1001. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175327 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 8:46 am

Fanusi,




That clears it up. I don't know that I disagree.


But the crusades against the Finns, these were to defend against Islam? There were several crusades that were not against Muslims. If one looks at this, it is harder to take the simple view that they were simply a defense against Islam.

The crusades seem to me to be driven by similar religious fervor, but I don't have a need to spread our conversation to that topic.

I would agree 100% that Islam needs more Ayaan Hirsi Ali's and not Irshad Manjis. Manji doesn't really do much to help, because she simply says "all these Muslims are getting the interpretation wrong", this leaves room for more whackery. While Ali says "They got it right on interpretation, we have to do away with the whole thing". The latter far more useful than the former.


Now that I have posted a picture, can we agree that I am not a bearded Deobandi fervently typing away in my Islamabad apartment?

1002. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175326 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 8:40 am

epeeist,






I am guilty as charged.


But then again I don't think I accused anyone of being a socialist, I engaged in a generalized rant about "wirey haired academics" and "unemployed 'editors'". But I am still trying to get many posters to tell me what socialism is, instead of telling me what it is not everytime I cite a "socialist" republic as evidence. I would agree that calling someone a socialist is a poor use of logic. That assumes what these people think is even concrete. I see no evidence to suggest they either advance any theory or know what they are talking about. It is a game much like "That isn't MY Christianity".


Apologies, to all offended "socialists".

1003. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175308 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 7:14 am

All,






Just trust him.... come onnnnn.

1004. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175306 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 6:52 am

Layla Nasseredin,





Sabaeans are a pre-Islamic religion that existed in the Hijaz region. They are a form of monotheistic creed that seems somewhat similar to Christianity.

The Hanifites also had representation in Mecca. It was a monotheistic following of Abraham, and predated Islam. No doubt Muhammad received influence from their thought.




Fanusi,



Why is it that you always seem so cozy with these fundamentalist Christians?

I don't disagree with any of your substantive points that I can see through a cursory read through. But you repeatedly cite these people, and in other threads have talked about how nice the Bible is. I am just curious, seems a bit odd. Maybe a bit of Christian taqiyya in action.

1005. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175304 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 6:46 am

windweaver,





Well compared to Anna, I am all over the map. I am pretty left on some issues and I don't consider myself right at all. The Nazis were actually "socialists" in some perverted form.

Anyhow I take Libertarian to mean devoted to "liberty" which I am. And liberal to mean "for social change" which I am, so I qualify as both. Conservative meaning "against social change" which I am certainly not. So I fall well on the left in the US, and I am quite in agreement with Chomsky on the role of the government.

I apologize for the "handicapped" comment, I thought you were being serious with the Nazi comment (using it to attack me). So you can see if that was my interpretation, why I would throw in a barb in my rejoinder.

1006. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175301 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 6:39 am

_riverrun_




Chomsky says:

"It is not clear that Pol Pot killed very many more people-or even more people-that the US killed in Cambodia in the first half of the 1970's"

-The Indispensible Chomsky P.92

"There's a lot of uncertainty about just what the scale was of the Pol Pot massacre, but the best scholarly work in existence today estimates the deaths in Cambodia from all causes during the Pol Pot period in the hundreds of thousands, maybe as much as a million"

The Indispensible Chomsky P. 92

Let's see what the best scholarly work has to say on the matter:

In the period of Pol Pot's rule, 1975-1979, the estimates of people killed by the Khmer Rouge were as follows:

-Yale Cambodian Genocide Project: 1.7 million.
-Amnesty International: 1.4 million
-United States Department of State: 1.2 million


-Pol Pot himself: 800,000
-Khieu Samphan: 1 million (he was president at the time)


So the only people who seem to believe the numbers were, to quote Chomsky; "in the hundreds of thousands, maybe as much as a million", are the perpetrators of the massacre, themselves. And these people were, to quote Chomsky; "the best scholarly work in existence today." He seems to have taken the same method in the Balkans.

There is an example of what I believe to be Chomsky' selective reading of history, to compare Pol Pot's genocide to American bombing of Indochina, which was deplorable itself. Chomsky cannot treat the Pol Pot genocide as such, without compulsively bringing up some American action.


Furthermore, on page 93 of The Indispensible Chomsky Chomsky forwards the idea that the US (*EDIT*) is in fact responsible for the Pol Pot period genocide (claiming about 1/3 of the Cambodian population) because the US created a situation where only someone like Pol Pot could rise to power. This is stretching it.

And Chomsky says, also on page 93, that much of the genocide was "peasant revenge" and not an organized massacre. He doesn't extend the same kind assessments to any Indonesians in East Timor, but of course not, that was "America's fault".


When asked about Somalia and the US intervention to prevent genocide in the early 1990's, Chomsky (page 163-164) immediately launches into a rant about Siad Barre, and how the US is responsible for this and all subsequent deaths. Which completely misses the point of the question he received.

Chomsky says there wasn't much the US could do in the Bosnia situation, and thus he personally stayed neutral on any action (p. 171). There was something that could be done and this is obvious. This is like saying there wasn't much there could be done during the Holocaust.

And in the ever present imaginary class war, Chomsky says that the US treated Bosnians like "nice Europeans living in Sarajevo" as opposed to "Serb peasants up in the hills" (p.171). He is insinuating some western bias in favor of the Muslim Bosnians. Compare this to his downplay of Serb atrocities, and we see the game that is being played. He is interested in demonizing the US, and that facts can be considered mutable in this "noble" quest.

1007. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175295 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 6:13 am

5keptical,




Please send me a PM to remind me to cry myself to sleep. Otherwise I may forget.



windweaver, _riverrun_


Now listen folks. I made it clear that I didn't have Chomsky's books with me at the office, and that I would go through some over the weekend. I have done this, although only to a shallow degree.

