1951. 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.

1952. 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.

1953. 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.

1954. 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.

1955. 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.

1956. 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.

1957. 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.

1958. 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).

1959. 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.

1960. 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?

1961. 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.

1962. 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".

1963. 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.

1964. 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.

1965. 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.

1966. 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.

1967. 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.

1968. 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.

1969. 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.

1970. 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.

1971. 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.

1972. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174051 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:46 pm

D'arcy,





To be honest, you are being ridiculous. Seriously.

Oh so now you want to get rid of currency.


So let's see, no currency, not way to move up in society, state ownership. Sounds Orwellian to me. A drab and boring world where personal incentive is absent. You have the workings of.... Well nothing.

1) Your system will never be implemented
2) Your system should never be implemented
3) How do you motivate innovation
4) How do you encourage hard work


People will show up for their 8 hours on the job then go home, even if they suck at their job they still get paid, the same as the people who work hard. There is absolutely zero viability.


Seriously though, are you joking, or do you actually believe this? To be honest, I can't really tell.

1973. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174046 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:37 pm

IainM,






I have thought the same thing for some time.


You know this makes you an anti-semite of course.... See the ADL manual.

1974. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174042 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm

D'Arcy,

If the classless society of socialism / communism is ever to be achieved, it cannot be imposed from above by a vanguard party, as Lenin claimed to have done. The achievement of the classless society must be the conscious work of the majority of the world's working class (most of us), actively seeking to take political action to bring it about.

All the so-called communist countries were and are thoroughly capitalist, and yes, include Cuba. The workers there work for wages on behalf of a privileged class who own the means of living and reap the benefits of the labour of others.

Well good luck with that. Send me a tie-dyed post card from the Eleysian fields of the Socialist Eutopia.

Your class revolution remains laughable. A dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you get paid in capitalist currency, you are a hypocrite.

1975. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174041 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Bonzai,





If you dare suggest that I don't know the difference between keynesian economics and socialism I will fly over to wherever you are and slap upside the head. It is so obvious those aren't the same.

I have repeatedly said "State ownership", you continue to dodge because you know, beyond any doubt that socialism is a bankrupt theory. Expounded my wirey haired whackos in San Francisco cafes, shouted by semi-employed "editors" at anti-war rallies, but totally failed when applied to any real society.

Everyone knows this.

Keynesian is the opposite of supply side economics. It suggest that the government knows best how to allocate certain resources, while the opposite side says the free market knows best.

There must be a reconciliation of the two points. Sometimes the government should administer programs, and sometimes it should not. That is a realistic form of capitalism. But look around you and see the countries flourishing as they become free markets or continue to refine free markets (Europe for instance).


Then look at a country becoming socialist before your eyes... Venezuela, run by a man worshipped by Sean Penn, but incapable of tying his perverbial shoes. He will preside over a humanitarian crisis as he drives inflation exponentially higher, courting destruction with his big mouth and small military. Taking function private industries nationalising them and cutting performance and capacity through the hiring of incompeten government fucktards. Expelling Americans with real knowledge and installing people once removed from a pig farm in the jungle. No transition, no plan, simply Bolivarian schizophrenia. Despite its immense resources, Venezuela will be beaten to a pulp by yet another incompetent leftist. He and whoever runs Cuba in a few months can sit about, smoking cigars, and talking about who is more like Che Guevara, while their people starve and attempt to swim to Florida.

1976. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174035 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm

alvorin,

Yeah but for how much longer?
Maybe a seachange is coming and it will be a powerhouse asian economy supporting nanny middle eastern religious states.
And all the white folks are working for a buck a day.

Seems unlikely, but it also seems like you hope for this. I am curious as to why, do you live in the US, or some other country.

Self flagellating liberals wail and bleat about the coming end of America. I have plenty of friends here in the US, who sit comfortably in their university offices and wish, with gritted teeth, that the US falls on its face and all those people who made money can taste the agony of defeat. These people are driven by jealousy, if they actually gave two shits and a fuck about poor people they would be working for a NGO in Africa, but instead they sit in Cafes reading Leftist online magazines, on their Macbooks, complaining over lattes about the evils of capitalism with their corderoy clad friends.

