951. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176298 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:32 am

alvorin,






Ok I am wrong, so totally wrong, now can you tell me why? Can you tell me what socialism is? I have painted with a broad brush because none of the people here care to define socialism. And when I do it I get accused of being wrong.

Me:"Socialism is this..."
Peanut gallery: "No it isn't"
Me: "Ok what is it?"
PG: "Tito wasn't a socialist".
Me: "What is socialism?"
PG: "Cuba isn't socialist."

Someone define socialism for me.



As for the government being responsible for protecting people from centralized powers (public and private), this works if the government is accountable to the people. However in the US, the government works for large corporate power and individual wealth. So it has next to no accountability, so this is my major problem with the United States.

952. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176297 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:25 am

ASMarques,

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it isn't the 70 virgins as Dawkins apparently would have it.

How come many suicide bombers wrap their genitals in wet towels? Virgins have nothing to do with it?

Good try.

953. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176296 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 am

Nairb,




I think that is fair.


It is all a social issue, religion is nothing but a cultural and societal product. So the cultures are highly relevant to the behavior of the specific Muslim.

954. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176293 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:17 am

Windweaver,

Al-Rawandi is really starting to lose it on this thread. Look at some of the language he's used to describe Chomsky: "vile", "obnoxious", "buffoon", "Danny Boyle zombie". Hey, don't hold back Al, I'm sure you can add "paedophile" and "serial rapist" to the list if you try hard enough.
As for your "friend" Fanusi, here's a short sample of his bile and vitriol (put together by Xenocratic on a 2007 thread):

I am pissed because there is a man here who continues to obfuscate and dodge the fact that Chomsky has lied, and made dishonest comparisons. The fact that I fucked up and didn't post the right link, or forgot to post the link altogether won't change the fact that Chomsky lied.


As for those names I used... Most of them are used to describe _riverrun_ not Chomsky. But _riverrun_ is right I called Chomsky a Paedophile in not so many words.

I said _riverrun_ was a "Chomsky catamite", a catamite is the younger boy in a pederastic relationship. So it was meant in an intellectual sense, but the literal meaning is there. And I stand by it, if not for factual value, but for sheer rhetorical genius. But I digress.

955. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176289 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:10 am

_riverrun_,



I have quoted from original sources when I had them.


I don't own every Chomsky book ever written. But what I did do is go elsewhere to get information form "Manufacturing Consent".

The issue IS Chomsky lied and is a liar.


As for sources I posted what I thought was a link to bogdanor's site, before I began posting any of these things, so anyone could look them up, what I did in fact do was post a link to one specific page linked to that site. But you are correct, if this were an academic forum then I would be guilty as charged, but it isn't. What I have shown, time and again is that Chomsky has been dishonest. My entire post #243 is from Chomsky works I spent the night going through, ones I own. I looked at every place he mentioned Cambodia or Pol Pot, and I posted what were the obvious distortions and exagerations.

But from now on I will use APA for the websites. But the point being is that Chomsky lied, he lied about Cambodia.

I will even concede the Bosnia point, although it seems like his pattern (seen in Cambodia).

Furthermore, Hitchens defended free speech... that is fine. Chomsky defended free speech.... that is fine. Chomsky said Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism.... that is bull shit and you know it. Suggesting a worldwide Jewish conspiracy perpetrated to extort money from gentiles is worse than the blood libel, saying it isn't anti-semitism is dishonest or stupid.


The quotes from this appear on Chomsky's website. I think there is a link in there somewhere. But I wasn't being particularly dilligent at the time, but I will not fail again in being more attentive.


Perhaps you could respond to the fact that Chomsky lied. Your red herrings and smoke screens won't save your man.

And you are so unoriginal. I called you a lick spit, and lo and behold you turn and use the same term. Not only do you parrot Chomsky, you parrot me.

956. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176288 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 5:55 am

Jiten,





Excellent point. And I agree. Chomsky has done some fantastic work. However his need to absolutely and incessantly demonize the United States, is too much. I have been a consistent critic of US foreign policy in Iraq and Israel most notable.


It is deplorable when people die for no reason. That is why I noted that CHomsky focused on East Timor, when Suharto had actually perpetrated a far larger massacre on Indonesian communists.

But Chomsky has lied, and it is demonstrable. I posted one link to a pack of lies he published.

957. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176112 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Ok checking now.

958. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176102 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

_riverrun_

And that still doesn't cover it all. Yet I'm an apologist for massacres, a parrot, who worships Chomsky. Anyone interested can see who has posted more on Chomsky here. Since your claims about me are null and void, asserted with about as much evidence as there is for supernatural agency, I will leave you to your fanciful straw man, and your obvious obsession with the guys work.