Let me make a list of what Chomsky has written, and I have read (from memory)

-Hegemony or Survival
-Failed States
-The Indispensible Chomsky
-Deterring Democracy
-Necessary Illusions
-Pirates and Emperors
-Middle East Illusions.



I would say in general, these works contain many useful amounts of analysis.

I would further say that I read through Chomsky's views on governance and markets, and I fundamentally agree. In a "free market" the government's role is to ensure personal liberty, free from interference from centralized power, be it government or private companies.

I was very annoyed at Chomsky's response which arrogantly assumed that my view of Libertarianism was the "deformed" American version, when in fact it is much more similar to Chomsky's own personal views. So I can assume that Chomsky made wild assumptions, or he feels he is an idiot himself.


windweaver,



Let's be clear. "Escaped Nazi" was a joke, if you cannot see that, then you are handicapped. When I said "Libertarian" you, like Chomsky, assumed it was the same form adopted by the Libertarian Party in the US, which is not even remotely correct. A lot of what goes into my views on Libertarianism, is considered wildly socialist elsewhere.

My ad hominem attacks? Please re-read the posts. Chomsky downplayed a massacre. He seems convinced that the US simply desired a bombing campaing against Serbs. The truth is, that Slobodan Milosovic, Ratic, and the rest, were an Orthodox Church supported and sanctioned genocide team. As I said, I have Bosnian friends and people who visited Bosnia immediately after the genocide, and will tell anyone that it was the real deal.

Chomsky is trying to jam the Balkans conflict into his rubric of "America is wrong". I don't think it works like that. Even though, at the time, Chomsky said he was unsure of what to do. Many in the administration felt the same, yet they acted as best they could (so they claim). Chomsky enjoys the luxury of an MIT office, and not the command of the world's largest superpower. He was able to criticize most things with 20/20 hindsight and play it as if he was presciently knowing this things before the act.

This is my problem, not necessarily his analysis.

I will continue with a few examples.

1008. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175288 by al-rawandi on May 5, 2008 at 5:51 am

Jiten,



Well my first name is Alex, so calling me Al isn't all that bad. But in Arabic it is the definit article.


D'Aracy,


Priceless. Yes Cuba exports goods, it has to. Like I said before, there seems to be a couple of people here who advocate a wageless society. I will say it again, it is impossible.

Let's say you want to go away to the wilderness every weekend for fun. You will consume more reseources for the trip. How does that play in. What happens if I want to vacation more. Do I have a right to more resources, or will the government get to tell me how to spend my leisure time? Currency allows people to adjust to their lifestyles, and adjust their lifestyles to an amount of profit they make. Take this discretion away from people, and only a government institution can determine what people can use resources for. And if this is a democracy, only the majority will have absolute say in what this is, thus the libierty of the minority will be absolutely infringed. I am sorry, I am not ready to have government bureaucrats dictate my life to me.



alvorin,



I am not an Ayn Rand fan at all.

You never answered if we are going to play man-bashing, you never answered why this even matters. What about being a man is important.

I wouldn't say I think I am always right or 90% right. This is you making things up. But don't let reality interfere with this fantasy you are having.

1009. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174507 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I didn't even see post 390.



Nicaragua is true. I can't comment on Jamaica.


And yes socialist governments were overturned more than once by the US. Those would likely have shat themselves anyway. Give them enough time and they will choke on it.

For a while the poor people love the new found love from the government. The wealthy grumble or flee the country. Eventually the people begin seeking more freedom, but oh wait, none left.

Do you see the craziness.


You are saying "Which socialist country has no wage" and D'Arcy is saying that is a pre-requisite for socialism. That is why you shouldn't respond to my posts to D'Arcy because they are not addressed to you.

That is D'Arcy's conception (without wages), that was where my attack was intended.

I don't have time to define socialism. I am worn out from dealing with hippies all day and I have to go to a baseball game.

I will put something together on MOnday. If I don't please remind me.

1010. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174498 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Bonzai,





Why don't you let D'Arcy answer questions posed to D'Arcy.

But the argument has been from your side:

There is a real socialism which is really great. Anyone of the various people who attempt to implement it (all end up being brutal tyrants, by accident I am sure) fail. It has no wages.

My argument:

Capitalism needs to be balanced with social responsibility, although it must err on the side of personal liberty. It has never been perfectly implemented, but its attempted implementation has been much better than attempted implementations of socialism.


Even attempting to implement socialism leads to massive misery and death, leaving aside what would happen if it was implemented.

No one has answered... How will people be motivated to work hard if they get paid the same as the next person no matter what?

I doubt I will receive the answer because it is the nail in the socialist coffin.

1011. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174490 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

_riverrun_





Why is massacre in asterisks there? Are you also a doubter?


I don't see anything to suggest the US gave the green light to Serbian forces to massacre 8,000 people at Srebrenica.

The Dutch forcs were blocked from returning to the "safe zone" by Serb forces.

More nonsense about the US being responsible for something it was not. Standing idle may be unfortunate, but then so is our non-intervention in Tibet, Darfur, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, Rwanda, ad infinitum. More Chomsky fuzzy logic.

As I said, too much personal experience with witnesses and the like to listen to Chomsky even downplay the massacres, which still appears to be what he is doing:

Johnstone argues -- and, in fact, clearly demonstrates -- that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication

Are you saying he is not referring to the Balkans conflict or the specific massacre in question?

1012. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174479 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Bonzai,





How do you infer that from my post?


How is it that you have become psychic?