These American leftists are much like how I perceive you to be, passive aggressive against a proven system which they cannot conquer with their liberal arts degree. Such threats and prognostications are vacuous without some evidence of the fall of the US system. There is no end in sight I am afraid, a resurgent Chinese economy is all but a farce, it is only due to its privitization of capital and industry that allows their economy to grow.

The challenge stands, show me a successful country with state ownership of industry and resource and I will eat my hat. Until then, volunteer in Africa and prove your concern for the poor. The intellectual concern really gets old.

1977. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174032 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm

_riverrun,




You have yet to provide an answer to why violence is centered in the Muslim world. And why it is intra-muslim as well as anti-western.

Your critiques of Kissinger in Indonesia is well placed.

But the issues around Saudi Arabia an Afghanistan are misplace. The Sa'ud family was supported at the same time as the Hashemites under Faisal in the Hijaz (Philby and Lawrence being the respective representatives of the British there). It was an issue of who was going to win the peninsula and who will play ball.

Right now, if the Sa'ud family left, the situation would be intolerable. But there is a bit of two faced-ness there. The Saudis have long eexported jihadis and fundamentalist Islam, the US looks the other way, not because there isn't a clash of civilizations, but because certain access to resources take precedent.

As for the Taliban, the Taliban grew out of the Deobandi movement of the Sub continent. They were supported, because the US, believed at the time (incorrectly perhaps, but hind sight is 20/20) that allowing the communists to win there would be unthinkable. And in fact this is true to some degree. The Mujahideen were the only organized and effective fighting force in the region, and were willing to fight to the death. The Soviets were slaughtering people and the US had to step in for ideological and humanitarian reasons. Pakistan was complaining of the refugee problem, and the US heeded this call.

The Mujahideen won. And as for cash flows, the Taliban was not yet an entity as it was when it came to power in 1996, so when you say the US and Saudis funded the Taliban, this is all but dishonest and an example of Chomskian twisting. The US was funding the Mujahideen via Saudi Arabia and Pakistani ISI, the Taliban drew their membership from all over and not strictly from the foreign fighters. In fact the Taliban were a form of Deobandi Sufism and this was largely unknown to the foreign fighters.

But your post looks like a Chomsky essay grasping about for some hint of western duplicity where one may dump the entire responsibility for every rained out picnic in all the world. This just isn't so. The US was unable to forecast all future events. Their method and approach was flawed, but it wasn't the mendacious approach to which you ascribe.

Regarding you points about the historicity of religion. I maintain that while of great intellectual interest and a good topic for academic debate, a narrow concentration on theological hermeneutics, etymology, and religious doctrine cannot do justice to the important issues at stake here.

You are simply hand waving away the intellectual underpinnings, because you either don't understand them or because you are desperate to blame some evil western power for the problem.


Let me ask you, is there any point where Muslims or Arabs are at fault or is it solely the "Zionists and Crusaders"? An honest critique would take into account misdeeds on both sides. I have acknowledged these and identified some of them. You must come to terms with the fact that Muslims and Arabs seem to be at the center of a shit storm of violence.


Your critique of Israel is shallow. The Arabs were engaged in a non-stop flow of terrorist attacks in the 1950's. Israel felt it could not defend the 1967 borders, and felt it needed to attack. Whether or not this is historically valid there were plenty of Israelis who felt this way.

And in 1973 the Arabs simply attacked Israel. The Arabs have been trying to exterminate the Israelis for some time, this is undeniable.

1978. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173949 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

Bonzai,





Haven't you figured it out? I have NO IDEA what I am talking about.



|>:-{o

1979. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173947 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:41 am

mesmodel,




The hardest thing to do is to recommend books on a topic you love to study. Because the list is 100 books long. But:


Ira Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies
Marshall G. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam 3 Vols.
Albert Hourani, A History of the Arabs


The first two are long reads, but you will be very well read on the topic once you finish.

