Hello George Orwell?

[Guest jaws]

Who is John Galt?

[BewareofNick]

>Israel is no ally of mine. I support no militaristic

>theocracies.

>

>>I am beginning to think that BON is right in

>characterizing

>>you as someone who simply wants to blame everything on

>Israel.

>

>Well, that's your right, but with the greatest of respect as

>one who travels all over the world regularly, let me tell you

>that this is the only country where informed and educated

>people think that Israel is not at the core of the problems in

>the Middle East. Even Tny Blair disagrees with you. Does

>that not give you pause? Again, I would not sacrifice my

>civil liberties or those of my neighbours for the defense of

>any militaristic theocracy.

 

Israel is not the core of problems in the Middle East. Only someone with a blind hatred of all things Israeli and Jewish would postulate that hypothesis. The problem, quite simply, is Islamic fundamentalism.

 

One need look no further than Afghanistan to see that. The Taliban were tyrranical rulers who denied women even the most basic of rights. How is Israel responsible for that?

 

It was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism that drove the Shah of Iran out and the Ayatollah Khomeini in. How is Israel responsible for that? Did they secretly support the Ayatollah?

 

Islamic fundamentalism gave birth to Osama bin laden and his followers. Did Israel secretly support that?

 

Israel is the excuse de jour for everything that is wrong in the Middle East, but it's not the true reason. Islamic fundamentalism is.

The Arabic countries are struggling with how to join the 21st century. Fundamentalists see progress as a threat to their way of life, because they have no idea how they can possibly intergrate technology into the old ways. Islam can adapt in the same way as Christianity, but much as is the case with fundamentalist Christians, the extreme right of the religion fights tooth and nail to see that that will not happen.

 

Like it or not, Saddam is not the real threat in the Middle East. Neither is Moammar Qadafi. They are both, sad to say, truly irrelevant. The only reason that Saddam has been demonized the way he has is because Dubya needs a boogey man since we have made no real progress in rooting out Al-Qaeda, and what better candidate than the man his father couldn't take out? (and lest I be misunderstood, I think Saddam is scum of the earth, but his threat is minor)

 

The Saudi Royal Family is one of the biggest problems. Look at the way they treat women. It's only a few steps removed from the Taliban.

 

We have let the fundamentalists turn this into an us versus Islam issue and that's not what it is about. Osama bin Laden is no more the spokeperson for Islam than Jerry Falwell is for Christianity. They both use their religion solely for their personal power and gain.

 

As I said before, all of this could have been avoided back in 1948, but the Palestinians made the choice to go to war, and 54 years later they still don't have what they want.

[ad rian]

>Israel is not the core of problems in the Middle East. Only

>someone with a blind hatred of all things Israeli and Jewish

>would postulate that hypothesis. The problem, quite simply,

>is Islamic fundamentalism.

 

I have explained my view here many times, but I would just reiterate that the view that you express is simply not one shared by any other country in the world, not even the people of our closest ally, Great Britain, or their poodle Prime Minister, Tony Blair who just this week reiterated to the Bush Administration that progress on settling the Palestinian situation is essential if any attack or occupation of Iraq is to succeed. Are you going to call the whole world outside of the U.S. antisemitic?

 

I know that you find it difficult to recall 30 years of UN Security Council Resolutions condemning the Israeli occupation but most of the world does not. The issue then is whether one is prepared to allow that willful blindness lead one to the sacrifice of our civil liberties at home in defense of a militaristic theocracy. I respectfully dissent! I might be prepared to do so, to a limited extent, for the defense of a secular democratic pluralistic cosmopolitan society, but then again that is not the situation this time around.

[woodlawn]

>>Surrendering to threats is never in a nation's long term

>>interest. And that is what you are proposing. No matter

>how

>>you dress it up, that is what you are proposing.

>

>No, I think that is always in the interest of a country

>founded on secular democratic values to defend those values

>sui generis. That was as true before Septembrer 11th and

>remains true now. That is why talk of surrender is

>inapposite.

 

 

You keep running away from the fact that you want the U.S. to do exactly what Bin Laden demands we do. No matter how many times you try to run away from that fact, I will keep bringing you back to it.

 

>Yes, was he a Palestinian or a European? And if you are

>aware of the demographics as late as 1948 in Palestine, wy do

>you defend apartheid? With which American value is that

>consistent?

 

Herzl was one of the founders of the Zionist movement, long before the Holocaust. The facts of his career substantiate my point that the movement was a significant force in the region long before the Holocaust. Its goal was and is to create a nation in which Jews do not need to depend on members of any other religion to protect their rights, since history shows such dependence can lead to tragedy. Christians have many such countries. Muslims have many such countries. But you are unwilling to allow Jews to have even one such country.

 

>No, because the Ottoman occupation was no more legitimate

>than that of the British or the Israeli. The one constant is

>that the Palestinians have resisted all such occupiers. I

>suppose that following logic you would argue that Germany

>owned Nanibia, that white South Africans owned South Africa,

>that America owned Japan and Germany?

 

I would argue that Palestinians are blaming Jews for a situation that existed long before the Zionist movement was created. The truth is there has never been an independent Palestinian state. Ever.

 

And I would argue that the game of "who got there first" that you want to play is pointless. The Zulus who are now the predominant group in South Africa, for example, are in fact interlopers who migrated from the north and displaced the indigenous people about 400 years ago. Why should they have any more right to the land than the Boers? How far back do you want to go to determine who is the 'native' and who is the occupier? The Jews are not leaving. You can either get used to it or you can continue living in a fantasy world.

 

>>You may be willing to knuckle under to threats of violence

>>rather than fight. I am not. Israel is our ally. If we

>are

>>prepared to abandon an ally because of a threat of

>violence,

>>then who will want to be our ally?