My point is that socialism clings in some circles, for various reasons, which I will enumerate if I get the answer I think I will get.

1013. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174475 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm

D'Arcy,




NO Cuba isn't (pure) socialist, but it is socialist. But that is what happens when one tries to implement socialism. You get a failed economy, a failed government, and people willing to traverse 90 miles of shark infested waters to get to florida to work as a janitor.

Venezuela is attempting to be socialist, it will fail too. Socialism is impossible.

The absence of wages is impossible. If everybody makes the same amount there is no incentive for anyone to work harder. You can simply refuse to work and the government would still have to provide you sustenance and support you.

What about Fort Knox gold? The greatest capitalist, Warren Buffett said: "I don't understand gold, we pay people to dig it out of a hole in the ground in Africa or wherever, then we put it in another hole in the ground and have people guard it, if aliens are watching, they are scratching their head."

I am all for bouncing gold from fort knox. It is left over from the gold standard, another failed ideology.

Any attempt to implement socialism generally leads to starvation, death, and mass exodus. Like I said, failed. Dead. Muerte. It is belongs in the realm of the lifetime students, staggering about university campuses around America.

D'Arcy you never answered, what do you do for a living? For capitalist wages that is...

1014. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174459 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

_riverrun_






I must also tell you that my thesis advisor spent a great bit of time in Bosnia. He learned (among about ten other languages) Bosnian. He spoke to those who were witnesses to and victims of Serbian atrocites. He saw soccer fields which had been turned into mass graves. He still cannot speak of this without tearing up. I have Bosnian friends who had family killed, and who were trapped in Sarajevo.

And Chomsky, in all his repellent arrogance, sits in his MIT office saying these things are largely "fabricated". I have become too disgusted with this man and I view him the way I view a Holocaust denier, with utter contempt. I will no longer waste my time talking about his worthless opinions on such matters.

If you want to talk Islam, let's.

1015. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174454 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm

_riverrun_






Feel free to respond to the balance of my post on Srebrinica. Chomsky downplayed it, he did. He complimented as "valuable" those who denied it. Imagine saying David Irving has mad a "valuable contribution" to Holocaust studies. Come on. This is so obvious. Chomsky said it, he wrote it, he had it published. He said more directly...

'She [Johnstone] insists that Serb atrocities - ethnic cleansing, torture camps, mass executions - are western propaganda', Chomsky replies that 'Johnstone argues - and, in fact, clearly demonstrates - that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication.'

There we go. Serbs are opposite America, therefore their atrocities didn't happen or don't count.

How sick.

1016. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174451 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Diacanu,





STFU,


Good call. The "peak oil" rambling which consumes each of his novel length posts is sooooo annoying.

1017. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174444 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm

_riverrun_




When was the last time Chomsky contributed anything to the field of linguistics? And he has mostly been leap frogged by others and his work is no longer that widely cited. Although I used him in an Linguistics and Arabic course in college.

1018. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174439 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Enlightenme...,





Can you explain to me how Qutb was almost a closet homowsexual.

He spent time in Greely, Colorado, where he was propositioned by a prostitute, and this thoroughly disgusted him. But until then he had admired the US.

I am not sure sexual repression played a large role in his thinking, can you give me examples otherwise?

1019. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174436 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Christopher Davis,



Well said sir, well said..


I have an addition...


Everytime a massacre is mentioned in some far away land, the Russian mentions some Russian atrocity.

An examply of Chomskian thinking:


Journalist: "The Chinese have killed 50 Tibetans in an operation yesterday."
Chomsky: "Ya, well US Marines killed people in Haditha".

That is how it works, nothing can be mentioned without an American ill deed being mentioned.


Or better yet:

Journalist: "Government of Myanmar massacres monks"
Chomsky: "Oh ya, well the US one time sold an airplane to the Burmese and a State Dept. Official said; 'The Burmese are friends of America'".

So obnoxious.

1020. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174429 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:12 pm

_riverrun_






Straaawwwwmmmaaaannnn


I have always been critical of my country. And so has just about everyone else here. I can't imagine who you are arguing against? No one has said you were wrong to critique America.

I am always suspicious of a man who launches a defense before being accused.

1021. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174422 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm

_riverrun_



I understand her interview with Chomsky was retracted, however was it not true that something to that effect was said.


When you are done laughing, please note you skipped the balance of those points on Chomsky

What an odious man to downplay genocide (*EDIT* Chomsky that is).

1022. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174420 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:57 am

_riverrun_




I am happy to weigh in here. Now we don't have to fight about Gnome Chomsky.

Anyhow, this is a deatailed question.

They call for a caliphate rather than sultinate (meritocracy v hereditary 'divine right to rule'). So how does this accord with your fears over the Shi'ias inherent proneness to violence. Iran has not invaded another country for over 250 yrs.

Well I think it must be stated there is a different method of Quranic interpretation. There is a debate between suppurtors of Naql and supporters of 'Aql (The former means "literal interpretation" or simply "revelation" itself, the latter meaning intellect). The Shi'a have for a long time attached more importance to metaphorical interpretation. The Sunnis have long been literalists who revere Muhammad and his companions as far down as the Fourth Caliph 'Ali. The Shi'a maitain a system of immitation of scholars known as Marja' i-Taqlid (Persian: Immitation of a Marja' or "scholar"). Thus the ability to re-interpret the Qur'an has ended for Sunnis, they often say the gate of interpretation is closed (Bab al-Ijtihad) while the Shi'a maintain Ijtihad of the Marja'. This is important, it gives shi'ism a flexibility when compared to a backwards looking Sunni creed.