Lapidus would be a good first read... And he is a Berkeley guy too!


If you are interested in more specific topics let me know.

1980. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173939 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:33 am

Bonzai,

1) religion is singled out on this site. Almost everyone assumes that it has a special meaning here, including Dawkins and Steve . I am sure Steve used religion in a very narrow sense in our debate above.

Well I don't accept your characterization of Dawkins or Steve, but if it is correct then I diverge from them. Wouldn't be a first.


But I object to the TERM religion. It is simply dogmatic belief. The fact that a god is involved does not make it some super secret special belief. It just involves invisible deities.

1981. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173935 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:31 am

alovrin,





Tito, the very same... a communist. He applied for membership in the Russian Communist Party, and was integral in the ascendancy of Communists in Yugoslavia. That was the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.

Although he resisted Soviet (direct) Influence, he remained a communist.


I get out plenty.


And like I said, show me a socialist country with state ownership that is flourishing and I will eat my hat. All these so called "socialist" countries are capitalist countries with high taxes. And they flourish on the coat-tails of a power house US economy.

Our strong economy helps power the micro-managing nanny states throughout Europe.

And yes, personal incentive is natural, and anything that values it will rest on a natural motivation. Socialism, which robs people of the fruits of their labor destroys people and countries and ruins societies.

Like I said, you will take the full force of history to the face if you attempt to promote true socialism (or communism).

1982. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173930 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:24 am

mesomodel,





I was accepted to do graduate work (MA and PhD) at several universities, but I couldn't bring myself to accept a life in the humanities (yet), but I may in the future.

I also wrote a book on the geographical history of the Hijaz region of Arabia, during pre-Islamic times. I also published a couple of random articles, hither and thither.

I dedicated a whole lot of time to this study, including memorizing Arabic grammar texts with Mauritanian scholars.

Ok, sorry for the essay on my life.

1983. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173924 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:17 am

_riverrun,





Furthermore this form of "peace" has seeped into Islam. Not just the ideology, but the name itself.


The Arabic word Islam is a noun derived from the root S-L-M meaning to submit. Islam is often mis-translated (in a mendacious fashion, no doubt) as "peace", this is wrong it is submission. The term peace Salam is also derived from the same root. Peace is achieved through submission in Arab culture and language. One must submit to the tribe with greater 'Asabiyya, or be subdued by this tribe.

Islam in theory and practice grew the tribe into a religion. Thus all the tribal ethos that applied to individual tribes now applied to Islam the religion, as opposed to competing ideologies. The 'Asabiyya applies as does submission. The Muslims were not interested in converts during their expansion, they were interested in submission of political, military, personal, and financial life. Thus the Arabs used garrison towns (Kufa, Cairo, Baghdad, etc...) to control the local populace without interfering in day to day life. This also led to the use of the term Dhimmi for a religious minority (Jew, or Christian... Ahl al-Kitab). This also led to the imposition of the Jizya (poll tax) on this minorities. The goal was to subdue the people and impose an apartheid system where all capital would flow to the Arab elite.

This remained the same, with the exception of the Arab elite which was struck down with the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate. The Abbasids rose on a platform of Muslim equality, regardless of race. However all other aspects remained.

The Islamic doctrine sees violent jihad as an obligation:

In Islam there are two kinds of obligation:

Fard Kifayya (Communal or sufficient obligation).

Fard 'Ayni (Individual)


Jihad is broken into the Greater and Lesser (Al-Akbar and al-Asghar respectively).

The Greater is and individual obligation and contains the jihad against ones negative personal and internal inclinations.

The Lesser involves spreading the faith and fighting injustice. This is a communal obligation, and it includes jihad of the sword (Jihad al-Sayf)


These doctines have made the obligation of warfare permanent and lasting on the Nation of Muhammad. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc... view themselves as the Muslims who are fulfilling this communal obligation.

This violence is endemic to Islam, not because violence is, but because the dogma insists upon it, unwaveringly and unendingly.