>

>Israel is no ally of mine. I support no militaristic

>theocracies.

 

Israel is and will remain a key ally of the United States. If you want to live in a democracy you had better get used to the idea that there will be times when the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you and make a decision you dislike. If you aren't prepared to support those decisions then you cannot call yourself a supporter of democracy.

 

>Well, that's your right, but with the greatest of respect as

>one who travels all over the world regularly, let me tell you

>that this is the only country where informed and educated

>people think that Israel is not at the core of the problems in

>the Middle East. Even Tny Blair disagrees with you. Does

>that not give you pause?

 

Of course Israel is at the core of the problem in the Mideast. The problem is that most of the Muslims there do not believe in religious tolerance and cannot abide the fact that there is a nation in their midst that is not dominated by their religion. Take away the religious issue and what is left? Do people in one Muslim country take to the streets when the government of another Muslim country abuses its Muslim citizens? No. Abuse seems to be perfectly fine with them so long as it is Muslims doing it to Muslims. But when Jews do it, it is a different matter. Why is it different?

 

Blaming the problem on Israel as you do is exactly like blaming gay men for the fact that their presence in the U.S. military can be disruptive. Of course it is disruptive. But the reason for the disruption is the hatred and bigotry of others towards gays, not any wrongdoing by gays. People like you insist on blaming the victim. I simply will not go along with that.

[woodlawn]

>I think your post was very important particularly for an

>on-line community discussing gay escorts. What is surprising

>is that more people here are not outraged. We are standing on

>a very slippery slope. The tactics used to shut you up here

>are exactly those that we have seen since the President's "You

>are either with us or against us speech".

 

 

You are being extremely dishonest. No one tried to shut the thread author up. When I asked him a simple question about his post, and did so without in any way impugning his motives for writing it, instead of discussing it he hurled a series of accusations at me. When that didn't work, he ran away. It seems he is willing to do anything EXCEPT discuss the issue seriously. Why does that not surprise me?

[ad rian]

>You keep running away from the fact that you want the U.S. to

>do exactly what Bin Laden demands we do. No matter how many

>times you try to run away from that fact, I will keep bringing

>you back to it.

 

No, I would have wanted us to support secular pluralistic democracies before 9/11 and after. I am not sure wheher BinLadin agrees with that proposition, but you are right to the extent that he also opposes the militaristic theocracy in Israel we are in agreement to that extent, but I am in more agreement with most of the other nations of the world that repudiate the conept and expresion of Zionism.

 

>But you

>are unwilling to allow Jews to have even one such country.

 

Well even Herzl never thought he would get back to Palestine, he was looking at Uganda. I already said that the new Jerusalem should have been founded in defeated Germany. I remind you again Hitler was a German/Austrian not a Palestinian. Why punish Palestinians for European war crimes?

 

>I would argue that Palestinians are blaming Jews for a

>situation that existed long before the Zionist movement was

>created. The truth is there has never been an independent

>Palestinian state. Ever.

 

At the end of the day, unless you resort to expulsion as per the early Israeli leaders (See Israeli historian Denny Morris' writings about this.) you will have to contend with the demographic and democratic reality that the majority beteween the Jordan River and the Mediteranean Sea is Arab Christian and Muslim not Jewish. That was true in 1948, and remains true today. So unless you believe in apartheid, that should be unaceptable. Ah yes, but you defend apartheid below. At least, you are honest and consistent!

 

>And I would argue that the game of "who got there first" that

>you want to play is pointless. The Zulus who are now the

>predominant group in South Africa, for example, are in fact

>interlopers who migrated from the north and displaced the

>indigenous people about 400 years ago. Why should they have

>any more right to the land than the Boers? How far back do

>you want to go to determine who is the 'native' and who is the

>occupier? The Jews are not leaving. You can either get used

>to it or you can continue living in a fantasy world.

 

>Israel is and will remain a key ally of the United States.

>If you want to live in a democracy you had better get used to

>the idea that there will be times when the majority of your

>fellow citizens disagree with you and make a decision you

>dislike. If you aren't prepared to support those decisions

>then you cannot call yourself a supporter of democracy.

 

No that is nonsense. Democracy implies a respect for the process not the outcome. I can use this or other forums to persuade my neighbors of the errors of their judgement and still support a democracy. Democracy also does not mean that I must acquiese before attacks on my civil liberties that are hidden in bills that are introduced in a lame-duck session ogf Congress.

 

>No. Abuse seems to be perfectly fine with

>them so long as it is Muslims doing it to Muslims. But when

>Jews do it, it is a different matter. Why is it different?

 

Who said it was different? It seems to me that the Palestinians have resisted Ottoman Turk oppressors, British imperialists, Jordanian Muslims and Syrian/Cristian oppressors. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the only ones defending the idea of secular, pluralistic democracy. In fact, Israel created Hamas to try to undermine them for precisely that reason. Israel has always wanted to turn this into a religious extremest battle because that is the only basis upon which a racist 19th century Germanic notion of nationalism called Zionism can exist in the modern world.

 

>People like

>you insist on blaming the victim. I simply will not go along

>with that.

 

One side has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and controls the water and the land. The other side has their pride and their dignity. Who is the victim. At any rate, the issue from which you can not escape is that you are askng your neigbors to sacrifice their cvil liberties for your militaristic theocracy. Sorry, some of us will respectfully dissent. "Not in my Name"!

[jackhammer91406]

I have not run away. I am still here. I see your posts calling me "disingenuous", then "extremely disingenuous" inferring that my posts are less than honest in their intent, and at the same time intimating that your posts are above reproach in fairness and rationality. Then you complain that I answer your questions with accusations about you. Then I see you accusing ad rian of being "extremely dishonest". hmmm. Who is doing what here?