The Shi'a aren't more prone to violence, they do, however, revere martyrdom. The martyrdom of Hassan and Hussein, sons of the 4th Caliph 'Ali, who Shi'a believe should have been the first Caliph, supplanting Abu Bakr. In fact in some Shi'a mosques there is ritual cursing of the first 3 Caliphs as usurpers. This martyrdom is reenacted on the 10th day of the Islamic month of Muharram (known as 'Ashura). They flog themseleves and cut their foreheads with knives. Thus it was the Iranians that sent waves of suicide soldiers (many teenage boys) across Iraqi mine fields.

The Shi'a have shown a better ability to adapt to current situations. You see a moderation of Hezbollah's tactics, although not the rhetoric.

There is a problem in assuming they will be passive... The Shi'a are big on Taqiyya (Prudential dissimilation, or dishonesty about belief). This is common to both sects of Islam, however, having been persecuted by Sunnis, Shi'a have used it more, and written a great volume of material on the subject.

I can see the more totalitarian nature of Shi'ia, most notably in their belief that only descendents of Mohammed can speak "for the faith", and their Sultanate. But Sunni's have committed far more crimes and violence.
Also the Salafist movement is simply a more fundamentalist interpretation of the Usul al-fiqh. The Muslim Brotherhood of which Qutb was a member, caused incredible violence in Egypt and elsewhere. Also the repugnant autocrats of Saudi-Arabia are Salafist. Again, a contemporary movement derived from Sunni Islam, not shi'ia. They also subscribe to violent Jihad.

Sayyid Qutb did eventually have a break from the brotherhood. The Ikhwan (Brotherhood) has its roots in the thoughts of Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. He was strongly anti-imperialist, and he passed these ideas to Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh in Cairo. Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Brotherhood) took much from Rida and Abduh, and he also thought more positively of the west and some of its political systems, but sought a Muslim revival. Qutb initially share these views as an employee of the state education dept. However his visit to Greely, Colorado convinced him of the depravity of western society and began his break. It was more specifically Qutb's encounter with a prostitute who propositioned him in Colorado.


The Salafi tendencies have arisen over a great geographical area... Usman Bin Fudi (Uthman Dan Fodio) of the Hausa Land, Bin Abdul Wahhab, Ahmad Tijan, etc... So the desire to be followers Ahl al-Salaf al-Salah (People of the righteous forebearers) was not specific to one person, it was a simultaneous move spread throughout the Muslim world.

Moving on:

What was his extremely violent organisation called? Tanzim al-Jihad

This would be correct grammatically and semantically.


As for the translations... those are all good.

And I agree that those promises are real to many of the perpetrators of suicide violence. But I would also emphasize the role of nationalism in many cases.

See "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape.

Did I sufficiently answer your post?

1023. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174419 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:56 am

Vin.



You are correct. I am being an asshole pedant. I actually wrote an article in part about george habash. I will dig it up and PM you. It was published in an online journal so you can read it easy enough.

1024. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174400 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:30 am

_riverrun_






I had not remembered reading these statements by Chomsky.


I would assess them as being quite insightful, although not perfect. The only place I take issue is:

They tell us what their concerns are loud and clear: they are fighting a Holy War against the corrupt,
repressive, and "un-Islamist" regimes of the region, and their supporters

This is untrue. The simple fact that they are non-Shariah is the reason they are targeted. The fact that they are also corrupt is incidental and has helped to draw a slightly wider base of support. But Qutb was clear on the Jahili governments, they don't implement Shariah and thus are unacceptable.

1025. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174397 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:26 am

Jiten,




Let me guess... it was the "little Eichmann's" in the towers?

Or was it the world bank?

1026. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174390 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:16 am

_riverrun_

Al-Rawandi: Chomsky has admitted his strong communist leanings as a young man. I believe he was involved with the Kibbutzim, which were heavily socialist.

Here is what I said about Kibbutzim. I said it was heavily socialistic, which I do (sometimes, and unfortunately not well demarcated) use as somewhat linked to communism. I said "heavily", I did not exclude anarchism, I did not exclude capitalism. I looked at communalism and I looked at the absence of private ownership. So I think the true inaccuracy is for Chomsky to say it was libertarian.

Again, Chomsky has no idea what I think, he shames himself with such a flailing response about what he assumes to be my beliefs.

I said:

Muslim violnce [sic] which appears to be random if one does not take into account religious belief.

You said:

Have you been to Dubai?
Again, I wonder how much time you have spent in the Middle East?

What the fuck are you talking about? So wait, people in Dubai are religious (some anyhow) and there is limited violence therefore Islam is not a contributing factor? When suicide bombers wrap their genitals with wet towels to preserve themselves for the virgins.... religion is a factor, and a strong one.

Have you been to a Kibbutz? I guess you can't talk about it then. That is what you are passing as logic here.

The word socialism has lost all meaning, it seems to you to equate to communism. Regarding the Kibbutz, they were indeed strongly influenced by anarchist ideas, certainly not communist, as you imply.

Giora Manor, who is an acknoweldged historian on the kibbutz movement, writes: "Historically speaking, the founders and early thinkers of the kibbutz movement were influenced by and acknowledged their debt to anarchism."

The quotation you provide does not support the assertion above it. You said:

"certainly not communist"

And your source said:

"....were influenced by and acknowledged their debt to anarchism."

So there was an influence of anarchism. As there were influences of other ideologies. Chomsky himself as a youth had many similar influences, including anti-Trotskyism among others.

So I am not sure you can really discount communism and socialism simply because there was also anarchism in some aspects.


Finally, I was absolutely right in characterizing Chomsky's attack on me as "wild" and "assumption" ridden. He has no way to know what my views on Libertarianism are, nor my views on nationalism. But he assumes he does.