So the reason violence is centered around Arabs is that Islam is the religion of the Arabs (90 some %) and Islam is a product of Arab culture.

1984. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173919 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:04 am

_riverrun,




Here is my opinion on Tamils and others who engage in suicide attacks.



http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2516,How-to-reconcile-Richard-Dawkins,Peter-McKnight,page6#173807





http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2516,How-to-reconcile-Richard-Dawkins,Peter-McKnight,page6#173807


http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2516,How-to-reconcile-Richard-Dawkins,Peter-McKnight,page6#173828



These should clear up the issue of suicide terrorism. It depends on the nature of the particular dogma and belief. The Tamil Tigers is an old Red Herring used to exculpate Muslims.

Islam is nasty and violent. Believe me, there is no one here that has studied its texts and history more than me. It creates an absolute and unforgivable dichotomy, with razor sharp edges. Islam shares a great deal with Jahili Arabia (pre-Islamic). Scientifically and ethically, Muhammad reworked Arab tribal ethos to suit a plan of conquest.

This tribal ethos has changed little, intra-family marriages remain common in Arab countries.

Also, Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqqadimah in the 14th Century. He coined the term 'Asabiyya, which means "tribal solidarity". 'Asab as the triliteral root has the semantic connotation of tightness or potentially rigidity. For instance the adjective derived from the 5th verbal form of the root is Ta'assub which is used to connote fundamentalism or rigidity of belief (also used is Mutazama or Muta'aqad the latter being from the root "to tie a knot"). But I digress.

Ibn Khaldun noted that the tribes that managed to congeal this 'Asabiyya were far more successful and managed to control resources. He spoke as if this were almost a form of Natural Selection. Which makes me wonder if he had read Al-Jahiz's Kitab al-Haywan (Book of Animals) which had actually posited a precise analogy of natural selection, what I will term "proto-Darwinian".

He also noted that a form of democracy was mainained, since the tribe with the most people in it, or the most subsidiary tribes would be powerful.

These tribes achieved absolute passivity through violence.


***CONT. BELOW****

1985. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173914 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

_riverrun,

That is the lack of Arabic violence, not the amount of it is truly astounding.

Allow me to change absence to lack. There is certainly no lack. Not even close.

1986. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #173912 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 10:51 am

Bonzai,






Well, I studied at Berkeley. Our MES program received a large sum from a Saudi family. I happen to be friends with some of the members of this family, so I know they aren't whackos. But the local Jewish groups went ape shit when they heard saying the dept. was funded by "terrorists". Then the Vice Chair (who is Jewish) said: "This is an attack from the extreme right wing of Zionism. The largest donor to our program is a Jewish family, sponsoring Jewish studies among other things."

If the money doesn't come with strings then it is fine.

1987. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173833 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 9:27 am

mesomodel,






Damn I thought he worked for NARDS. Well I was wrong again.:-)

1988. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173828 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 9:24 am

Bonzai,




You are welcome to hold such a belief. But realize it contradicts the science on the matter. That seems a little "religious" itself.

These beliefs can do good as well. Perhaps a religion like the Quakers, where pacifism is the doctrine. It is the same kind of belief as martyrdom, or marxism, or nationalism. These are all similar beliefs. The belief is the issue.

If Muhammad had said 73 virgins instead, the belief would be altered, but not the way it is believed, it would function in the brain the same way.

Religion isn't a special form of irrationality. The science would contradict you here. *EDIT* You need to show that religious belief is seperate from any of the beliefs held by Tamils or Kamikazes. It seems to be the exact same part of the brain and it seems to me that the dogmatic belief is the fundamental problem. Killing yourself IS irrational.

The Tamils do have a doctrine for suicide attack. It is the specific form of Leninism they subscribe to. Their leaders have devised a way to convince young people that these attacks are a way of achieving a Leninist state in Tamil Eelam. These bombers believe this fervently. And this is scientifically the same belief, it is irrational, it is dogmatic.

1989. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173807 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 8:58 am

Bonzai,




You are making a fundamental mistake of analysis.


