debate and is counter productive to social advancement. Example, Bill Cosby has made statements about black American males that almost no one else could make and get away with it. In other words, hundreds millions of people would be labelled racist and shouted down from the rooftop of every electronic media outlet if they said exactly the same thing. We have had a similar example with the young Indigenous woman who has spoken out about the insidious nature of a welfare mentality and the officials who manipulate the situation for their own self interest.

How can any reasonable person conclude this is desirable? Is this what Australian democracy has become? The only religion you can criticise is the one (Christianity) that initiated democracy and the only religion you are not allowed to criticise is the one that has the stated aim of eradicating Christianity, Western democracy and destroying Israel?

Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance

Is it possible that CJ exhibits intolerance by maligning & labelling individuals after reading one or two of their thoughts?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:34:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy Joe: << Is it possible that CJ exhibits intolerance by maligning & labelling individuals after reading one or two of their thoughts? >>

Quite possibly, but I'd counter by saying that it's often very easy to detect bigotry and ignorance in one or two posts by certain individuals here at OLO :)

( Besides which, it's very easy to access far more than "one or two" of anybody's thoughts at OLO: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25681&show=history )

For example, the notion of working with the Muslim "culture" for 13 years is nonsensical. Islam is a religion that crosses many disparate cultures, nationalities and ethnicities. To suggest that anything about Islam is "genetically" inherited is not only Islamophobic, but also racist. Face it, Joe - you're a classic bigot when it comes to Islam.

I don't need to "malign and label" you, Cowboy Joe - you do a very good job of it yourself.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 12 June 2008 1:14:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

Islam is not just a religion, but also a legal, political and social system that is applied to all and sundry - believers or 'apostates' alike.

Christian Churches have their own laws and these are generally restricted to believers - I doubt you would fear ex-communication a) because you don't believe in it and b) because you don't get physically punished - but, Islam applies its laws (like the Church of old) to everyone.

As you have noted, Islam 'applies' to many nations and cultures and this is historically due to initial conquests and continued state sanctioned suppression of religious freedom. Whilst some of the Americas were subject to Christian conquest, they have developed into states where religious freedom now exists.

As you note, belief is beyond race, and that is what gives me the willies when people at Camdem are labelled racist when opposing an Islamic school. They may well be intolerant, but, not racist.

If they were opposing a Nazi, Communist, Moaist, or some other 'facist' type school, then we may (would?) be supporting them.

If Islam was only a tolerant religion, then, we needn't have all this debate.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 12 June 2008 10:59:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality check - it's a minor thing, but I'd qualify your last statement. You say, "If Islam was only a tolerant religion, then, we needn't have all this debate."

I'd respond that you can't lump all muslims in together. I will concede that the majority of muslims living in muslim dominated countries do display a high degree of intolerance, however it's not the case with all muslims, certainly not all living in the west, not to mention the many avowedly secular muslims living in places like Turkey.

So yes, it may hold true for the majority, but to claim all are such, is to commit the same sin of intolerance.
That being said, I'm not saying it's necessary to accommodate those who are so hostile to western ways of thinking. But we don't do anyone any favours by cataloguing all muslims as the enemy.

Actually, we do the extreme imams favours by doing that, which is precisely how they wield power. I for one, am not willing to hand them more power by giving them more fuel for their 'the west is the enemy' mentality.

This is a good piece. It highlights the genuine threats, as well as the not so genuine. We should be supporting moderate muslims in their endeavours at reform, but in a subtle manner, and we should be reconsidering things like US foreign policy, which is actually a boon to those who make use of the image of a western monolithic enemy to assert their own control.

Hell, if we weren't doing such a good job of playing ignorant-cowboy-gunslinging international politics their job would be much harder.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 12 June 2008 1:05:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJM to counter that religion is not part of a culture is also nonsensical. My apologies for not rigidly conforming to your definition of Muslim. Got me again. Once again very good at arguing both ends of the stick when it suits. What ever happened to common usage so oft used as justification by English teachers.

You know the point I was making and it has nothing to do with race.

In addition you deliberately ignored the point about stifling debate and the negative social impact that results. Why is it that only individuals who possesses certain traits and have celebrity status (anointed by the media) are allowed to make statements that others would be maligned for? Please explain CJM.

The racist mantra is getting very transparent after trendsetters over using it for 40 plus years. Why don't you employ the preferred insult used by the Islamists who never do any wrong -- Your mum.

What ever happened to the true definition of a racist -- someone who thought that the colour of ones skin made them inferior? However, I would like to applaud your use of the term bigot as it has almost passed out of use due to the extremely liberal interpretation and usage of the racist term.