This is devolving into absolute non-sense. I will say the following for the record, because I have it handy, in front of me... Chomsky has made moral equivalents between targeted night time strikes (all across the world, but here specifically in Sudan) with precision munitions to people hijacking planes filled with kidnap victims, and flying those into buildings filled with people in the middle of a workday.

This is an example of moral confusion, not insight.

This is evidence of his desire to demonize the United States and attribute malicious intent to its actions, which is only occasionally true.

There is no need for a retraction on my part. I said there was an issue with his interpretation of Khmar Rouge, based on an article discussed on this forum. I said he had strong socialist leanings (please see articles about Chomsky in the "International Socialist" March 1997). I said the Kibbutzim was influenced by Socialism, I demonstrated this sufficiently. I said he looks as hard as he can to justify any act of terror based on American actions, and if unable attempts to find an equally reprehensible action committed by the US (9/11 and Sudan).

Chomsky and I appear to agree at some level on the Bosnia issue. Although there were articles where Chomsky apparently attempts to downplay the massacres in the Balkans saying the following:

Q. [Brockes]: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated ?

A. [Chomsky]: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.

This was a paraphrase of what Chomsky said, however Chomsky later vigorously defended Diana Johnstone, who was interviewed in the Swedish magazine Ordfront, in this interview she forwarded genocide denying views. Chomsky did so under the guise of free speech. In her book Johnstone puts "Srebrenica genocide" in quotes, further confirming her denial.

Chomsky co-signed a letter describing this book of Johnstone's "A Fool's Crusade" as:

'We regard Johnstone's Fools' Crusade as an outstanding work, dissenting from the mainstream view but doing so by an appeal to fact and reason, in a great tradition.'

Chomsky wrote a personal letter to Ordfront saying:

'I have known her for many years, have read the book, and feel that it is quite serious and important.'

He never mentions the denial of a manifest genocide.


Chomsky said in response to Mikael van Reis:

'She [Johnstone] insists that Serb atrocities - ethnic cleansing, torture camps, mass executions - are western propaganda', Chomsky replies that 'Johnstone argues - and, in fact, clearly demonstrates - that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication.'

Whitewashing genocide....


In an interview with Left Hook on Dec. 17, 2004 Chomsky said that Srebrenica was in retaliation for Muslim acts and that the death tolls were "estimates" and the with regards to the slaughter he says "apparently".


Chomsky then, as is his disgusting habit, tries to trot out some American action he deems equally awful:

'Well, with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it bombed them out.'

(same article I beleive).


Chomsky says in another article:

'Srebrenica, almost universally described as 'genocide' in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them. There are differences with Falluja. Women and children were not bombed out of Srebrenica, but trucked out, and there will be no extensive efforts to exhume the last corpse of the packrats in their warrens in Falluja. There are other differences, arguably unfair to the Serbs.'

'Imperial Presidency' (Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005, vol. 39, no. 1)

Chomsky is simply unable to discuss some genocide without comparing it to some American action, somewhere, at sometime.


His praise for Genocide deniers is potentially the most nasty thing he has done. So long as it is ant-American it is acceptable in the world of Chomsky.


So my claims that he must always look for some American evil, somewhere, somtime, while being unable to discuss non-American evil all by itself, are quite fair.(*Ending here is edited to add "are quite fair"*)


No-retractions.

1027. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174375 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 10:34 am

_riverrun_,




As for Khmer Rouge not being in his books, I meant "denial of Khmer Rouge". I know he spoke on it at great length. He never denied it to my knowledge. And like I said, I try to NOT edit my posts if it can be helped.


So now that is clear.

1028. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174367 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 10:09 am

Jiten,





Keith's sympathies are irrelevant to me. What is relevant is your inability to supply evidence to support your socialist histories.

As I said there are proven ideologies and failed ideologies. Done.

And I may be more sympathetic to the left than you think. I have said so many times here. But I simply reject the fuzzy logic of theoretical socialism, absent currency and motivation.

I do not have a problem with a desire to better peoples' lives, none whatsoever. I have a problem with dogmatic allegiance to failed ideologies.

1029. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174364 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 9:55 am

Star Spangled Eager,




I like Obama.


I like him because he is planning on ending corporate campaign financing, which will be the greatest step towards a libertarian (independent government and liberty for citizens) and free society. Ending the corporate stranglehold is priority one for me.


In second place is McCain, primarily because he would finish this Iraq thing. Because if we pull out, we are looking at a genocide.

I find Hillary revolting, mostly due to her casual relationship with the truth. And she has slick washington democrat written all over her.

1030. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174360 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 9:40 am

Keith,






Chomsky engaged in wild assumptions, and ridiculous non-sequiter conclusions based on nothing but delusions.

Chomsky has contributed some great pieces to the study of American foreign policy, and more often then not, has been in the realm of reality.

He has decamped from reality and relocated to the fringes of the ridiculous and insane. He had no way of knowing what my beliefs or morals are. You yourself may have considered me somewhat of a liberal based on my critique of US policy in Iraq.

1031. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174357 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

Christopher Davis,




Thank you. I don't blame Chomsky, totally, for these characterizations. _riverrun_ took snippets and sent them along, and Chomsky receives a great many emails, and like (a personal favorite of mine) Norman Finkelstein, he attempts to answer them all. So it was a noble attempt, although he failed miserably.

_riverrun_ is parroting anti-American (for its own sake) rhetoric which is infected with Chomskyisms. Certainly he has dutifully reproduced Chomsky's replies to me. Those are unoriginal.