Wellity wellity.


Chomsky has been totally exposed as a hypocrite, liar, apologist for genocide and anti-semites.


You may or may not know my rubric for deducing who is a dogmatist incapable of understanding or challenging evidence. One of them is to run off without having dealt with evidence shown to them.


I have shown you evidence. Cited from Chomsky's own works, as well as from other publications. I have proven my thesis time and again, "Chomsky is a valuable commentator who often exceeds the mandate granted by truth."

I must say I valued Chomsky until I did the research for the things I have posted. Now I realize he is a hateful dogmatist, and you have a dogmatic faith in him.


To all the private supporters of _riverrun_:


If any of you cowards would care to come forward and show me one place JUST ONE where I was wrong and did not admit it, I would be most pleased. Such sad people, again and again failing to provide what might be called argumentation, you rush to the first pseudo-intellectual who through fanciful leftist politics and cloying language may just carry the day. Well your man has failed and run off. You are free to spitefully continue to disdain myself or anyone else, but at least have the courage to come forward.


This has been so very pathetic.


_riverrun_ is an absolute coward. He demands evidence (saying all else is ad hominem), when confronted, he disappears. No original thought, nothing but apologetics for genocide deniers and frauds.

And now he will do the only productive thing he has managed on this thread, he shall disappear.

959. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176099 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Nairb,




It is true that Muslims will and do face discrimination. This is wrong. Everyone should be judged based on their personal merit.

The problem is that it is simple fact that certain belief systems breed people that have little or no personal merit. These people are capable of having excellent qualities but instead seek out simple and vicious dogma to define their lives.

They see their faith on one hand and they see everything western embarrasing this faith, including Israel, Economics, Intellectualism, Science, Literature, etc... Their choices are to join western culture and reject their backwards ideologies, or to fight back hard, devolving into ever increasing hatred and bigotry in order to repel the new ideologies and maintain a firm grip on what defines them, a bigoted and backwards faith.

This is the problem. As long as Islam appeals to the youth, there will be an issue. This is an issue for the education system. Although it seems the British education system seems all too eager to knuckle under and ban evolution and teaching of the Holocaust to appease the only people still interested in exterminating Jews.

960. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176075 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 1:57 pm

More Gnome Chomsky Lies,




Lie #1:

Chomsky: "it seems fair to describe the responsibility of the United States and Pol Pot for atrocities during 'the decade of genocide' as being roughly in the same range."

-Manufacturing Consent, Pp. 264-265

Please note the word "genocide" appears in quotes, no doubt to cast doubt on the veracity of the real genocide.

The Truth #1

It seems that America killed about 40,000 Khmer Rouge fighters and Cambodian civilians during 1970-1975 (based on demographic evidence), and that the Khmer Rouge killed well over a million, estimated as high as 1.8 million.

-Sliwinski, Mark Le Genocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Demographique Pp. 41-48, 57.


Chomsky Lie #2:

Chomsky: "the evacuation of Phnom Penh [by the Khmer Rouge], widely denounced at the time and since for its untold brutality, may actually have saved lives."

-Chomsky and Herman After the Cataclysm p.160

The truth # 2

At least 30,000 young children died as a result of this evacuation [direct result](1). In total, at least 870,000 men, women, and children from Phnom Penh died under the Khmer Rouge regime(2).

-(1)Ea Meng-Try, "Kampuchea: A Country Adrift". Population and Development Review June 1981, p.214
-(2)Sliwinski, Mark Le Genocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Demographique P.57


**EDIT* Initially I was too lazy to post all the appropriate links. _riverrun_ was correct to point this out. I never claimed these were my ideas or research, although it may appear to some this was the case. All of this can be found in PDF format along with about 97 other Chomsky bald faced lies HERE:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf**



I could go on for the better part of a week with this list. But this should be self evident.

Chomsky whitewashes genocide.

961. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176068 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Fanusi,





My friend, I am breaking out the big guns anyway. I am only getting warmed up on his master. He has probably forwarded your post to Chomsky himself, and he will post the wild accusations of the deranged man here shortly. It is clear _riverrun_ won't be supplying anything original.


Here is what Chomsky had to say about a small selection of my thoughts:

Post # 135 on this thread should show typical Chomskian irrationalism. Flailing about like some Danny Boyle zombie character, unable to take a breath and look at reality.

962. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176063 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Fanusi,




This shall tickle your fancy.



http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky-cambodia.pdf


Chomsky states the following in an editorial regarding the Khmer Rouge:

"As to the U.S. Embassy report of 1.2 million who died, the figure is worthless, given the source. In the past, the US government has been the source for all sorts of outrageous fabrications."


-Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 1977. Pg. 27

Chomsky then states in a publication:

"In the case of Cambodia, State Department specialists were probably presenting the most credible accounts"


Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions P. 155

As for discounting figures he says regarding the use of propaganda and sources:

"... reliance on US sources, unless they provide the wrong picture in which case they are aavoided (Cambodia under Pol Pot is a case in point)."

-Necessary Illusions, p.137

_riverrun_ is an apologist for this crap here.

And now he refuses to respond.

963. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176062 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 1:18 pm

ttheobald,




Attempts at Capitalism work better than attempts at Socialism. Bringing some socialist ideas to Capitalism works better than bringing capitalism to socialism.

Evidence: History.


Your job, show me where Socialism has been attempted and it has succeeded.

Your second job, even define socialism. I can't really discuss the feel good term you use.

I am a Libertarian in the sense that the government should protect people from concentrations of power, be it government power or corporate power. Thus anti-trust laws are truly libertarian and free market. Your assumptions on my views leave you pissing into the wind.

And finally, don't bother posting long winded reasons why you won't debate me. Post something worth reading, or spare the internet band width. Pretty simple.

964. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176058 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm

_riverrun_ (aka Ganymedes)




Why don't you answer my posts.


I have shown Chomsky is all but a liar.


Can I just assume you merely forwarded those to Chomsky himself?

I can assume from your silence you have done so, because you seem to have nothing of your own to add.

You have attempted insult on your own, you have forwarded unfounded insults from Chomsky, and when pressed, given ample evidence, you shy away and have no response to legitimate points.

Three issues:


1) Chomsky praised a genocide denier (Johnstone) without mentioning the denial of Srebrenica.

2) Chomsky made dishonest comparisons in regards to Cambodia and Pol Pot.

3) Chomsky has a broken moral compass when it comes to anti-semitism and the Holocaust.


Your refusal to even discuss these points shows you really are an unoriginal catamite. So fuck your whiny complaints and get to the point. Defend your doyen, or concede he isn't all knowing, which is the only point I am attempting to prove.

965. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176016 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 11:11 am

Styrer,




And note the fervor with which Chomsky's catamites defend his anti-truths.

966. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176012 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 10:58 am

Styrer,





Yes the statement that 100,000 and 1.2 million are comparable in scale is the most repellent of notions.


But it gets better waaaayyyy better.


_reiverrun_ have a listen,



A famous story, the Faurisson Affair. A Holocaust denying French literary critic denied the existence of the gas chambers and the Holocaust in General.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

He then circulated a petition saying this was a free speech issue (certainly was). Not only did Chomsky lend his name, he said various concilliatory things, saying Faurisson was "A french liberal of some sort", attempting (slyly as Chomsky always does) to insinuate something without saying it.

The odious man Chomsky said of this toad Faurisson:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)

Chomsky says:

"In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue."

This is on Chomsky's website:

http://chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm


The problem here is that Chomsky is dead wrong, so completely wrong, worse than Cambodia.


To deny the Holocaust is to affirm a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to lie, and extort gentile monies. Denial suggests that every survivor is a liar, Israel is a state of liars, every Jew (with the exception of the Israel Shamer's of the world) is a liar. It suggests every decent scholar is a liar in support of a Jewish conspiracy.

It suggests such a massive Jewish conspiracy, as to be impossible. And such a conspiracy, by Jews for financial gain, is so patently anti-semitic, as to make The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seem modest in its account.

It is not anti-semitic to say that financial gains have been wrought by Jews after the Holocaust, this is true, motivation is the only issue.

To deny the Holocaust is anti-Semitism, to say it is not anti-semitism is dishonesty in the extreme, or stupidity.


I came here thinking Chomsky occasionally stretched the truth in his otherwise valuable commentary. Now I see he is a baffoon, bent on anti-truth to slake his thirst for American political blood.

Holocaust denial is the most clear and obvious form of anti-semitism. And Chomsky's position goes beyong dishonest and enters the realm of tickling the gag reflex of any sensible human being.


How disgusting.


*EDIT* Even better comparison, Chomsky's position is analogous to saying that Intelligent Design is not Creationism. What a waste of a mind.

967. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175980 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 10:08 am

Wadsworth,




The Israelis tried this in the 1950's in response to Arab fedayeen raids. It didn't really get things done, and the policy led to the Qibya massacre in 1956 and helped precipitate the 1956 war, due to the insistence of action from Moshe Dayan.

But I would be interested to hear your theory. What exactly do you mean by these "raids"? Random bombing of countries of origin? Villages? Targeted assaults? Economic sanctions?

I have thought about this before. Make it painful for them. But doesn't this simply make the problem worse... a form of recruitment.

968. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175937 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 8:58 am

Keith,

Which league did you have in mind? The league that agrees with your point of view? The league that advocates the same reading list as you? If that's the case, why not simply say that you don't agree with him rather than getting all sniffy about his credentials?

So, let's hear why you think he's not up to this particular task. You seem to be insinuating that Sam doesn't know his arse from his elbow on the question of Islam but that you do.

Okay, fire away...

First and foremost Alan Dershowitz was exposed as having lifted (illicitly) passages from a hoax (From Time Immemorial). He was exposed on Democracy Now by Norman Finkelstein.


Finkelstein also did a number on the Goldhagen piece. He co-authored, "The Goldhagen Affair" with Ruth Beta Birn.


Although some of Harris' points on Islam are valuable I think in general he isn't a genuinely educated commentator. Which is totally forgivable, since his training is in philosophy.

He doesn't take a very nuanced approach to the subject and is pretty general in his critique. If you want some specifics, you will have to give me a day or so.

969. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175874 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 7:22 am

_riverrun_






Who gives two shits and a fuck what people PM you. If it is so nasty, they could have the spine to post it up here, or PM me themselves, I am not going to take it personally. But my guess is that it isn't true, like much of what the incessant whiners post. The fact that you have to say so (ambiguously), like I would feel I am in some sort of popularity contest here is pretty ridiculous.




Either post what is relevant or keep your private correspondence private. Unless you are going for Homecoming Queen, it really doesn't matter.

970. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175869 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 7:15 am

Layla,





I must correct myself. The Hanafites were Hunifa'. I had to use the plural. Such pedantry, I even annoy myself.

971. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175859 by al-rawandi on May 6, 2008 at 6:54 am

Now for some Chomsky:

".... Vietnamese as 'The Prussians of Southeast Asia' (New York Times) whom we must punish along with the people of Cambodia, by economic warfare and tacit support for the Khmer Rouge."

-Deterring Democracy P. 156 No citation

This was followed by NO footnote. When I was a much bigger Chomsky fan, I noticed that some of his most pointed comments lacked any citation, and this is indeed a theme.

"... Vietnam's December 1978 invasion of Cambodia, an unspeakable act of "the Prussians of Asia" (New York Times) who drove out Pol Pot (a Chinese client, hence indirectly a US ally after Carter's 'tilt towards China' earlier in the year) and terminated his slaughter."

-World Orders, Old and New P.96 no citation

Again, Chomsky claims that Pol Pot is a US ally, due to a 1978 Carter policy, this absent any footnote. Also please note the citation of what seems to be the same NYT article, yet presented in different wording. No attention to detail?

So Chomsky claims as of 1978 that Pol Pot was a US ally... yet his claims of genocide revolve around the period of 1975-1977 saying (regarding East Timor massacre and Pol Pot:

"Reviewing virtually all available material (at that time, covering primarily 1975-77) we showed that the evidence concerning these two horrednous bloodbaths-in the same part of the world in the same years- wascomparable and indicated that the two slaughters were comparable in scale and character."

-Deterring Democracy p.380 no citation

Two issues arise, the bulk of this bloodbath occurs before the US "tilted toward China" and thus some extremely tangential link existed. Second, he compares the two massacres in size. The East Timor massacre was how many? 100,000? The Pol Pot 1.2 million? This hardly seems comparable in mathematical terms.


But how does Chomsky view the specific facts of the two cases, let's look, referring to a paired study of East Timor and Cambodia:

"As we reiterated to the point of boredom, an attempt to access the actual facts is a different topic, not pertinent to our specific inquiry"

-Necessary Illusions P.155

Actually, to make a comparison the facts ARE important and relevant.

And Chomsky, never one to shy from apparent contradiction writes on page 156 of Necessary Illusions that the US widely exagerated claims of Pol Pot's genocide, including "fabrication of evidence." Yet on p.323 he says :

"there was relative silence in the West during the Pol Pot atrocities."

-Necessary Illusions, P.323

Interesting position Chomsky holds:

-The US supported the Pol Pot massacres (of course only after they were mostly complete, but we shall not let details get in the way of facts).
-The US (at some point) exaggerate claims of this genocide.
-While the Media silenced any discussion on the topic of Pol Pot.

Somewhat difficult to believe... but it continues.


Chomsky has already compared the deaths in East Timor to those in Cambodia under Pol Pot, at the same time (mid 1970's). The estimates of East Timorese deaths due to Indonesian invasion are credibly put at 100,000. Adam Malik (Indonesian foreign minister, said there were 50,000-80,000 deaths (this is relevant since Chomsky seems to concur with Pol Pot on Cambodian genocide numbers). Chomsky says of Cambodia:

"in the case of Cambodia, State Department specialists were probably presenting the most credible accounts"

-Necessary Illusions, P. 156no citation

What was the State Department estimate? 1.2 million in the Cambodian genocide. And how does Chomsky compare these two numbers (100,000 and 1.2 million)?

"were comparable in scale and character"

This is manifestly untrue. They are not comparable in scale, or in character. This is one simple example of Chomsky stretching things to demonize America by comparison. Not to mention what seems to be the discounting of genocide under Pol Pot. In fact I don't recall Chomsky using the term "genocide" in reference to the Cambodian genocide.


Even though the US started treating Cambodia under Pol Pot as an ally (no citation for such a claim). Chomsky claims that the US caused the Pol Pot situation by bombing the Cambodian countryside. How ridiculous to lay blame for Pol Pot's tyrranical power at the US doorstep (Necessary Illusions P.109).


The only time Chomsky decides we may deserve a footnote here is what we get:

".... Washington offered indirect support to the Khmer Rouge while backing the coalition in which it was the major element because of its continuity with the Pol Pot regime."

-Necessary Illusions P. 109

Chomsky cites a New York Times Editorial from 1988 and asks the reader to see his book "Manufacturing Consent", Ch.6 for more detail. Based on the wording above, I would be extremely eager to see this editorial and what it actually said. "Indirect support" through a coalition "in which it was a major element". How far must we stretch things to demonize every American action?



And a final twist of dishonesty...

"'... the US and its allies have decided that without some sign of compromise by Vietnam toward a political settlement [on US terms] the Khmer Rouge must be allowed to serve as military pressure on Vietnam, despite their past'"

-Necessary Illusions, P.110

Here we see Chomsky citing a government official (or a journalist perhaps, my memory now fails me) Chomsky inserts his own opinion...

[on US terms]

in the midst of a quotation from another source. Unless this was the original author's opinion, we would never know because Chomsky has not bothered to tell us who is saying "[on US terms]". Perhaps ambiguity is his goal?



What we see, is a confused and dishonest attempt by Chomsky to both blame the US for supporting, exagerating, and then suppressing (sounds unbelievable, no?) Cambodian crimes. He then compares this (dishonestly so) to the Invasion of East Timor. He is flailing wildly to demonize the United States.

He even misses the greater crime that the US committed in Indonesia, support of Suharto while he purged Communists, resulting in the deaths of almost 1 million Indonesians.

I will say it again, Chomsky has been an invaluable contributor and a personal favorite, but he has exceeded the mandate granted by truth.

972. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175551 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 3:08 pm

ASM,




Eichmann was wrongly convicted? Despite his admission that he did these horrible things, but only while following orders?

Maybe Eichmann was a Jewish agent...

973. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175546 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 3:01 pm

_riverrun_

On the plus side my mailbox is overflowing with opinions on you, which I wont repeat because I refuse to sink to your level.

This is the saddest part of your psyche, that you feel the need to resort to this sort of childish game.


What original thought did I come up with?


Let's see here. The fact that while Chomsky is a useful contributor that on occassion he exceeds the mandate granted by truth.

The fact that my political philosophy is similar to that of Chomsky.

The fact that he has openly praised a genocide denier without mention of the denial, which suggests a total endorsement.

The Khmer Rouge issue has been discussed before, yet not refuted. I am interested as to why Chomsky is short when it comes to experts opinions on the genocide, yet spot on when compared to the perpetrators? Even Hitchens' defense is dated, and the State Dept. has provided figues at 1.2 million. This was what Chomsky supposedly tied to, yet Chomsky said "hundreds of thousands, maybe a million".

I cited the fact that it was the Serbs that blocked Dutch re-entry into the Srebrenica safe zone.

I discussed the eye witness testimony of friends who were in Bosnia during and after the war.

And so on....

All of this is ironic because you constantly demand I reproduce published material, when I do this (at your behest) you accuse me of lacking originality. Curious, was this a set up from the outset, or was it mere serendipity?

Again, I am happy to hear any of the baseless ad hominems thrown by your doyen or his zombie-like followers.

I have dashed Chomsky's assumptions of me upon the rocks. He is not looking like a liberal genius, with his wild, baseless, and incorrect assumptions about me. And his absolute refusal to acknowledge the role of Socialism/Communism in the Kibbutz.

But it is nice to know that you email this stuff around the web. A curious behavior. I would challenge any and all to come and debate here, as opposed to hurling useless ad hominems in your in box.

So Chomsky has managed to maintain enough ambiguity in regards to various genocides to avoid reproach from serious scholars, but not enough to be seen for the America bashing opportunist he truly is. It is sad that genocide is a tool for his quest, and not a tragedy in and of itself. It is only valuable so long as it can be compared to some American activity, otherwise, it is unworthy of note.



*EDIT* I am also eager to see where Chomsky got the notion that the US "green lighted" (his words) the Srebrencia massacre. That was conveniently ommitted from your rejoinder. But maybe no one else had answered before, so you were left unarmed.

974. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175528 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 2:40 pm

vinelectric,

However do you not see that assuming a governmental position entails some unique responsibilities such as keeping an eye on social cohesion?

Social cohesion is great, so long as it takes place around certain national values, like free speech. If one group comes to your country from some shit hole, then they try to bring shit hole values to your country and rid the country of free speech, what will you do? It is the Muslims who are destroying social cohesion by continuing to use terms like "kafir" and refusing to integrate.

Did it ever occur to you that Muslims freely using terms like "kafir" and "manafiq" and "mushrik" might be a large part of the cause of this lack of cohesion. Don't you think taking a group who seem to bitterly hate the culture while sucking up its freedoms like some remora might cause a lack of social cohesion.

You are right there is a problem, it is the fact that Muslims remain, on average in Europe, bigoted, condescending, undereducate, misogynistic, hateful, and ignorant. And the Europeans are the ones who need to adapt?

975. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175520 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

alvorin,








I am listening. I am simply hoping you will start saying something.

Another factor is the way a person thinks is within themselves, genes, hormones and chemical balances in the body and brain affect our minds. Do you agree or disagree with that? Or do you believe your thoughts exist in a bubble of perfection and you just tap into it every time you say or write something?
So being young and a male, born in the US, into certain socio-economic strata will have some bearing on what you think?

Well this seems to be a shoddy post hoc defense of some assault on my gender, which is comletely unrelated. Perhaps you could explain how my gender matters, more specifically. It is obvious that all of the things you list go into shaping my views, but why, of all relevant things, you pick my gender. Of all the important things, this seems like it resides anywhere but at the top of the list. I know what you were saying, I am just hoping everyone else can see where you were going.

But that is just typical of women.... I mean being born a woman has a great deal of influence on your beliefs etc... etc...

My last post was a written in haste as I had to leave to help my nephew (who lives on an island) make his accommodation habitable. Its a ferry ride, he has electricity but no computer let alone internet. But you dont want to hear about my life helping others, it seems you think sitting at a computer screen and railing against bureaucracy is much more worthwhile.

You are right. Your psychic skills are flawless. How did you know that this is what I think is important. How do you know about my charitable side, or absence thereof? If you are pscychic, I can do Keith one better, not PM's you simply read my mind and debate against that. Some may call it a straw man, but I know you are actually psychic so it's okay.


How about this, you tell me what you think socialism is, and how it should be implemented. Then I will either nod my head or point and laugh. Sound fair?

976. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175513 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 2:22 pm

_riverrun_





I quoted from Chomsky himself. He has downplayed two genocides, there is no question. He claims this is as a defense against state propaganda, but I certainly don't see it as such.



I will be happy to go through more of Chomsky's works, but I feel I may be better emailing him directly, that way we don't have the time delay of you copying and pasting to this forum. It would just be easier on everyone.


So again, I didn't even mention Hitchens, I am still struggling to figure out the relevance unless your sole purpose is to show that Hitchens may agree with Chomsky on this issue.

But the following issues remain....

-Chomsky's figures for the Cambodian genocide mirror Pol Pot's estimate.
-Chomsky praised Johnstone's work on the Balkans, without mentioning the disgusting attempts to white wash Srebrenica (much like praising David Irving with no comment on Holocaust denial).
-Chomsky's erroneous moral comparison of 9/11 to Sudan.

The last piece is due more to his apparent tourette's syndrome when it comes to seeing any atrocity and his immediate and uncontrollable need to mention some unrelated America action, from some bygone date.

It is truly a compulsion he has, when it comes to crimes committed by some foreign agents.

This is only after a limited bit of research on my part. While it seems you have spent the better part of your adult life groveling at the shrine of Chomsky, employed, seemingly full-time as court parrot.

Unfortunately for you Anna's comments are well placed.

There are two kinds of intellects I see that show up here:

1) An original and critical mind. Capable of positing new and original synthasized thought.

2) A person skilled at memorization of previously made arguments by other people and able to cleverly arange those in paragraph and sentence form.

You have clearly shown you are the latter. It seems Anna has found this out, as have I and several others who see you as nothing more than a Chomsky conduit, capable of operating quotation marks, but little else.

977. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175493 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Enlightneme...






I was realizing the other day that due to peak oil, Golfers scores are going up? Did you know that?

I am serious it is like a tourette's deal:


"Yeah so I was going to the store the other... OIL OIL PEAK OIL BITCH.... when I ran into Tom, from down the ..... FUCK YOU OIL, OILOILOILOILOILOI... he asked about you."

978. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175487 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Spinoza,






I have watched Beck a few times. And it is clear that he hasn't read much of anything. It is hard to read while constantly shouting your opinions at anyone dumb enough to listen.

He did make Ann Coulter look foolish once when she said "Jews will be perfected, once they accept Jesus and become Christians".

979. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175479 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:41 pm

ASM,





Did you ever answer me when I asked why it seems to only ever be the racists, discredited, bigoted, mentally ill, and pathetic who ever manage to discover the Holocaust fraud. Not one person who has any legitimacy. Not one person that doesn't have a website that looks like it was designed by a 10 year old. Not one person not aligned with some whack job or racist movement?

I don't think you did.


You were queried for evidence and citations, to which you replied "trust me".

There is no issue of incomparable suffering. Everyone here rejects that kind of thinking. The issue is your case sucks.


You need to answer Elli:

I have interviewed numerous survivors of concentration camps. When I was in my final year of high school, there was a living historian program we undertook where we interviewed numerous holocaust survivors and documented the details of their testimony. According to ASM I take it they must have all been liars.

You, like the flat earth theists, refuse to answer pointed questions, because the only answer you can give makes you look stupid. So do enlighten us on how the malicious Jews have conspired to get all these stories out of European Jews who were presumably rounded up and sent on a nice vacation by the Nazis...

You simply cannot answer the question, how is the worldwide conspiracy maintained?

980. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175473 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Doesn't have any.



I haven't heard anything that could charitably be considered an original idea.

His defense of Chomsky amounts to forwarding emails to Chomsky. Although this involves some degree of computer skill (copy paste) but little mental acumen.

And the fact that he is simply reproducing from early Chomsky publications that can only be considered sort of relevant to the topic at hand. Very peculiar.

981. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175468 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Peak oil Peak oil Peak oil Peak oil Peak oil Peak oil



OIL OIL OIL OIL.





Give it a rest Tera.

982. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175467 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm

_riverrun_




You have edited your post I see. I still don't understand what the Dept. of Defense has to do with anything. If you actually read my post, you will see I cited the State Department, which you may be surprised to learn, is different than the Defense Department.

There are still more estimates from Amnesty International and University programs. And there is the issue of Chomsky claiming peasant revenge, which I suppose applies to any Communist massacre, if such a thing exists in your world.

983. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175461 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

_riverrun_

[note: al-rawandi, I will let Hitchens respond to your points above, your denunciations of the United States Department of Defense will be a joy to read:

Where did I comment on the Dept of Defense? And where did I comment on Hitchens regarding the Department of defense.


Can you please post the emails of Chomsky and Hitchens, that way you may take your leave as court parrot?

I mean seriously, if we had Chomsky's email we could debate him, one on one, and if we wanted to hear from you (assuming there are original thoughts in there) then we could post to you here.

You have left blank any commentary on the Pol Pot numbers which Chomsky cites. When I say "Pol Pot numbers" I mean both the toll of the genocide and the fact that Chomsky's numbers mirror those of the perpetrators of the genocides.

984. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175453 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm

the Soilworker,




Don't be so stupid as to equate support for Palestinian statehood, or sympathy for their suffering to Holocaust denial.


ASM is the most repellent of people, but don't think for a second his position is the same for "All you pro-Palestine fuckers".

And use of the term "Jew sympathizer" is equally offensive to the mind. Perhpas you should reserve yourself to posting on matters where you can control your intellectual flatulence.

985. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175419 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 11:26 am

Kaiser,





Thanks a lot. I know Anna also appreciates the well wishes.


I look different in every picture, it is very strange. I feel like and X-Men character.

986. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175415 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 11:20 am

epeeist,







Gestappo-esque hit squads have been organized in order to suppress legitimate criticism.


In the US I get a lot of shit for saying:

"Jews are very powerful, especially shaping our Israel policy"

and

"Alcoholism and absentee fathers are a huge problem in the African American community"

Both of those are no fly zones in the US. You can expect death threats for saying those publicly, despite the fact that they are true.

987. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175405 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:57 am

Peace,





I get the tongue in cheek, but only after the explanation.


Thank you for the congratulations, I can't speak for Anna, but I am extremely happy with things.

I guess there have been other hook ups on the site, but I wasn't around for that. Profiles should be updated to show "relationship status" "looking for" and "financial status"... all the makings of a real dating site.

I was going to send RD a "thanks" but he can recieve his reward in the hereafter.

988. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175402 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:53 am

Fanusi,




I didn't disagree with your assessment of Islam.


I disagree with how many Muslims are actually sick enough to believe in it 100% and act it out. However, my assumption on how many are sick enough to act out Islam in such a way has been adjusted north ward after several months of non-stop disgust.

Anyhow, I don't agree to military encounters with these people at every turn. But I also don't believe in labelling their religion peaceful either.

989. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175398 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:45 am

Fanusi,








Why I don't use the term "liberal" to refer to myself. It used to be about liberty, about values that could be shared by all people. It is now about not insulting minorities with the truth.

You have intellectual hitmen like:

Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
CAIR
ADL
AIPAC

and such to stifle reasonable (or even unreasonable) commentary against the minority groups.

Liberalism lost its spine for sure.

990. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175396 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:42 am

Peace,




It sounded as such.


I figured people would have a hard time understanding my moral position on the abuse of women, versus any later mutual interest Anna and I found.

I also stood up for Elli when someone insulted her, again becuase people should treat women with human decency and listen to the ideas put forth, not hurl crude comments at the pictoral representation of their countenance.

991. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175392 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:39 am

Carto,





Actually what happened was that the US Supreme Court over-ruled the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court had ruled that the Attorney General of the state, Catherine Harris, could not block recounts. The US Supreme Court said (incorrectly) that the Florida court had no ability to over-rule the legislature in this fashion (which of course, is precisely the job of the state legislature). *EDIT* All this under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Constitution, which was quite ridiculous if one applied any critical thinking whatsoever.

However, based on the initial vote, Bush won the votes, and our electoral college voted as such. But it was a "hand over" as you so subtley suggest.

992. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175389 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

Peace,





The defense of Anna pre-dated any relationship, or any intention of a relationship, at least on my end of things.

I defended Anna precisely because it was the right thing to do in the face of a pervert who refused to treat women like human beings.

993. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175385 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:34 am

Carto,







You were joking? Now I am disappointed. I was hoping we exclude idiots altogether.

994. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175383 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:33 am

Eagle, Cartomancer,




I love both of those suggestions.



I had a foreign friend (from a non-democratic monarchy) say to me... "Why do you let everyone vote, seems to me, most are fucking morons." I didn't have a good answer, and I began thinking of my current plan.


Carto, great idea weighting the votes in that way. But how about throwing in a test for public office.... Constitution questions (in the US), basic world history, geography, science, and logical thinking.

Of course the Republican party would be up shit creek, but whatever. So Bush couldn't have gotten elected thinking Turkey was strictly a bird.

995. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175379 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:30 am

Nanaj,





I am sorry to hear that. Islam lends itself to use by thugs, being that it was created by a thug. The only problem is that it also lends itself to the credulous and stupid, and they far outnumber the rest of us, and thus Islam spreads, like a tumorous growth.

An even greater problem, the Muslims breed like rabbits, especially in Europe where they can count on government handouts. Stupid people in general have more kids. The only hope for rationalists is to outbreed them, or start convincing them. Tough spot.

996. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175369 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:18 am

kaiserkriss,

It should be up to governments to do the right thing, rather than pander to the hurt feelings of a vocal and visible "potential" voting block.

One of the problems of democracy.


Here is a solution. Instead of everyone getting one vote, everyone gets one vote for every IQ point they possess. Thus the smarter people in society will have a greater say, per person than the dip shits. Although, put enough 56 IQ's together and you have another problem.

But this may be a good start.


Any takers on my brilliant solution?

997. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175364 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 10:08 am

ofir,






Exactly my point. It is never as simple as some like to believe.

I am ever curious as to how fighting the Finns stopped the spread of Islam.

998. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175355 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 9:53 am

nanaj,







Are you Salman Rushdie under an assumed name?


If you wouldn't mind, can you tell me about this fatwa?

999. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175333 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 8:59 am

Anna,





Thanks. But your face is in the way of me on the other one.


|>:-{o

1000. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175331 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 8:58 am

Fanusi,




I was also referring to the Albigensian crusade. But like I said, even the ones "everyone whines about" were not simply a "defense against Islam". There were factors that may not be evident to the person who doesn't pay attention to the literature. So when you say it is as simple as "defense" it is perhaps a bit unfair.

You should no as well as anyone here, when studying the history of religious conflict, it is never as simple as is often stated.