Look, without going any further down this negative road, please just listen for a sec. My original post and two subsequent posts answered most of your questions.

1) I am convinced that we face a situation that requires something along the lines of the TIA. The original concern was not the premise, but where responsibility should be placed. (this I have stated three times now) Yes, changing the oversight would not make the program less intrusive, (it needs to be somewhat intrusive by it's nature.) My reference in the first post about Eisenhower's warning is the basis for my mistrust of putting total information Awareness in the hands of the enforcement branch of government. It should be noted that this program's development is the long sought dream of one Ret. Adm. James Poindexter. which brings me to my second point.

2) I will admit my preference for anyone else besides an acquitted felon for this post could be construed as criticism. I can cede that point. If it appears to be criticism, then so be it. This man lied to Congress, shredded documents and obstructed congress. Clearly in my judgement he is not the right man for the job.

3) My initial and subsequent posts called for a debate in Congress (and anywhere) that could focus more light on what could be a precedent setting event in our personal lives. I am not ashamed of participating in this site and this board but there are some (in power) who would cast a negative determination on me and any others who actively communicate regarding something that is supposedly illegal. As of this morning's op ed pages, it still apppears that the debate is not about to happen. That this little known portion of the Homeland Security Act will go by without so much as glance towards discussion. That worries me because many minds looking at a porblem are better than one or two, even if the many respresent opposite sides of the same coin. It's called democracy. Governing from the majority, but not necessarily at the expense of the minority.

I was serious about welcoming debate, I was concerned that the debate had become too strident and as a result, no common ground was being reached. I am more interested in discussion that brings us closer rather than pushes us away from each other. That is not fear of rejection of my views. Please understand that I respect everyone's point of view, that is one responsibility of living in a free country, but like you, I don't have to agree with everyone's point of view. Doesn't mean my POV is right, doesn't mean anyone else's POV is wrong.

If we as a nation (and as posters) can get past the name calling stage (which we all seem to be guilty of to a degree) then we can find middle ground that won't please everyone, but may be better than letting the few determine the future of the many.

Jack

[ad rian]

RE: You are not alone

 

Frim todays NYT Editorial Page:

 

November 19, 2002

A Green Light to Spy

 

Anyone who worries that the war on terrorism will inspire an era of unprecedented government spying on Americans has new cause for concern today. The top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review handed the government broad new authority yesterday to wiretap phone calls, intercept mail and spy on Internet use of ordinary Americans. The Supreme Court and Congress should reverse this misguided ruling.

 

In May the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, a lower tribunal established in 1978 to oversee domestic spying by the government, issued a stern rebuke to the Justice Department for its practices. The court held, 7 to 0, that in ordinary criminal prosecutions the government had improperly used the more lenient standard the law allows for collecting information on foreign spies and terrorists. The court identified 75 instances in which the F.B.I. had abused its authority, in some cases by making false statements in eavesdropping applications.

 

The appellate court, in its ruling yesterday, reversed that decision. The appellate ruling is procedurally troubling. The court's sessions are held in secret, and the government is the only party allowed to appear before it. The members of the court are hand-picked by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Ignoring the diversity of views on the federal bench, he selected three judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The combination of one-sided arguments and one-sided judges hardly instills confidence in the court's decisions.

 

More disturbing, though, is the court's substantive decision and the way the Justice Department is interpreting it. The decision gives the government a green light to remove the separation that has long existed between officials conducting surveillance on suspected foreign agents and criminal prosecutors investigating crimes. Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced that he intends to use it to sharply increase the number of domestic wiretaps, and that he will add lawyers at the F.B.I. and at federal prosecutors' offices around the country to hurry the process along.

 

The Supreme Court should step in to restore the lower court's ruling, and Congress should redraft its statutes to clear up any confusion about what the law requires. One of the biggest challenges the nation faces is fighting foreign enemies without sacrificing civil liberties at home. Yesterday's ruling failed to rise to that challenge.

[woodlawn]

>No, I would have wanted us to support secular pluralistic

>democracies before 9/11 and after. I am not sure wheher

>BinLadin agrees with that proposition,

 

Is that your idea of a joke? Is the Taliban government that Bin Laden supported in Afghanistan your notion of a 'secular pluralistic democracy?'

 

>but you are right to

>the extent that he also opposes the militaristic theocracy in

>Israel we are in agreement to that extent, but I am in more

>agreement with most of the other nations of the world that

>repudiate the conept and expresion of Zionism.

 

How nice. Why don't you give us a list of all of the nations of the world whose human rights record is so spotless that they are in a position to lecture Israel on that subject? Which ones would you put on your list? France? China? Russia? Syria? Mexico? Nigeria? Libya? Well?

 

 

>>But you

>>are unwilling to allow Jews to have even one such country.

>

>

>Well even Herzl never thought he would get back to Palestine,

>he was looking at Uganda. I already said that the new

>Jerusalem should have been founded in defeated Germany. I

>remind you again Hitler was a German/Austrian not a

>Palestinian. Why punish Palestinians for European war

>crimes?

 

I remind you that it was the UN, the same UN whose resolutions and charter you are constantly citing in support of your arguments, the same one, yes, the very same one, the exact same one, that decided to partition Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland. I suspect their decision had much to do with the fact that the Zionist movement had already made significant progress in establishing Jewish communities in the area even before the Holocaust, as I have repeatedly reminded you.

 

>At the end of the day, unless you resort to expulsion as per

>the early Israeli leaders (See Israeli historian Denny Morris'

>writings about this.) you will have to contend with the

>demographic and democratic reality that the majority beteween

>the Jordan River and the Mediteranean Sea is Arab Christian

>and Muslim not Jewish. That was true in 1948, and remains

>true today. So unless you believe in apartheid, that should

>be unaceptable. Ah yes, but you defend apartheid below. At

>least, you are honest and consistent!