Christopher Davis, please continue to read although I will also address this to:


_riverrun_


May I direct you the an article by Christopher Hitchens where he really takes Chomsky apart for his feculent morality in comparing the bombing of the al-Shifa plant and 9-11.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/hitchens20011004

In all fairness, I used to agree with Chomsky, as recently as several weeks ago. But I was wrong, and Hitch has convinced me. The fundamental difference (not always, but in this instance) was that the US acted on the perhaps ill adivsed whims of a embattled president and not the advive of an intelligence community. Even taking this into consideration, the motives are different. The al-Qaeda suicide thugs were attempting to do no good whatsoever. The good they sought to do was to maximize the deaths of innocent Americans (Muslims included) and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the area. These monsters hijacked planes, which were carrying innocent civilians, and also probably some children. Their only goal was to murder people and secure themselves a place in a virgin soaked hereafter.

There is a clear moral demarcation here with regards to intent. Although I will say, I doubt dead Sudanese citizens much care for that demarcation. But the comparison, made by Chomksy, was incorrect.

1032. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174355 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 9:02 am

Keith,




When confronted with historical precedence and requests for evidence, these parentally (and perpetually it seems) funded liberals crumble and demand you decamp and move on, despite the public nature of the debate.

The worst of the worst of these "just missed the 60's" crowd come here and post their communist drivel, constantly referring to some metaphysical, eutopian reality, where sunshine and raimbows shine down on the overall clad proletariat.

Don't dare pop this bubble with the sharp needle of the "real world", this will lead to your expulsion from the debate.

I have told these people a thousand times that the brunt of history will crush their fanciful proletariat dictatorships.

1033. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174353 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

_riverrun,




So now I see you are a Chomskian errand boy. I will attempt to appropriately discount any of your opinions in an appropriate fashion, as it is safe to say they are not your own.

What Chomsky says about me, is really true about him (often the case). He is right about one thing, I posted quickly without detailing important points. Perhaps you could send me his email then we could cut you out altogether?


Now I will go through his ad hominem non-points.

Firstly, the Khmer Rouge issue was never in his books, that I can remember. It was in some published article, and was discussed at some length on this site. I never weighed in either way, because Chomsky seems to throw the burden of the whole thing in the direction of the US. This is obvious when I said there was "some issue", which is absolutely true, even if the article was false. There was indeed some issue here, with regards to his denials.

As for citations, I am at my office and do not have my library handy. But I will try to be as clear as possible, but I am afraid at this point I will be unable to use the books I own. I can go home and gather information and send it along at a later time (say tomorrow or Monday).

Chomsky: The comment is typical of what's called "libertarianism" in the US, a curious and deformed offshoot of the libertarian movement. What he sees as "odd" is a truism among libertarians, in fact among people who can think. That's why if you read a serious libertarian journal, like Freedom in England, much of it is about using state power to defend people against private concentrations of power. There are two obvious flaws in the argument: (1) Irrationality: as long as unaccountable private tyrannies exist, any libertarian -- in fact, any decent human being -- will want people to have some defense against them, and the only one that exists is the government, at least partially accountable; (2) moral depravity: taking a program that might make sense in some future society and applying it to current circumstances, no matter how horrendous the effects of the extreme form of tyranny that such "libertarians" advocate, whether they understand it or not.

Another way of putting it is that this is not "libertarianism," but irrational moral depravity.

He has no idea what kind of libertarianism I subscribe too. His fuzzy thinking is "al-Rawandi is American, al-Rawandi is a libertarian, therefore he subscribes to 'deformed' American Libertarianism." That is truly unfortunate, as I thought Chomsky would have the mental acumen to not make such wild assumptions. I would agree with his assertion that state power is an apparatus to defend liberty, in his specific example against concentrations of power. This is easily manifested in trying to keep the market free. Meaning that people would have equal opportunity for success. But that's another discussion.

His list of flaws... I can't see how they are drawn from my argument. He seems to simply assume I support tyrranies of private power. This is simply false and arrogant on his part, but I would hope for little better. His second point doesn't really warrant comment as it has not the slightest attachment to what I said. All this drawn from my statement: "I am a very Libertarian person." Either Chomsky is a psychic or he is making things up. The answer is obvious. My interpretation of Libertarianism is drawn from the title, "Liberty", this is important for people whether in the US, or anywhere else. This is achieved by limiting state power to only ensuring liberty and equal opportunity.

So he accuses me of irrational moral depravity. This kind of arrogant assumption smacks of the very arrogance he decries (rightly so) in American adventures abroad. He has no idea what my moral state is. He has no way of knowing, to assume so is the pinnacle of hubris.

Chomsky: Here we turn from irrationality and moral depravity to total ignorance. The kibbutzim were about as close to functioning anarchism (libertarianism) as any institutions humans have yet devised.

Well I think this is unfair.

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

It was strongly socialistic at its outset. It has grown more capitalistic as of late, but in its inception, the socialist currents are manifest. They had a communal existence. Also they rejected the idea of private property. Although as of late have found a more libertarian-socialist method of operation due to the increase in non-agriculural industries on the Kibbutzim.

So it is not I who is demonstrating ignorance.

Chomsky: Here we move to mere silliness, of the kind one might expect from an ultra-Stalinist commissar, deeply offended that someone dares to criticize his Holy State. No comment needed.

No one has criticized America's foreign policy here more than I. Yet you, arrogantly, take a snippet of a post and send it along to Chomsky, who has no way of knowing my general opinion of American foreign policy, only that I disapprove of some of his methods. He then discounts this statement of mine, and you reproduce it (well, to be fair all of your posts are reproductions) and get to sit back and feel like I have been rebuked by the doyen of liberal intellectualism. Well it won't fly and it is a dishonest and incorrect characterization of me. So I suggest you read through some of my other posts and get a clue as to what I think.