Remember Sam Harris' study that found belief is belief is belief? There is no difference between belief in the State, the Nation, God, Jesus, Nationalism etc... These beliefs are all the same. This belief is instrumental in creating the suicide attack.

Your problem is that you hold religion is if it is some special kind of belief. It isn't, the bio-chemistry is likely the same as any other belief. All suicide attacks are due to some kind of belief. It is irrelevant whether this happens to be religion. So in that sense Steve is exactly right, the belief that is religion is the same belief that the Shintos had, just in something else. An atheist can even have such beliefs.


People here give religion a special place, as if there is some seperate kind of belief, and reason will eliminate these kind of beliefs.

Stop treating religion as if it is some special entity unlike any other. It is the same shit as all the rest of the dogmatists and true believers who ever believed. Same shit. Steve is right.

1990. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173762 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 8:22 am

Rev. Dark,




So much for the soul determining any aspect of you character. Old Phineas solved that problem.


Apparently it is bio-chemistry. Oooops.

1991. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173752 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 8:08 am

_riverrun,





Perhaps you should read the Seeart al-Rasul by Ibn Hisham. It is a detailed biography of Muhammad. He gleefully beheaded those he conquered, and enslaved the women and children.

The Muslim conquest of the sub-continent, led to the deaths of about 60 million Hindus.

Hajj al-Amin al-Hussaini visited a concentration camp and said to his Nazi hosts that he wanted to open a death camp in Palestine for Jews. He also attempted to help organize Muslim brigades for the Nazis in the Balkans, and managed to get 20,000-25,000 Muslims involved.

The real delusion of Arab violence is when you think that if the Arabs had Israeli like weapons, would they have shown any restraint in destroying the Jews? The answer is no. There would be no Israel.

The Arabs sheltered Nazi war criminals.

Look at the "bloody borders of Islam". Wherever Islam went, the nasty theology of death went with it. Although cultures accepted it to differing degrees, the message remained the same.

If you look at the Sa'ud family taking the Arabian peninsula under Abdulaziz Ibn Sa'ud, there were hundreds of thousands of public executions and amputations.

When the Saudi-Wahhabi forces took Karbala in 1801, they put thousands to the sword and looted the local shrine of Imam Hussein. Stealing all the valuable gems and other items.

The Arabs have a long history of tribalism which has helped facilitate violence to a great degree.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia still imprison women for "witch craft". They execute people for apostasy. They kill homosexuals. They marginalize women. It seems to the casual observer they have no redeeming qualities. A closer perusal will show there are some people there that are decent people, but they are not the ones asserting themselves.

The Arabs have started war after war after war with Israel. They spent the 1950's infiltrating Israel and massacreing innocents. Like in 1954 when the killed 17 innocent people on a bus in Israel.

The only reason they haven't killed more people is because they have feeble technology, are disorganized, and spend most of their times clashing with each other.

Absence of violence? No way.

1992. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173741 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 7:42 am

MaxD,




Communication with him is hopeless.


He is simply going to post vacuous and obnoxious posts, containing little insults, hurled from the heights of Christian hubris. He will not be subjected to our responses. It will be a one way flow.

I wonder how long this malodorous flood will persist before he grows weary? He is a pathetic old pervert, trying to live forever.... in a fake god.

1993. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173729 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 7:22 am

MaxD,





There was a big bang in the seat of his pants. He substituted this for his brain.

1994. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173728 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 7:21 am

Vile man.






The brain damage inflicted by his Mormon uprbinging appears to be irreversible. Maybe he will fly to the compound in Texas.

1995. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173722 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 7:11 am

They cannot be better than:




Richard Matheson's I am Legend
John Wynham's The Day of the Triffids


Those are too good, too good I say!

1996. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173717 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 6:58 am

Anna,




Cut me some slack my fiction is limited to post apocalyptic. But I do watch the Harry Potter movies.

1997. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173714 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 6:43 am

Anna,





Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Lenin, Tito.