 

 

I think it would be appropriate to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state just as soon as anti-Jewish bigotry in the world is ended. Be sure to let us know when the nations of the world, whose opinions you claim to know so well, are ready to sign on to that.

 

>No that is nonsense. Democracy implies a respect for the

>process not the outcome. I can use this or other forums to

>persuade my neighbors of the errors of their judgement and

>still support a democracy. Democracy also does not mean that

>I must acquiese before attacks on my civil liberties that are

>hidden in bills that are introduced in a lame-duck session ogf

>Congress.

 

Supporting democracy means that whether you agree with the outcome of the democratic process or not you must abide by it. Of course you are free to express dissent from any measures you disagree with. But when you say 'Israel is not my ally' you imply far more than mere dissent.

 

 

>>No. Abuse seems to be perfectly fine with

>>them so long as it is Muslims doing it to Muslims. But

>when

>>Jews do it, it is a different matter. Why is it different?

>

>

>Who said it was different?

 

The Arabs do. They throng the streets to protest the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. What about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon? When are we going to see mass demonstrations in Arab countries to protest that? Well? The Arabs instituted an economic boycott of Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians. When are they going to sanction Syria for the Assad regime's slaughter of 20,000 Syrians in Habbaniya? For years there has been communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in India in which thousands of Muslims have been killed. And in Kashmir you have a state where Muslims are the majority but are ruled by a military regime controlled by Hindus. Where are the demonstrations in Arab countries against India? For decades the Muslims of Chechnya and Ingushetia have been treated with great brutality by successive governments in Moscow. Where is the outrage in the Arab world over that? Where are the demonstrations? All of these are cases in which Muslims have been killed or abused by Muslims, by Christians, by Hindus. Why is the Arab world outraged only over the behavior of Jews? Obviously they find something very different about it.

 

 

>One side has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and

>controls the water and the land. The other side has their

>pride and their dignity.

 

Pride and dignity? What sort of pride and dignity induces people to set off a bomb in a Sbarro pizza parlor, outside a synagogue after services, in a hotel dining room during the Passover meal, or open fire with automatic weapons on a crowd at a wedding reception? You will have to come up with a new definition of pride and dignity to explain that, I think.

 

>Who is the victim.

 

You are blaming the Jews for the tensions caused by the hatred and intolerance others feel toward them, just as opponents of gays in the military do with gays who want to serve. I think that the human rights record of Israel is vastly better than that of any other Mideast nation, but for the sake of argument let's say it is no better at all. So why are abuses committed by Jews met with vastly greater outrage in the Muslim world than similar abuses committed by others? Well?

 

 

>At any rate, the

>issue from which you can not escape is that you are askng your

>neigbors to sacrifice their cvil liberties for your

>militaristic theocracy. Sorry, some of us will respectfully

>dissent. "Not in my Name"!

 

Whether there is any sacrifice of civil liberties in order to resist the threats of terrorists will be decided by the same democratic process as other issues in my country. And I will abide by the decision.

[woodlawn]

>I have not run away. I am still here.

 

So when you posted that you had sworn not to have such a discussion that was meant as a joke? Okay.

 

 

>I see your posts

>calling me "disingenuous", then "extremely disingenuous"

>inferring that my posts are less than honest in their intent,

>and at the same time intimating that your posts are above

>reproach in fairness and rationality. Then you complain that

>I answer your questions with accusations about you.

 

 

I refer you to the fact that you replied to my first post with words like 'polarizing' and 'polemical' and not 'rational.' My words that you refer to came after that. Do you deny it?

 

>Then I

>see you accusing ad rian of being "extremely dishonest".

>hmmm. Who is doing what here?

 

I am responding to a series of unjustified accusations by people who want to control the terms of this debate. I don't know what you are doing. First you say you want to debate, then you say you don't, now you say you do again. You explain it. I can't.

 

>1) I am convinced that we face a situation that requires

>something along the lines of the TIA.

 

You may be convinced. I never said I was. I merely asked that you tell us your alternative proposal. That is what set you off.

 

 

>Yes, changing

>the oversight would not make the program less intrusive, (it

>needs to be somewhat intrusive by it's nature.) My reference

>in the first post about Eisenhower's warning is the basis for

>my mistrust of putting total information Awareness in the

>hands of the enforcement branch of government.

 

To me the distinction you make seems illusory. DOJ is also concerned with enforcement. And the fact that DARPA is developing TIA does not mean that DOD will ultimately control it. I remind you that DARPA also developed the Internet.

 

>2) I will admit my preference for anyone else besides an

>acquitted felon for this post could be construed as criticism.

> I can cede that point. If it appears to be criticism, then

>so be it. This man lied to Congress, shredded documents and

>obstructed congress. Clearly in my judgement he is not the

>right man for the job.

 

If TIA ever becomes a reality I certainly would not choose him as the person to run it and to be responsible for proper implementation of privacy safeguards. But that is not the issue at this point.

 

>As of this

>morning's op ed pages, it still apppears that the debate is

>not about to happen. That this little known portion of the

>Homeland Security Act will go by without so much as glance

>towards discussion. That worries me because many minds

>looking at a porblem are better than one or two, even if the

>many respresent opposite sides of the same coin. It's called

>democracy. Governing from the majority, but not necessarily

>at the expense of the minority.

 

What minority? It is my belief, and I think every poll reflects this, that there are very few people in this country who would not trade privacy for security. That is not to say that I agree with that position, but if this is what the American people want, so be it. I have said much the same thing to those who argue that North and Poindexter were justified in their crimes because Congress was letting Communists take over Nicaragua. If the American people elect a Congress that wants to let Communists take over Nicaragua, that's their right. So is this.