The Chomsky-_riverrun ventriliquist act thus proceeds:

Chomsky: Assuming he is not illiterate, he is objecting to my position at the time that the US should put in ground troops to deter impending "genocide" (my word). It would be interesting to know why

Uhhhh what the fuck is he talking about? Do you know? I agree that the US should have put ground troops in to prevent genocide. They also should have allowed the Bosnians the right to defense that any people deserve. They were left to rely on units of the Pastarand and Saudi funded fanatics to deliver assistance. Although I would defer to Chomsky's knowledge on the specifics of the situation since that IS his day job.

And he also must object to my advice that we tell the truth both about our crimes (instead of denying and suppressing them) and those of official enemies (instead of lying about them at a level that would have impressed Stalin). Rather, we should tell the truth about all of them -- as I did, infuriating ultranationalists.

I agree to calling a spade a spade. American or otherwise. No issue there. Of course your inability to grasp my position on American foreign policy malodorously seeps through when you cut and paste without context. But I am thoroughly disabused of any notion that this will change. Chomsky has both the stupid and obnoxious habit of referring to me as an ultranationalist. I have referred to the sancitons on Iraq as "state sponsored genocide", this hardly sounds like ultra-nationalism. There are powers of intuition and powers of wild and inaccurate assumption. Chomsky, I must say has mastered both, but only employed that latter in his response to me.

which is, indeed, highly offensive to ultranationalists, for the reasons mentioned.

So much liberal sloganeering. A waste of his MIT salary. I am not an ultra-nationalist. If we took a poll here on RD.net not one person would vote me an "ultra-nationalist". I spread my critique around, and this includes to Chomskian errand boys. This is what Chomsky claims to do, but fails to see that I am doing, because his lick spit errand boy hasn't fairly represented by position. Again, my hopes for your intellectual honesty are dashed upon the rocks of manifet reality.

Al-Rawandi: He also strongly discounts (and incorrectly so) the role of ideology (Islamic) in modern terrorism. He has sought under every intellectual stone, for instantiations of US causing the events on 9/11. This is unfortunate, because he fails to see the strength of ideology in Radical Islam, yet is all to ready to announce its presence in America with regard to patriotism and the state.

Chomsky: Again, just a stream of slander, with not even a pretense of evidence. Probably stuff he picked up off gossip sites on the internet. A person who is pretending to be serious doesn't make such outrageous charges without evidence.
I presume it's obvious why there's no need to comment on the rest, whatever it may mean in your correspondent's fantasy life.

OK. I would love to see where Chomsky speaks, even briefly, about the role of radical Islam. It has escaped my memory in my own readings.


Again, you have done a great disservice to me and to Chomsky by not paying closer attention to what I am in fact saying. You still refuse to even admit the role of radical Islam in a detailed fashion. It is like pulling teeth to get you to put down your whip and look abroad for legitimate causation, which is obviously combined with American actions as well. But one sees Muslim violnce which appears to be random if one does not take into account religious belief.

1034. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174345 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 7:53 am

Jiten,

Look at the US.It is not Islamic yet is a major terrorist state.What is the cause of this terrorism?A question rarely asked.Only answers to the other guy's terrorism are sought.

More Chomskian parroting. How is the US a terrorist state? You will need extraordinary evidence. There have been plenty of "lesser of two evils situations" where it was support a dictator or allow Communism to take hold and destroy and entire society, while reprehensible was not designed to destroy an entire culture the way many Muslims have said they desired of the West.

But Muslims blame every societal failure on the west. And they have the self flagellating left to join in the chant.

I think I should inform you of what happens to atheists in the Islamic state.... Death.

1035. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174335 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 7:36 am

irate,





1) Close the italics.


2) Teratornis includes oil in every single post. Even if it is on ID in Florida.

He either has a tourette's typing disorder, or aspergers when it comes to the subject. It is simply obnoxious. And his novel length posts really bother the hell out of me too. In another thread he actually said the Wikipedia is proof that a currency and class-less society will work.


Shocking naivete.

1036. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174332 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 7:28 am

Vinelectric,




George Habash was the head of PFLP, not PLO.


As for the Jews, things were fine when they "knew their place". Asserting dominance in the face of Arab pride. Millions of Arabs were humiliated by a country with a population of 850,000 (Israel in 1950). That has created some problems.


I never expected Arabs and Muslims to accept a Zionist state.

1037. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174323 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 6:27 am

Goldy,




The problem showed up when Islam laid down the doctrine of eternal and immutable Jew-hatred.

So just remember, according to these whacked out, parentally funded grad students, when a Jew gets murdered, he obviously did something wrong, and the perpetrator was only "reacting" to the affront.

I don't understand it. These Chomskian ideologues are incapable of doing anything but flogging their own collective backs. They can't bring themselves to even admit that Islam is a violent ideology, they can only blame the WTO and World Bank for 9/11 (despite the fact Bin Laden doesn't really talk about these two).

1038. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174322 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 6:19 am

Teratornis,

The problem is that we invaded Iraq for petroleum, and the only way the U.S. knows how to improve lives is to help people burn more petroleum. Anything that increases Iraq's domestic oil consumption further reduces the amount of oil Iraq can export.

For fuck's sake, give it up. Your obnoxious obsession with oil, no matter how many times people deconstruct it, is bothersome. You posted the exact same thesis once before, I deconstructed it, you ignored this.

The US didn't need to invade Iraq for oil. We still have to purchase it from Iraq the same as before. Your constant whining about oil prices has more to do with valuation of the dollar than it does with the oil supply or demand.

It is an inelastic commodity.