All socialists, creating Jiten's "Just system". True there are some ideologues in the US, who sit in their University offices, pondering what it is to do a day's work (having done nothing but sit in an air-conditioned library), deciding further that people who have worked hard to earn a living (and provide employment for many others) do not deserve any reward, and that such reward is unjust.

These people are also atheists, shockingly enough. They rejected a micro-managing God, and substitute a micro-managing bureaucratic state. The Nanny State, there to tell people what to do and how to do it. No matter how many times this model fails, costing thousands (nay millions) of lives, their dogmatism remains, unwavering, steadfast against the onslaught of history.

1998. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173706 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 6:34 am

Richard Morgan,





I may never find lasting relief, but a good start would be if you simply disappeared from this site. Your personal cowardice is what most strikes me. You need some deity because you cannot face the world for what it is. You were spurned and now you take great comfort in repeating to yourself that all who have maligned you will burn in hell fire.

You really belong with the Christians. Your totally unacceptable behavior towards women is something religion seems to have cornered the market on. I wonder how Christ would view your lewd comments to women? No doubt you can simply chalk this up to the permissiveness of atheism. How convenient, such expiation.

Your contempt for reason and honesty is not a quality, it is a wretched disease. Your credulous acceptance of the fundamentally impossible is something that you will wear like an iron mask, not a medal.

And now you are simply seeking attention here. You have chose to side with liars. This is no doubt where you belong. You have disgusted me so thoroughly, so completely. Your sarcastic and pernicious issuance of "thanks" for all those who showed you the bankruptcy of reason. None of these people return your "affection", they hold you in contempt or they pity you. You have quickly reverted to Christian arrogance in the ridiculous notion of salvation, and then you have the hubris to "thank" people who, being much much smarter than you, have convinced you that a reason and evidence based life is bankrupt.

The only thing that is bankrupt is the system of lies which you so proudly trumpet.

1999. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173700 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 6:25 am

Jiten,




Go to Cuba. Socialists keep talking about just societies, yet Socialist societies are the least just. The nastiest of tyrants have always been "for the people" and run "dictatorships of the proletariat."


You have no idea what a just society is or how to achive it. It is simply about giving people the tools to better their lives and provide a support system for those that have chronic problems.


As for you dogmatic Chomsky fetish. What the hell are you talking about? As someone who likes Chomsky's commentary on America's role in the international scene, I can't find it in my mind to simply bow and lick his feet as you seem to do.

Like I said, go live in a socialist country. Your weekly ration of beans ought to help clear your mind.

2000. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173699 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 6:21 am

Christoper Davis,





Well, let me say this. Capitalsim reinforces what is human nature, and socialism is an awkward and ineffective approach, in theory and practice.

But to say "Socialism looks far better on paper" isn't very helpful, because I would just say: "Taxes for none, welfare for all, free beer and pizza which don't make you fat". That would be nice too, but it doesn't seem practical.

People who laud the socialist nations (which really aren't particularly socialist because they maintain private ownership) don't realize how they benefit from a strong American economy, the central banks of these countries watch the US Fed with great interest. There are more than a few countries that move their interest rates (discount rates) in line with the US.

So it is not fair to say "Norway is doing fine, it's socialist." Wrong, Norway has private ownership of business, the taxes are simply high and medicine and education are free. It has some limited socialist aspects, and these seem to work in a small country with little racial diversity.

A real socialist nation looks like Cuba. Government control of everything, worst of all the internet.

Show me a true socialist country and I will show you people making boats out of 1950's Chevy trucks and hauling ass for the Florida Keys.

Even China is rapidly privatizing everything in sight, they finally understand that private ownership will create more wealth for all.

As for unfair, any system that has a diverse population will see problems. Humans are still deeply entrenched in cultural customs, and loyalty to their "culture". Their is still a degree of institutional racism in the US. And many of the minority groups don't do much to help themselves get out of their funk. But some do, look at the Irish, Jews, and Arabs. Most have come and done well financially despite a great deal of hostility to them initially, so it certainly isn't impossible. It is impossible if you constantly blame someone else for your problems.