 

>If we as a nation (and as posters) can get past the name

>calling stage (which we all seem to be guilty of to a degree)

>then we can find middle ground that won't please everyone, but

>may be better than letting the few determine the future of the

>many.

 

Fine. See if you can get ad rian to stop saying that those who support Zionism are racists. That would be a good start.

[ad rian]

>Is that your idea of a joke? Is the Taliban government that

>Bin Laden supported in Afghanistan your notion of a 'secular

>pluralistic democracy?'

 

No, but where did I say I support the Taleban. I equate them with Israel. As I said I reject all militaristic theocracies. Won't you join me in that?

 

>How nice. Why don't you give us a list of all of the nations

>of the world whose human rights record is so spotless that

>they are in a position to lecture Israel on that subject?

 

Are you debating me, or are you debating an Atlas? I have stated the principle that I defend without exception. Will you not join me in the defense of that principle?

 

>I remind you that it was the UN, the same UN whose

>resolutions and charter you are constantly citing in support

>of your arguments, the same one, yes, the very same one, the

>exact same one, that decided to partition Palestine to

>establish a Jewish homeland.

 

Show me one UN Resolution that endorses the current borders of Israel. Israel is in violation of several UN Resolutions to the contrary. Let the bombe begin the same day we bomb Iraq!

 

>I think it would be appropriate to end the existence of

>Israel as a Jewish state just as soon as anti-Jewish bigotry

>in the world is ended.

 

You are not helping your cause with the defense of that racist militaristic theocracy. Jews have done much better in the post-War context in cosmopolitan, secular pluralistic societies not because of the existence of a 19th century Germanic ideal of a nation state. Could that be why Israel has not been able to solve the demographic reason over there?

 

>Supporting democracy means that whether you agree with the

>outcome of the democratic process or not you must abide by it.

> Of course you are free to express dissent from any measures

>you disagree with. But when you say 'Israel is not my ally'

>you imply far more than mere dissent.

 

That's an interesting lesson on democracy. I think you need to go back and read Jefferson and Madison, my friend. Pray tell, since you know my intentions, what more do I mean than mere dissent. Again, you try to silence those who disagree with you. Would you not feel more at home in your militaristic theocracy?

 

>>Who is the victim.

>

>You are blaming the Jews for the tensions caused by the

>hatred and intolerance others feel toward them, just as

>opponents of gays in the military do with gays who want to

>serve.

 

I am blaming Israel for being a racist militaristic theocracy by the first article of its constitution. Are you debating me, or straw men?

 

>Whether there is any sacrifice of civil liberties in order to

>resist the threats of terrorists will be decided by the same

>democratic process as other issues in my country. And I will

>abide by the decision.

 

Hopefully, the tradeoff will be done in the light of day after debate by our elected representatives, not burried in a take it or leave it resolution before a lame duck session of Congress, or a gerrymandered court selection process.

[ad rian]

>Fine. See if you can get ad rian to stop saying that those

>who support Zionism are racists. That would be a good

>start.

 

For the record, I have not said that, but subtlety often is husbanded on this Board. I have said that Zionism is racism because it is. That is what it means to found a state as a matter of its constitution on the basis religion and ethnicity, worse yet if you don't even form a majority in the lands over which you seek dominion. The truth hurts sometimes, but it does not stop being the truth. And n matter how you try, some of us will not permit you to force us to trade our hard won civil liberties for such an antiquated putrid idea and practice.

[woodlawn]

>>Is that your idea of a joke? Is the Taliban government

>that

>>Bin Laden supported in Afghanistan your notion of a

>'secular

>>pluralistic democracy?'

>

>No, but where did I say I support the Taleban.

 

You stated that you do not know whether Bin Laden supports a secular pluralistic democracy. In light of his actions and his published remarks I cannot take that statement seriously. It is either a joke or an outrageous lie.

 

>I equate them

>with Israel. As I said I reject all militaristic theocracies.

>Won't you join me in that?

 

 

I will join you if and when I'm convinced you are sincere. Advocating that we give in to the demands of Bin Laden, whose goal is to create an Islamic super-state in the Mideast, does not jibe with your statement that you support secular pluralistic democracy. Quite the contrary.

 

>Are you debating me, or are you debating an Atlas? I have

>stated the principle that I defend without exception. Will

>you not join me in the defense of that principle?

 

See above.

 

>Show me one UN Resolution that endorses the current borders

>of Israel.

 

Resolution 242 speaks of 'secure borders' without defining them.

 

>Israel is in violation of several UN Resolutions

>to the contrary. Let the bombe begin the same day we bomb

>Iraq!

 

That is a disgusting suggestion.

 

 

>You are not helping your cause with the defense of that

>racist militaristic theocracy.

 

There is no 'theocracy' in Israel. The government is a secular one that gives the same political rights to non-Jews as to Jews. There are non-observant Jews and non-Jews serving in the Knesset and in other public offices right now. How many Arab states can say the same about non-Muslims? Well?

 

>That's an interesting lesson on democracy. I think you need

>to go back and read Jefferson and Madison, my friend. Pray

>tell, since you know my intentions, what more do I mean than

>mere dissent. Again, you try to silence those who disagree

>with you. Would you not feel more at home in your militaristic

>theocracy?

 

Childish insults like that will avail you nothing. And pretending that someone is trying to 'silence' you is utter nonsense. If you have no actual arguments to make, you might as well spare the rest of us that sort of rubbish. Poor, persecuted fellow!

 

>I am blaming Israel for being a racist militaristic theocracy

>by the first article of its constitution. Are you debating

>me, or straw men?

 

You are indicting Israel on charges that are nothing but fabrications and falsehoods. How many non-Muslims are there in the governments of Arab nations? And how many non-Jews hold office in Israel? 'Racist theocracy,' rubbish!

 

>Hopefully, the tradeoff will be done in the light of day

>after debate by our elected representatives,

 

If it were not so you would not even be aware of it.

[jackhammer91406]

See this is getting marginally better.

 

>>I have not run away. I am still here.

>

>So when you posted that you had sworn not to have such a

>discussion that was meant as a joke? Okay.

 

When I said I had sworn never to get involved in a back and forth, I meant not that I was disengaging from debate, but that I had never intended to get into a discussion that was so negative. Still prepared to "debate".

 

>I refer you to the fact that you replied to my first post

>with words like 'polarizing' and 'polemical' and not

>'rational.' My words that you refer to came after that. Do

>you deny it?

 

Nope, I do not deny it, your posts stand for what they were as do mine

 

 

>I am responding to a series of unjustified accusations by

>people who want to control the terms of this debate. I don't

>know what you are doing. First you say you want to debate,

>then you say you don't, now you say you do again. You explain

>it. I can't.

 

 

Well, I never said I didn't want to debate, and yes I did try to steer the debate away from negative , but never tried to stop the debate...show where I did... You write as if your opinion that I am some kind of flake is self evident to everyone. Don't know why you have taken such a dislike to me, but that's not my problem.

 

>>1) I am convinced that we face a situation that requires

>>something along the lines of the TIA.

>

>You may be convinced. I never said I was. I merely asked

>that you tell us your alternative proposal. That is what set

>you off.

 

Good, this is an opinion I can relate to. What "set me off" to use your term, was that your response seemed to ignore what I thought was obvious. I never called for an alternative. I indicated in the very first post that this seemed necessary. I was asking for debate on whether is should fall under DOD, who should run it, and shouldn't there be more discussion. Plain and simple. I didn't feel that I needed to supply an alternative because I thought it was clear my objections lay elsewhere. That's what set me off.

>

 

 

>To me the distinction you make seems illusory. DOJ is also

>concerned with enforcement. And the fact that DARPA is

>developing TIA does not mean that DOD will ultimately control

>it. I remind you that DARPA also developed the Internet.

 

Good, another opinion I can relate to.Yes, I was aware that DARPA developed the internet. The DOJ is also assigned the responsibility of protecting civil liberties. Seems like the appropriate place to put this new program. Just an opinon of course.

 

>

>If TIA ever becomes a reality I certainly would not choose

>him as the person to run it and to be responsible for proper

>implementation of privacy safeguards. But that is not the

>issue at this point.

 

Ahhh, at last common ground. While we agree on the bad choice of the Admiral, we disagree on whether this is a relevant issue. It is for me as I have plainly stated umpteen times.

 

>

>What minority? It is my belief, and I think every poll

>reflects this, that there are very few people in this country

>who would not trade privacy for security.

 

More common ground, I absolutely agree. This is why I am worried that in our haste to find security, we will take whatever is offered without question.

 

If the American people elect

>a Congress that wants to let Communists take over Nicaragua,

>that's their right. So is this.

 

Agreed

 

 

>

>Fine. See if you can get ad rian to stop saying that those

>who support Zionism are racists. That would be a good

>start.

 

There you have got me. Not sure I would try to impinge on his opinions any more than I want to censor yours. Didn't expect this thread to go there, but it has. It seems like too large a subject for this thread. But we're making progress Woodlawn. Nice debating you.

 

Jack

[ad rian]

>You stated that you do not know whether Bin Laden supports a

>secular pluralistic democracy. In light of his actions and

>his published remarks I cannot take that statement seriously.

>It is either a joke or an outrageous lie.

 

Actually, it was sarcasm!

 

>I will join you if and when I'm convinced you are sincere.

>Advocating that we give in to the demands of Bin Laden, whose

>goal is to create an Islamic super-state in the Mideast, does

>not jibe with your statement that you support secular

>pluralistic democracy.

 

Yet another strawman, I have repeatedly said that I advocated a foreign policy that repudiates militaristic theocracy before 9/11 and after 9/11. You want to insert Bin Ladin into this because it is a convenient excuse for you to avoid saying whether or not you agree with that principle.

 

>There is no 'theocracy' in Israel. The government is a

>secular one that gives the same political rights to non-Jews

>as to Jews. There are non-observant Jews and non-Jews serving

>in the Knesset and in other public offices right now. How

>many Arab states can say the same about non-Muslims? Well?

 

Can El Al fly on Saturday? Can I drive my car in Jerusalem on Saturday? Why not tell us what the first article n the constitution says. The Minister of Finance of Egypt is a Christian as is the Deputy PM of Iraq and countless PLO officials and members of the Syrian Cabinet. Can Israel match tha record? Come on, join me in the defense of cosmopolitan pluralism if you believe in it.

 

>Childish insults like that will avail you nothing.

 

Where was the insult? You claimed to know that I intended more than mere dissent. Come on now, read my mind for me. I promise not to report you to the FTC!

 

>You are indicting Israel on charges that are nothing but

>fabrications and falsehoods. How many non-Muslims are there

>in the governments of Arab nations? And how many non-Jews

>hold office in Israel? 'Racist theocracy,' rubbish!

 

See above.

 

>>Hopefully, the tradeoff will be done in the light of day

>>after debate by our elected representatives,

>

>If it were not so you would not even be aware of it.

 

Do you know anything about legislative process. Are you aware that privisions like that are normally first dealt with in Committee with a possibility for debate and amendment. Sorry, Charlie your side is doing this in the dark of night. You lack the courage of your convictions, but rest assured what ever the outcome some of us will continue to stand up for civil liberties and against militaristic theocracies.

[woodlawn]

>Actually, it was sarcasm!

 

Yeah? Better luck next time.