But there is always that segment of the American left that sees oil at every turn and under every stone.

The US invaded Iraq for several reasons.

1) Oust Saddam
2) Try to create a democracy in a part of the world where democracy is absent
3) Spend money on weapons
4) Give large contracts to US companies for rebuilding
5) Flex muscle in the face of Iran.

Oil is way down the list. Besides most of our oil doesn't even come from the Middle East, a fact ALWAYS ommitted by you.

1039. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174320 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 6:09 am

Teratornis,




I am going to attempt to be nice (as possible). Your theories really fall under my rubric of "wirey haired whackos" and "semi-employed 'editors'".



I ask how you make a currency-less system work, one without motivation, and you come up with...

You make it fun!

Everyone please look at this solution, beyond insane. What is fun about collecting trash. What is fun about working hard to build a satellite and having no more reward than a drunken toll booth attendant. Explain to me how that is going to be fun. So ridiculous.




When queried about work, you said:

If it feels hard, you're doing it wrong. Work is fun when you have:

1. The right tools
2. The right knowledge
3. The right balance between repetition and novelty
4. A vast pool of smart brains willing to help you when you get stuck
5. A goal that is relevant to you personally - i.e., you strongly believe in what you are doing
6. An efficient mechanism to filter out stupidity

I am having a tough time believing you are even being serious. The error of this statement is evident upon reading it.


I really don't have the stomach to respond to the rest of this stuff. Like I said the majority of socialism I see comes from graduate students who have their tuition and rent paid by their parents. So can I ask what you do, and would you do it for free if you only got a tiny studio apartment and rationed food?

1040. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174319 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 6:01 am

alvorin,

Please in future could you refrain from making hasty judgements about people.

I didn't make a judgement I said "You appear to me to be", it was an observation...

But you said:

I always get a bit suspect when I see young males sounding off about which "system" is the best.

So much for reserving judgement. Another handful of leftist sloganeering. "Young men", why is this relevant? Can you tell me why my gender has something to do with Capitalism, or are we going to get into feminist man-bashing as well?


Thanks.

1041. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174318 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 5:53 am

Bonzai,

The fallacy is so obvious that I don't know how else to make it more plain. Socialism means ownership by "the people", the state is not synonymous with the people if the people have no meaningful participation in the running of the state.

Giving even an elected government more power means trouble. They slowly figure themselves more knowledgable than the people.

And I am not sure how much decision making power I want to hand to the "bewildered herd".

1042. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174316 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 5:47 am

Jiten,





Bah.

I like you, but I have to say, you aren't really thinking it through. Imagine no state, people free to move around? Awesome, Ayman al-Zawahiri can come over for dinner anytime he pleases... No halal meat? You're dead.

Fair enough on the tinkerer issue.

As for the motivation, I have yet to see an appreciable move to your theory. Although I never preclude anything when it comes to homosapiens. They manage to both amaze and disappoint me in awesome fashion, at least weekly.

Good comments.

1043. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174077 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:47 pm

righton,



Multi task, work in spurts. But I had a licensing exam this morning that I passed. So I just took the rest of the day off mentally.

1044. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174072 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm

_riverrun,





Also 22 of those conflicts you list are in Muslim countries. That is just about half of the total. Considering Muslims only make up about 1/6 of the world population I would say they are over represented on the list.

1045. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174070 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm

righton,






Ha. Ya I told her I am a fundamentalist Muslim. She said cool, she likes the Khomeini look.

1046. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174066 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm

D'Arcy,





As I said. Your model is so obviously not viable as to preclude further discussion until you either show me why it would work to remove all personal incentive or you abandon the position.

I can't spend a day telling someone that Harry Potter isn't real.

1047. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174065 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Should I go on?

No. You should answer the questions put to you.

1048. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174064 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

_riverrun,





I am not going into economics, that is going on elsehwere. But there are trade issues, but I don't recall any Muslim terrorist hollering about the WTO or World Bank. I do hear a lot of recitation of verse.


You need to actually answer the following:


1) Do you think, if the balance of power were reversed, would the Arab nations give Israel decent treatment?

2) Your Saudi analogy is trash. Bin Laden grew up in a westernized family. I met his brother and Nephew, neither are disillusioned. Bin Laden spent time in Europe with Family. How does this fit your model?


What drove Sayyid Qutb wasn't simply torture, as you suggest, but it was his visit to Greely, Colorado. He returned, disgusted with western society and began his crusade. He had previously written romance novels, then he turned to religious topics.


And finally your list is ridiculous. I simply glanced and saw US-Djibouti, like this is some kind of raging conflict. And you say the Korean war is still going on. That is beyond absurd. US troops remain, but there is no open conflict at this point. The only reason it could re-ignite would be due to North Korea's aggression. You also have the US in the Phillipines, over a century. Come on. That doesn't deserve a reply.

In Israel Palestine... more non-sense. The al-Aqsa Intifada did start in 2000. There was 10 years between this and the first Intifada, a period filled with suicide bombings, so that doesn't pass muster. You should have also put "Jews living in the Middle East" 632 A.D.--->


You are convinced, dogmatically so, that it is the US and the west which is always to blame. I asked again and again whether Muslims and Arabs have any responsibility. You either didn't take time to read it, or ignored it.

What am I going to do? How do I get you to answer.

1049. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174057 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

IainM,





I was joking. I was simply, sarcastically, making the point that the ADL calls anyone who sneezes while standing in the same room as a Jew, an anti-semite.

The bar is so low these days, I can't really pay much attention when the term is used.

1050. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174054 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Elli,





Philo-semite. I played baseball with many Jews. Some of them (in college) were very good in fact. After you get to the professional level, it's all Domincans anyway.