You CJM are an awful bigot as you immediately label one a racist when they do not articulate your views using your terminology.

As for my lack of understanding of attitudes and behaviours & culture of a collective group with recent ancestry from Middle Eastern countries; I have experienced hundreds of hours of interviews with parents and adolescents which has afforded me a perspective grounded in their reality as lived in Auburn, Granville, Parramatta, Bankstown and Merrylands. The difference between theory and practise.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Friday, 13 June 2008 1:35:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recently, the former Jordanian Minister of Religious Endowment told Al-Aqsa TV that Islam will conquer the West.

He didn't stop there. He also said that Spain is an Islamic land that should be retaken -- and America should begin to realise "end is near."

Here's an excerpt from the remarks...

"Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic. Furthermore, we will reach beyond those countries. We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again.

"We say now that America and the EU will come to an end, and only the rising force of Islam will prevail."

The remarkable thing is, these Islamists aren't the only ones predicting the downfall of the West...

In the Los Angeles Times, national security columnist Fred Kaplan has written that President Bush's "follies" have accelerated the decline of American influence. "For half a century, we had been a super-power," he wrote. "Now we're upper middle management."

And Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, has argued that the world is now in a post-America phase where the United States will not have the influence it has enjoyed in recent decades.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Friday, 13 June 2008 2:02:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C.J. Morgan - the "article which will inevitably draw the Islamophobes like cats to exposed meat"

Have you ever even considered that these "islamophobes" have a right to attack that religion, and that rather than being "phobic", which suggests an irrational fear, they are simply "fearful" of Islam, which is a completely different thing.

This fear is eniterely rational, as the thousands of examples serve to prove.

Also,people who respond to criticism of the "other" (whether Muslim or Hindu) with a complete shifting to their own culture think that they are being responsible and "anti-racist", when in fact they are extremely patronising and selfish, because rather than try to help a culture that still struggles with severe illiberalism they want the world to look at their own culture for being evil.

This is okay in itself, however, not when your own culture is extremely liberal and tolerant, and the "other" is not. All this is doing is ignoring it which simply means that the people of this "other culture" are worthless to you.

This type of person is tantamount to a rich Prince screaming about being poor, simply because the Prince in the next castle has more toys. He could only complain about being poor if he hadn't even considered the commoners and peasants outside the castle walls - they are not part of the human race to him.

This is the "leftist", racist mentality when it comes to the "other".
Posted by White Warlock, Saturday, 14 June 2008 11:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a sourced editorial

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person, who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 14 June 2008 3:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess Bill Clinton's campaign theme in 1992? wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 14 June 2008 3:59:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No offence Cowboy Joe, but you're coming across a tad unbalanced there.

"Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

Exaggerating much?

You simultaneously say that this democracy which has delivered George Bush, who "Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant" and yet, this country apparently has a democracy less worthy than Iraqs.

Uh huh. I suspect your rhetoric here is getting a little hysterical. Let's take a further look shall we?

"and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity."

Ah yes, that's what they're fussed about. Not waterboarding, or torture tactics that are banned by the Geneva convention.

I'm willing to accept there's been some improvement in Iraq, though I still don't believe the venture was a good idea when much more focus could have been invested in say, stabilising Afghanistan and addressing the drug trade, and perhaps placing more of an emphasis on halting Saudi funds to extreme Wahabbist Madrassas.

But then again, I suppose because I disagree with Bush's policies, I'm merely some 'lickspittle.'

I'll not resort to your sledging tactics by pointing out what you sound like.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 15 June 2008 2:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I posted a copied article on Saturday, with the words "sourced article".

Here's the last which I also did not write.

The writer enjoys revving up leftists. If we had balanced news reporting the general population might have a more balanced view point. Controversial news in Australia means publicising the view of an extreme leftist.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. , if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good another day without a terrorist attack.

liberals have only blind hatred for Bush and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing. not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant if that's not damning with faint praise. McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Sunday, 15 June 2008 11:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy Joe: << liberals have only blind hatred for Bush and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing. not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant if that's not damning with faint praise. McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. >>

So if Cowboy Joe isn't the author of this tripe, perhaps he'd be good enough to provide a reference for its provenance?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 16 June 2008 9:04:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dhume isn't the smartest cookie on the planet. He also lives ind enial about the extent of Hindu extremism in his own country, India. Muslim extremism is on the run in most Muslim countries. But Hindu extremists are forming governments in India. A neo-Fascist like Narendra Modi continues to be re-elected in Gujarat, despite his role in the massacre in 2002 of over 3,000 innocent civilians. Don't expect Dhume to talk about that in a hurry.