 

>>Advocating that we give in to the demands of Bin Laden,

>whose

>>goal is to create an Islamic super-state in the Mideast,

>does

>>not jibe with your statement that you support secular

>>pluralistic democracy.

>

>Yet another strawman, I have repeatedly said that I advocated

>a foreign policy that repudiates militaristic theocracy before

>9/11 and after 9/11. You want to insert Bin Ladin into this

>because it is a convenient excuse for you to avoid saying

>whether or not you agree with that principle.

 

I think it is quite legitimate to ask whether someone who advocates giving in to Bin Laden's demands supports his goals, just as it was legitimate to ask that about those who supported the Munich deal with Hitler.

 

>>There is no 'theocracy' in Israel. The government is a

>>secular one that gives the same political rights to

>non-Jews

>>as to Jews. There are non-observant Jews and non-Jews

>serving

>>in the Knesset and in other public offices right now. How

>>many Arab states can say the same about non-Muslims?

>Well?

 

>Can El Al fly on Saturday? Can I drive my car in Jerusalem

>on Saturday?

 

Can you go shopping in Germany on Sunday? Not until recently in many cities. Does that mean Germany is also a theocracy? Nonsense.

 

>Why not tell us what the first article n the

>constitution says.

 

You brought it up, you do it. I don't take orders from you.

 

The Minister of Finance of Egypt is a

>Christian as is the Deputy PM of Iraq and countless PLO

>officials and members of the Syrian Cabinet. Can Israel match

>tha record? Come on, join me in the defense of cosmopolitan

>pluralism if you believe in it.

 

Talk about straw men! The cabinet officials of countries that are ruled by absolute dictators! Bosh! Egypt has a deplorable record of discrimination against its Copts, as we all know. And religious freedom in dictatorships like Syria and Iraq? Is that what your position depends on? LOL!

 

>

>>Childish insults like that will avail you nothing.

>

>Where was the insult? You claimed to know that I intended

>more than mere dissent. Come on now, read my mind for me. I

>promise not to report you to the FTC!

 

 

I will not sink to the level of using the sort of childish insults you have used. If you are going to act like a child you may as well get out of your chair and sit on the floor.

 

>>If it were not so you would not even be aware of it.

>

>Do you know anything about legislative process. Are you

>aware that privisions like that are normally first dealt with

>in Committee with a possibility for debate and amendment.

 

Since I know at least as much about the process as you do, if not more, I am aware that attaching riders to bills in committee with little or no debate is extremely common. It amazes me that anyone would try to portray such a common practice as unusual.

 

 

>Sorry, Charlie your side is doing this in the dark of night.

>You lack the courage of your convictions, but rest assured

>what ever the outcome some of us will continue to stand up for

>civil liberties and against militaristic theocracies.

 

More childish insults. One might as well watch the Cartoon Network as read your posts.

[Guest Dan]

hey ad rian,

since u always seem to like to steer these conversations towards your anti-Israeli views, what are your views on the treatment of gays, women and minorities in arab countries? also, how do you defend not just the anti-isreali teachings in palestinian schools, but downright the anti-jewish teachings and feelings throughout the arab world these days?

 

for ramadan, egypt tv, which as a rule is heavily censored is presenting a mini-series that borrows heavily from the protocols of the elders of zion, a book that was debunked in the last century, but has once again found favor in the arab world.

 

also, do u really think that if there is a so called palestinian state, it's going to be anything resembling a democracy? the arab world has failed miserably at that and no reason to see it coming anywhere close with this one.

 

overall, i find that you're so called pro-palesitinian diatribes are nothing more than veiled anti-semitism. even vanessa redgrave would be repulsed at your venom.

[ad rian]

>overall, i find that you're so called pro-palesitinian

>diatribes are nothing more than veiled anti-semitism. even

>vanessa redgrave would be repulsed at your venom.

 

It's a free country. Believe what you want, but I have laid out my vews very clearly here. Yes to cosmopolitan pluralism and secular democracy. No to militaristic theocracy. If you consider that to be antisemitic then may the force be with you. It is always easier to debate a straw man than a principle isn't it?

[ad rian]

>One might as well watch the Cartoon

>Network as read your posts.

 

Then why do you bother? I did not mean to disturb your educational television. That is the fun thing about a Board like this, we can opt in or we can opt out. I have no control over you, nor you over me, at least not yet. There still are a few civil liberties that the likes of you have not managed to place their jackboots on yet.

[woodlawn]

>>One might as well watch the Cartoon

>>Network as read your posts.

>

>Then why do you bother?

 

I was curious to see whether you had any response to the facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations have is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse of Muslims by Jews. When Christians, Hindus or other Muslims do the same thing it doesn't seem to bother them too much, as I pointed out. Obviously you have no response.

 

 

I did not mean to disturb your

>educational television. That is the fun thing about a Board

>like this, we can opt in or we can opt out. I have no control

>over you, nor you over me, at least not yet. There still are

>a few civil liberties that the likes of you have not managed

>to place their jackboots on yet.

 

The likes of me and my jackboots? If I wanted to sink to your level of childishness I would ask you what are the annual dues that you pay to belong to the Bin Laden Fan Club and whether you are the president of your local chapter. As it is, I will simply conclude that BON's remarks concerning your anti-Semitism show that he knows you a lot better than I do. I'll pay more attention to his remarks in the future.

[woodlawn]

>>One might as well watch the Cartoon

>>Network as read your posts.

>

>Then why do you bother?

 

I was curious to see whether you had any response to the facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations have is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse of Muslims by Jews. When Christians, Hindus or other Muslims do the same thing it doesn't seem to bother them too much, as I pointed out. Obviously you have no response.

 

 

I did not mean to disturb your

>educational television. That is the fun thing about a Board

>like this, we can opt in or we can opt out. I have no control

>over you, nor you over me, at least not yet. There still are

>a few civil liberties that the likes of you have not managed

>to place their jackboots on yet.

 

The likes of me and my jackboots? If I wanted to sink to your level of childishness I would ask you what are the annual dues that you pay to belong to the Bin Laden Fan Club and whether you are the president of your local chapter. As it is, I will simply conclude that BON's remarks concerning your anti-Semitism show that he knows you a lot better than I do. I'll pay more attention to his remarks in the future.

[ad rian]

>I was curious to see whether you had any response to the

>facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations have

>is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse of

>Muslims by Jews. When Christians, Hindus or other Muslims do

>the same thing it doesn't seem to bother them too much, as I

>pointed out. Obviously you have no response.

 

For the umpteenth time, I defend a principle of cosmopolitan pluralism and secular democracy. I oppose militaristic theocracies. Your position is that If I attack Israel, I must embrace those others who do. I don't. It is hilarious that you, ostensibly an American, repudiate the fundamental values of our nation in favor of those of a foreign power, and would sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of the defense of that foreign power.

 

>The likes of me and my jackboots? If I wanted to sink to

>your level of childishness I would ask you what are the annual

>dues that you pay to belong to the Bin Laden Fan Club and

>whether you are the president of your local chapter.

 

Agai, I would have opposed the Israeli militaristic theocracy before and after 9/11, and would not acrifice my civil liberties for the racist 19th century Germanic nationalism that it represents. I don't need to embrace Bin Ladin to do that as a matter of reason or logic. I think everyone can see why you want to make that equation. If you succeed, then you can stomp your jackboots over our civil liberties with impunity. Sorry, Charlie, we won't be fooled again!

[ad rian]

>I was curious to see whether you had any response to the

>facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations have

>is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse of

>Muslims by Jews. When Christians, Hindus or other Muslims do

>the same thing it doesn't seem to bother them too much, as I

>pointed out. Obviously you have no response.

 

For the umpteenth time, I defend a principle of cosmopolitan pluralism and secular democracy. I oppose militaristic theocracies. Your position is that If I attack Israel, I must embrace those others who do. I don't. It is hilarious that you, ostensibly an American, repudiate the fundamental values of our nation in favor of those of a foreign power, and would sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of the defense of that foreign power.

 

>The likes of me and my jackboots? If I wanted to sink to

>your level of childishness I would ask you what are the annual

>dues that you pay to belong to the Bin Laden Fan Club and

>whether you are the president of your local chapter.

 

Agai, I would have opposed the Israeli militaristic theocracy before and after 9/11, and would not acrifice my civil liberties for the racist 19th century Germanic nationalism that it represents. I don't need to embrace Bin Ladin to do that as a matter of reason or logic. I think everyone can see why you want to make that equation. If you succeed, then you can stomp your jackboots over our civil liberties with impunity. Sorry, Charlie, we won't be fooled again!

[woodlawn]

>>I was curious to see whether you had any response to the

>>facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations

>have

>>is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse

>of

>>Muslims by Jews.

 

 

>For the umpteenth time, I defend a principle of cosmopolitan

>pluralism and secular democracy.

 

But you refuse to acknowledge that in most Muslim countries the notion of democracy is not compatible with the notion of a secular pluralistic state, since most of the inhabitants don't believe that religion and government should be separate or that non-Muslims should have the same rights as Muslims. Algeria, for example, has had a secular government since the French left. But when Islamist parties won the national elections, the secular government refused to honor the election results, starting a bloody civil war that lasted for years. In Turkey, the military lets it be known that if Islamist parties gain power in elections then the civilian government will be deposed. Even in Iran, where a whole generation has become disillusioned with rule by clerics, polls show a large majority of voters still do not believe that religion and government should be separate. When you ask me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

 

>I oppose militaristic

>theocracies. Your position is that If I attack Israel, I must

>embrace those others who do. I don't. It is hilarious that

>you, ostensibly an American, repudiate the fundamental values

>of our nation in favor of those of a foreign power, and would

>sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of the defense of

>that foreign power.

 

The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To agree with you, one would have to believe it is just a coincidence that every single one of the 9/11 hijackers came from a country where we support a secular regime against Islamists. How absurd! The reason we were attacked could hardly be clearer. And it has nothing to do with Israel.

[woodlawn]

>>I was curious to see whether you had any response to the

>>facts I posted, which show that the problem Arab nations

>have

>>is not with the abuse of Muslims per se but with the abuse

>of

>>Muslims by Jews.

 

 

>For the umpteenth time, I defend a principle of cosmopolitan

>pluralism and secular democracy.

 

But you refuse to acknowledge that in most Muslim countries the notion of democracy is not compatible with the notion of a secular pluralistic state, since most of the inhabitants don't believe that religion and government should be separate or that non-Muslims should have the same rights as Muslims. Algeria, for example, has had a secular government since the French left. But when Islamist parties won the national elections, the secular government refused to honor the election results, starting a bloody civil war that lasted for years. In Turkey, the military lets it be known that if Islamist parties gain power in elections then the civilian government will be deposed. Even in Iran, where a whole generation has become disillusioned with rule by clerics, polls show a large majority of voters still do not believe that religion and government should be separate. When you ask me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

 

>I oppose militaristic

>theocracies. Your position is that If I attack Israel, I must

>embrace those others who do. I don't. It is hilarious that

>you, ostensibly an American, repudiate the fundamental values

>of our nation in favor of those of a foreign power, and would

>sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of the defense of

>that foreign power.

 

The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To agree with you, one would have to believe it is just a coincidence that every single one of the 9/11 hijackers came from a country where we support a secular regime against Islamists. How absurd! The reason we were attacked could hardly be clearer. And it has nothing to do with Israel.