The real paradox is that, in the world's largest democracy, religious extremists can still threaten the existence of religious minorities with impunity. But I doubt self-styles Australian Christians like Boaz_David would care about non-white Catholics in India.
Posted by BOZO_DAGWOOD, Monday, 16 June 2008 1:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The female, attorney and author you inquired about:

Ann Hart Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter, an Attorney for Phelps Dodge (Albany, New York, May 5, 1926 - New Canaan, Connecticut, January 4, 2008) and wife (married at Stuyvesant, New York, September 30, 1953) Nell Husbands Martin (Paducah, Kentucky, February 23, 1928 -).[2] After her birth in New York City, New York, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers, James and John, were raised.[3] She has described her family as "upper middle class" and has termed her attorney father a "union buster".[4][5][6] He was a nine-year FBI agent who worked on the William Remington espionage case and, later as a labor lawyer was involved in defeating a 1983-1985 strike by the United Steelworkers against the Phelps Dodge copper company that ended with 30 locals being decertified.[7][8]

As an undergraduate at Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[9] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[10] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[11] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[12]

After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[13] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[14] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[15]

It can't all be tripe; that is if her accusers even the slightest remnant of objectivity left.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 1:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy Joe obviously hasn't a clue about the convention of not only acknowledging direct quotations, but also providing references for their sources. For example, from the same Wikipedia article that his last comment plagiarises:

<< In 2001, as a contributing editor and syndicated columnist for National Review Online (NRO), Coulter was asked by editors to make changes to a piece written after the September 11 attacks. On the national television show Politically Incorrect, Coulter accused NRO of censorship and said that she was paid $5 per article. NRO dropped her column and terminated her editorship. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NRO, said, "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote... we ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty [concerning the editing disagreement]."[40]

Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." and referred to some unspecified female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." The newspaper declined to print the article citing an editing dispute over "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." An explanatory article by the paper went on to say "Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that 'USA Today doesn't like my "tone", humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.'" USA Today replaced Coulter with Goldberg, and Coulter published it instead on her website.[41][42][43]

In August 2005, the Arizona Daily Star dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints that "Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives."[44] >>

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter ]

For a fuller description of this NeoCon harpy, I recommend reading the full article.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 1:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry - my post reference is Wikipedia.

Lost it for a moment, thought I was writing a research paper for a university assignment, hence the plagiarism.

Good to see that she has once again accomplished her goal of firing up lefties.

Would you like to read her book: If Democrats (i.e. Labor) Had any Brains they Would be Republicans? Her book is probably effectively censored for sale in Australia. Have you noticed it for sale?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 2:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

I thought of intervening earlier when it was clear you were looking for the Author so that you could cast aspersions upon his/her character instead of actually debating the merits of the article. This type of ad hominem attack has no place in this debate when discussing matters of opinion. When looking at facts I concede that who claims them is an important factor. But when discussing opinion, ad hominem attack is pointless and irrelevant.

I could just as easily slag off Pilger as soft left nutbag with a pedigree of muckracking and overly pious grievance mongering. It doesn't actually get us anywhere. How about, for a change, we debate the ideas and not the indentities.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 2:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L: << I thought of intervening earlier when it was clear you were looking for the Author so that you could cast aspersions upon his/her character instead of actually debating the merits of the article. >>

No Paul, I wanted to know the author because Cowboy Joe decided to copy and paste an entire crappy article from somewhere else, but didn't do us the courtesy of providing the author's name or where it was originally published. That it turned out to be by a notorious wingnut hack is no surprise at all.

Besides which, isn't this discussion supposed to be about Sadanand Dhume's article? How does lifting an unattributed polemical spray by someone else and plonking it unattributed into the discussion progress the debate, exactly?

BTW - I'm no great fan of Pilger, either. I take anything he writes with a large grain of salt, as I do with all crusaders, whatever their political persuausion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 3:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And in June 1942, when German spies who had landed in the U.S. to carry out acts of industrial espionage were captured by the FBI, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted swiftly to signal to the Supreme Court that he was not going to entertain court intervention. First, FDR issued an executive order on July 2, 1942 that the detainees were to be subject to trial immediately by military commission. FDR also made clear to his attorney general what his reaction would be to any writ of habeas corpus: "One thing I want clearly understood . . . I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." FDR understood the Supreme Court was supreme in the judicial branch but it was not supreme over the other two political branches.

REFERENCE: Human Events Online, Newt Gingrinch, June 17, 2008 Vol. 3, No. 25
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 6:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy