Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza Is D'efinitely D'Looney

Well, to anyone who isn't familiar with Dinesh D'Souza, here's a brief intro. He's a Catholic from India who moved to America, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa in English from Dartmouth University in 1983. He was a real prig, even at Dartmouth, because he thought he was doing everyone a favor, by publishing the names and personal correspondences of members of the Gay Student Aliance in The Dartmouth Review, which was editor of. The controversy was not that he outed gays who were in the closet, or that he frequently referred to gays as "Sodomites", but that he or people close to him spied on these students, and stole some of their notes to each other, some from their dorm rooms. D'Souza denied allegations that the notes were stolen. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.

Though he probably thought that he was doing the community a favor by showing that these gay students were planing on doing something shockingly offensive and monstrous -- such as organizing to stand up for gay rights (oh, how terrible!) -- he was the one who was perceived by the Dartmouth Community as the shockingly offensive and monstrous one. What a dumbass!

If that wasn't bad enough, under his editorship, the Dartmouth Review also featured attacks on feminists and Women's Studies. One article, written by Keeney Jones, which D'Souza allowed to be published, said:

"The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth, but whether they should be educated at all."

I guess D'Souza and his friends likes they women barefoot, pregnant, and illiterate. Give the man a white sheet and some corn-pone!

D'Souza criticized the minority admissions policy of the school, as well as printed racist cartoons and articles that were pretty much what one would expect from a KKK newspaper. They once published an article "for black students" that was written in "ebonics", and suggested that black students were illiterate. In another article, William S. Cole, a black music teacher at Dartmouth, was described as "looking like a used brillo pad". The school's vice president of public affairs, at the time, said of the paper, that it had become "outwardly destructive and irresponsible."

With a resume like that, he found his way into another right-wing rant-rag, The Prospect. Under his editorship of that publication, he was frequently criticized for making sexist comments about feminists and the field of Women's Studies, but his coup de grace came when he published an expose of a female student's sex life, who was identified in the article, without even asking her permission. Apparently, the world just had to know the identity of this one student who was practicing adultery, since everyone knows how rare adultery is among college students.

More on D'Souza at Campus Progress.

Even more on Dinesh D'Souza at Sourcewatch.

Still more on Dinesh D'Souza at Media Transparency.

The Creep's own website...

A detailed history of The Dartmouth Review's controversies that I touch on above...

But I digress...

D'Souza has written a new insane rant against the left, one of the many he has written. This time, D'Souza is being blasted by his own ultra-right-wing compatriots. Oddly enough, he's saying what many right-wing whackjobs have already tried to say or have alluded to --that the left in America is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

Despite the fact that people, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, have already gone on the records as blaming the terrorist attcks on the "Liberals, Feminists, abortionists, and the ACLU", and were immediately criticized by the both left and the right for their idiotic comments, D'Souza seems to ignore this history, and pretty much repeat exactly the same thing, going as far as to write a whole book that elaborates on the notion. This is what this moron has to say:

The left is responsible for 9/11 in the following ways.First, the cultural left has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world, that are being overwhelmed with this culture.

Hmmm... So let me see. American TV shows and movies, as well as our internet, and some commercial products, are being forced on "traditional societies" in the Islamic world, and overwealming them. You mean those dictatorships and kingdoms, where the media is largely controlled by the government, are allowing "decadent" American shows and commercialism to infect their people? Is that the fault of the left? I mean, who owns most of Hollywood and American mass-media? I believe if you do simple research, you will find that America's media and movie studios are largely owned by billionaires who are conservative.

In addition, the left is waging an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures. This campaign has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe that their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault."

Oh, so the promotion of democracy and free enterprise, as well as giving people equal rights under the law is enraging the Islamic world, huh?

Gee, that's really funny, because I thought that incidents like the 1953 U.S. planned and financed coup of Iran, and the ousting of it's democratically elected government, in which the USA, under the conservative Eisenhower administration, placed the dictator, Shah Pahlavi, into power. I thought that the Shah had spent nearly 30 years opressing conservative Muslims in Iran, particularly the Wahabi sect, which is the sect that spawned both Ayatohlah Khomeni and Osama Bin Laden.

You mean there's no chance that America's financial and military support of Israel, who went to war with several Islamic nations, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, couldn't possibly have left some bad feelings towards America in Islamic nations?

I suppose that when Ronald Reagan decided that we should support Iraq in their war with Iran, then play both sides of the coin by selling arms to the Iranians in exchange for hostages, that it didn't create any sour feelings or animocity among Islamics, either.

So D'Souza is saying that despite all the military actions that conservative US administrations have engaged in or supported against various Islamic nations, despite supporting Israel and it's wars against Islamic states, and it's internal opression of Islamic people, and despite having a sort of two-faced policy like we had with the Iran-Iraq war, that what conservative Islamics really hate about America are the liberals and their filthy culture of free-wheeling, free-love, women's lib, abortion, wanton blasphemy. That may not be his exact words, but that's what it seems like he's saying!

D'souza continues:

Further, the cultural left has routinely affirmed the most vicious prejudices about American foreign policy held by radical factions in the Muslim world,

Huh? Did I read correctly? Various Bush administration officials calling terrorists "Islamofascists" is not a vicious prejudice against muslims? Our military and other conservatives routinely calling them "rag-heads" is not a prejudice? Various people on the religious right, making critical comments about Islam, doesn't count as a vicious prejudice? Pat Robertson, claiming that "Islam, at its core, teaches violence" isn't something that should bother Islamic people? If I said that about Christianity (that it teaches violence), Christians would scream bloody murder. What planet is D'Souza living on?

D'Souza continues:

and then it has emboldened those factions to attack the United States with the firm conviction that “America deserves it” and that they can do so with relative impunity.

Hold on a second -- Didn't Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell proclaim that the 9-11 destruction of the world trade center was God's judgement against America, for having The ACLU, liberals, pagans, and gays in our country?


Really? They thought they could do it with impunity, which is why they were in hiding, I suppose. Since they thought they could just attack with impunity, I suppose that's why they acted in secret, and why it took so long for them to plan, finance, and carry it out -- they were so secretive and always on the run, always hiding from us, because they thought they could just walk into the country and just get away with it. And this is allegedly the fault of liberals who criticized US Foreign policy that led to previous events like the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in which Ronald Reagan's response was to pull out of Lebanon altogether. I suppose it never occured to D'Sousa that pulling out all of our forces after getting bombed doesn't count as something that might embolden terrorists into thinking that they had us on the run, and that we'd run away again if attacked in a similar way.

So he continues:


Absent these conditions, Osama Bin Laden would never have contemplated the 9/11 attacks, nor would the United States today be the target of Islamic radicals throughout the world. Thus when leading figures on the left say, “We made them do this to us,” in a sense they are correct. They are not correct that “America” is to blame. But their statement is true in that their actions and their America are responsible for fostering Islamic anti-Americanism in general and 9/11 in particular.

Can you believe this guy? In spite of US Government actions against Islamic countries, in spite of supporting Iraq's war against Iran, and then selling weapons to Iran, in spite of supporting dictators who opressed Islamic people, in spite of supporting Israel in it's wars against Islamic countries, and opression of Palestinians, in spite of having conservative religious nut-jobs on television condemning Islam, and 50 years of foreign policy that has been two-faced and seemingly caring more about money than anything else, the people to blame are not the conservative administrations, military generals, policy makers, or those directly involved in those things. We have to blame the ACLU, Feminists, Abortionists, Atheists, and Liberals for promoting our "culture of secularism and free love"!

In spite of all the dead Muslims, including about 1.2 Million Iraqis, who owe their deaths to American-made weapons or governments financed by American administrations, the fault is allegedly hippies, pinkos, atheists, secularists, and the ACLU. I guess I missed something...

Dear Mr. D'Souza, if you ever read this, please seek professional psychiatric help before it's too late. This childish irrational rhetoric of yours, and your entire history since college, suggests to me that you're seriously delusional, and possibly chemically imbalanced.

Seek professional help, please....

16 comments:

Pocket Nerd said...

Wow, I didn't know about his antics in college. I've just downgraded the man from "loony" to "loathsome."

Why are right-wing nutters always so worried about everyone else's sex life, anyway? Are they worried that other folks are having more and better orgasms than they do?

(And maybe we do at that. Just what was Rush doing with that Viagra on a trip to a country famous for its underage sex trade?)

David W. Irish said...

Yeah, ever since I began reading the bowel movements he calls essays in the newsgroups where freepers do cut-and-pastes, I had him on my list of "guilty pleasures" -- people who I liked to read because their stuff was just retarded rambling, presented by the magazines and websites that host them as "genius". I rarely write about Anne Coulter, Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, and others on this list -- I usually concentrate on the major figures who make the news and who are actual movers and shakers. D'Souza pretty much has been an asshole since at least his college years, and the kind of stuff that he did back then will ruin any chance he has of reaching the forefront of the culture. He'll just be liek Anne Coulter all his life -- a curiosity that makes people laugh, and go "and people listen to what he has to say?"

My guess is that right wingers or conservatives in general, are interested in other people's sex lives, because they fear others finding out about their own flawed sex lives. Think of the mayhem that is caused when conservative blow-hards who are known for pushing their sexual lifestyle, are caught with their wicks still wet. Their careers go down the tubes when their affairs are found out. They want to out everyone they hate to keep attention away from their own flaws.

GamingAsshole said...

Psycho Dave, I do not know much of this Indian guy, but I noticed a tad bit of error you made when mentioning Islamist. You said:

[
Oh, so the promotion of democracy and free enterprise, as well as giving people equal rights under the law is enraging the Islamic world, huh?]

I do not think there is any evidence the US or any first world power is promoting that in the region. Leftist (mostly ones that happen to be unlucky enough to be in the Middle East) sure are promoting democracy, but I do not think they are promoting free enterprise. You go on to say:

[because I thought that incidents like the 1953 invasion of Iran,]

I am sure this was just a mistake on your part, but it was not an invasion, rather a coup de'tat that was set up by the U.S. and Britian.

[in which the USA, under the conservative Eisenhower administration]

Einsenhower was not a "conservative." We was in fact a registered democrat most of his life, and was not an ideological Republican by any means. Eisenhower was not politically driven. Eisenhower did not intend to run for president after World War II, but both parties were urging him to run on their ticket. Eisenhower said that he finally chose to run as a Republican mostly because the Democratic Party had been in power for so long (19 years). In addition, Democrats controlled Congress during most of his presidency as well. What makes you think he is conservative?


[Shah Pahlavi, into power. I thought that the Shah had spent nearly 30 years opressing conservative Muslims in Iran]

While the Shah did oppress fundamentalist muslims, true, he actually focused most of his intention of communist and socialist groups, and anyone identified with the Left, and that is why the fundamentalist islamist in Iran were able to gain power. Leftist did in fact play a large role in the Iranian Revolution, however, after that was over with, and the Islamist came to power, they were mostly killed and exiled.

[particularly the Wahabi sect, which is the sect that spawned both Ayatohlah Khomeni and Osama Bin Laden. ]

Uh...the Wahabi sect is a Sunni fundamentalist sect of Islam, so how did it influence Shia Ayatohlah Khomeni?

[
You mean there's no chance that America's financial and military support of Israel, who went to war with several Islamic nations, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, couldn't possibly have left some bad feelings towards America in Islamic nations? ]

Well, obviously that is a source of anger of muslims, but you must remember, that for decades, the conflict was purely political, and was very much left vs. right, and it was considered a leftist, even marxist cause to rid the area of Israel. It is ironic that in fact Israel was and still is very leftist oriented, so it was leftist vs leftist. Fundamentalist muslims do in fact get angry over that, no doubt, but that is not the biggest factor, and many of them are angry over the issue for reasons different than you state, such as a supposed conspiracy of zionism.

[
I suppose that when Ronald Reagan decided that we should support Iraq in their war with Iran, then play both sides of the coin by selling arms to the Iranians in exchange for hostages, that it didn't create any sour feelings or animocity among Islamics, either. ]

Well, I do not disagree with that at all.

[So D'Souza is saying that despite all the military actions that conservative US administrations have engaged in or supported against various Islamic nations, despite supporting Israel and it's wars against Islamic states, and it's internal opression of Islamic people]

Okay, here is something I will disagree with you here. Palestinians are not Islamic people, they just are currently ruled by an Islamist government, a government many of them hate and oppose. Hamas was in fact agitated and partly created by Israeli and American intelligence forces to deter support away from the Palestinian liberation cause. They thought by creating religious fundamentalist wings that would join the Palestinian armed conflict, it would deter support away from the movement, but all it did was create a group of fundamentalist wackos who eventually turned on them and due to their no-limits way of attacking Israel, gained popularity among Palestinians, and all it did was shift support away from the Leftist and Communist groups. The creation of Hamas itself is a source of anger of Palestinians ironically, at least those who suffer and are oppressed under them.

[Various Bush administration officials calling terrorists "Islamofascists" is not a vicious prejudice against muslims?]

What exactly is a vicious predjudice against muslims? I just find the term stupid because there is nothing fascist about their policies. However, if you call them islamic oppressors, is that some sort of predjudice?

[Pat Robertson, claiming that "Islam, at its core, teaches violence" isn't something that should bother Islamic people?]

But Islam does teach violence in its core, and even though a hypocritical, scam artist fakey evangelical is saying that does not make it untrue or unnecessary to say. Mind you, it is probably a source of some anger of Muslims. Muslims will, in true irony, get violent if you call them violent.

You see, the arab resistance and palestinian liberation movements were largely part of the Leftist/Socialist movement that evolved from the enlightenment. Movements for total integrated interactive democracy, racial, sexual, and economic equality and an end to agression and war. But the west armed violent, backwards, fundamentalist religious people to attack and basically destroy these groups, and now they are biting us in the ass.

More information on this:

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/index.html

http://www.jonbesh-iran.com/

http://www.iransecularsociety.com/

http://www.kurdistancp.org/

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

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

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/880

David W. Irish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David W. Irish said...

Gaming Asshole wrote:

"I do not think there is any evidence the US or any first world power is promoting that in the region."

I'm not specifying that region. In general, I agree that the USA has not really promoted democracy or freedom at all -- we have actually created and supported more dictatorships around the world, and have deposed and dismantled far more democratic nations than we have helped to establish. Japan and Germany are the only two real examples of America using it's power to create democracy in a country we defeated in a war. In nearly every other case, we propped up dictators. However, in terms of "promotion" of democracy and free enterprise, I'm referring to lip service. The USA government gives democratic reform, capitalism, and free enterprise a lot of lip service, even though we've used our military in the opposite direction. When there are movements in other countries that we support, such as rebels fighting against communists or unfriendly dictators, we give lots of lip service to them.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Leftist (mostly ones that happen to be unlucky enough to be in the Middle East) sure are promoting democracy, but I do not think they are promoting free enterprise.

I generally agree, but this depends on the leftists. Communists are generally against capitalism and free enterprise. Socialists are more friendly towards them.

Gaming Asshole wrote:
I am sure this was just a mistake on your part, but it was not an invasion, rather a coup de'tat that was set up by the U.S. and Britian.


Correct. I remembered having proofread, and having difficulty with HTML, and some of my changes didn't work.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Einsenhower was not a conservative... What makes you think he is conservative?

His politics were clearly right wing. He crusaded against communism, and tricky Dick Nixon was his Vice President. under his administration, the nation went through an anti-communist hysteria -- lots of people were purged from government, from Hollywood, and from ordinary jobs, whose only crime was having associations with communists. His Cabinet was comprised of 8 millionaire corporate tycoons, and just one labor leader. His presidency was the age of McCarthyism, in case you forgot (McArthy started in 1950 -- eisenhower took office in 51, and the shit hit the fan after that). And of course, the "Eisenhower doctrine" was not liberal at all, and the kind of insane militaristic policies that we are dealing with with Bush -- albeit not against commies, this time.

Gaming asshole wrote:

While the Shah did oppress fundamentalist muslims, true, he actually focused most of his intention of communist and socialist groups, and anyone identified with the Left, and that is why the fundamentalist islamist in Iran were able to gain power. Leftist did in fact play a large role in the Iranian Revolution, however, after that was over with, and the Islamist came to power, they were mostly killed and exiled.

Yes, but the fact that Islamic groups were opressed, and that the Shah was financially supported by the USA was part of the reason for the revolution, and the anti-American sentiment of it.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Uh...the Wahabi sect is a Sunni fundamentalist sect of Islam, so how did it influence Shia Ayatohlah Khomeni?

Another oversight on my part. Khomeni got his support from both sunni and shiite muslims, by building a coalition of unity among them. Though Khomeni was not a Wahabi himself, he advocated a lot of what Wahabis promote -- such as establishing Shariyah law and pursuing a fundamentalist (Back to fundamentals) version of Islam. There are a lot of similarities between Khomeni's politics and Wahabism, but he was not officially in it. However, many of his followers were.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Well, obviously that is a source of anger of muslims, but you must remember, that for decades, the conflict was purely political, and was very much left vs. right, and it was considered a leftist, even marxist cause to rid the area of Israel. It is ironic that in fact Israel was and still is very leftist oriented, so it was leftist vs leftist. Fundamentalist muslims do in fact get angry over that, no doubt, but that is not the biggest factor, and many of them are angry over the issue for reasons different than you state, such as a supposed conspiracy of zionism.

I don't agree with that analysis. The very creation of Israel was done in a very underhanded, sneaky, and just plain dirty way. A lot of the money and support for it came from the USA. Muslims in Israel were promised democratic and constitutional equality if they supported the Ben Gorian government, but as soon as he was in power, he disenfranchised them. It was a big betrayal. The fact is that for the last 50 years, Islamic people in Israel have been treated EXACTLY like black people in the USA were treated prior to 1964. It's the PERCEPTION that still persists, that muslims are unfairly treated there, that is the biggest factor in how Muslims feel about the issue.

On Palestinians...

Palestinians are the indiginous people of Israel. They are of mixed arab, persion, and semetic descent, but a large majority of them are Islamic. They literally had their homes and property taken away by the Israeli government, and many of those same houses were simply given to Jewish families. It was blatantly unfair, and most of them didn't get compensation at all for their land. This feeds the perception that islamic people are unfairly treated, even if not 100% of the Palestinians are Islamic. It's the opression, and the fact that the USA supports Israel, no matter what it does, that drives the hate.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

What exactly is a vicious predjudice against muslims? I just find the term stupid because there is nothing fascist about their policies. However, if you call them islamic oppressors, is that some sort of predjudice?

Well, yes and no. It depends on who is hearing it. If you're a born-again Fundy Christian, you don't see any prejudice -- just "truth". But if you're Islamic, you take offense.

Frankly, I am just as guilty of being prejudiced against Islam, but because I'm an atheist, and see all religions as being harmful. I just don't focus a lot on Islam, because we don't have them all over the TV and in Washington lobbying the president.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

But Islam does teach violence in its core, and even though a hypocritical, scam artist fakey evangelical is saying that does not make it untrue or unnecessary to say. Mind you, it is probably a source of some anger of Muslims. Muslims will, in true irony, get violent if you call them violent.


It teaches violence at it's core no more and no less than does Judaism and Christianity. For pat Robertson to claim that it's core is violence is just plain hypocritical, because the core of Christianity is the same, and has the same track record. However, if I went out and publicly stated that the core of Christianity is violence, would Christians be justified in being offended? If you say YES, then Islamic people have every right to be offended by Robertson.

Gaming Asshole wrote:
You see, the arab resistance and palestinian liberation movements were largely part of the Leftist/Socialist movement that evolved from the enlightenment. Movements for total integrated interactive democracy, racial, sexual, and economic equality and an end to agression and war. But the west armed violent, backwards, fundamentalist religious people to attack and basically destroy these groups, and now they are biting us in the ass.

Right -- We should have backed the leftists, because their overal goals were what Americans actually aspire to. Instead, backward conservative assholes decided to give our money and military support to nasty opressive conservative asshole governments over there. We saw any leftist -- even those in favor of democracy, transparency, and civil rights, as communists who could not be trusted, and we threw our resources at people who were patently AGAINST democracy, transparency, and civil rights.

GamingAsshole said...

Some responses to your responses:

[The USA government gives democratic reform, capitalism, and free enterprise a lot of lip service. When there are movements in other countries that we support, such as rebels fighting against communists or unfriendly dictators, we give lots of lip service to them.]

Yeah, you are right. I think the very lip service itself is stupid however. Democracy is not automatically good, and democracy for the most part, just props up theocracy in the Middle East now. Democracy is actually bad thing in that case. You need a rational, secular culture and an informed, educated population to make democracy good. There are no such things as universal democratic ideals.

[I generally agree, but this depends on the leftists. Communists are generally against capitalism and free enterprise. Socialists are more friendly towards them.]

Uh, who told you that? Which socialist and which communist, and in what context? Maybe certain European parties that have "socialist" in the name might be friendly to the Americane example of free enterprise, but that is all. Free trade sure is promoted by the left, but free trade hurts free enterprise, so they are not connected.

[His politics were clearly right wing. He crusaded against communism, and tricky Dick Nixon was his Vice President. under his administration, the nation went through an anti-communist hysteria -- lots of people were purged from government, from Hollywood, and from ordinary jobs, whose only crime was having associations with communists. ]

That is not conservative however. Especially not filling yourself with corporate tycoons. Corporations of course, work as much against conservatisim as Leftist do. The democrats were farther to the right (I still see them that way, but anyway...) then, and the conservatives opposed that, which were flocking to the Republicans.

However, you bring up the Red Scare, which started before Eisenhower, and was going on in the late 40s, under the crazy Harry Truman.

[He crusaded against communism, and tricky Dick Nixon was his Vice President. ]

Every president from TDR to Reagan crusaded against Communism however. I mean, the red scare was not an invention of the 1950's. "Liberal" politicans crusaded against Communist as well.

[. His presidency was the age of McCarthyism, in case you forgot (McArthy started in 1950 -- eisenhower took office in 51, and the shit hit the fan after that).]

Hehe, no I did not forget about McCarthy. But it started in the late 40s, not the 50s:

"In 1947, Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9835, creating the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. The program created review boards to investigate federal employees and terminate them if there were doubts as to their loyalty. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the committees of Senator Joseph McCarthy began investigations of actual or alleged American Communists and their role in espionage, propaganda, and subversive activities, real and imagined."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare#Causes

[And of course, the "Eisenhower doctrine" was not liberal at all]

True, that is true, but I cannot rememebr any foreign policy doctrine in the US in the 20th Century being liberal. Liberal would be hands off and open, and the US has never practiced that.

[and the kind of insane militaristic policies that we are dealing with with Bush -- albeit not against commies, this time. ]

Well, I think we have had insane militaristic asperations for a long time, a lot longer than Eisenhower.

[Yes, but the fact that Islamic groups were opressed, and that the Shah was financially supported by the USA was part of the reason for the revolution, and the anti-American sentiment of it.]

Yes, but the islamic clerics were actually, and I wonder if this is a word, under oppressed, and were able to gain power at the expensive of all the leftist and communist the Shah was oppressing. The rise in Islamic fundamentalism has to do with them being able to retain power and oppose the Shah while the other groups could not, since the Shah was only dealing with those he feared more.

[Another oversight on my part. Khomeni got his support from both sunni and shiite muslims, by building a coalition of unity among them. Though Khomeni was not a Wahabi himself, he advocated a lot of what Wahabis promote -- such as establishing Shariyah law and pursuing a fundamentalist (Back to fundamentals) version of Islam. There are a lot of similarities between Khomeni's politics and Wahabism, but he was not officially in it. However, many of his followers were.]

I did some checking, and well, you are right there. I actually was not aware of that, or that he even advocated sharia laws. Not all fundie muslims advocate sharia, since there are some who reject the Hadiths which they are contained within.

[I don't agree with that analysis. The very creation of Israel was done in a very underhanded, sneaky, and just plain dirty way.]

Really? While I think the creation of any nation can be seen as plain dirty, maybe except certain recent countries, I think the combination of solidarity with International Jews and Jewish political movements lead to the creation of Israel, not some scheme or conspiracy to rule the area like those Muslims think.

[A lot of the money and support for it came from the USA.]

And from other countries too.

[Muslims in Israel were promised democratic and constitutional equality if they supported the Ben Gorian government, he disenfranchised them.]

Actually, he disfranchised Arabs and particularily palestinians. Not simply Muslims. If someone came to America and began displacing Americans, I would not say he is displacing Christians. I hope you see where I am coming from.

[The fact is that for the last 50 years, Islamic people in Israel have been treated EXACTLY like black people ere treated prior to 1964. It's the PERCEPTION that still persists, that muslims are unfairly treated there, that is the biggest factor in how Muslims feel about the issue.
]

No...um, mostly Arabs have been treated badly there. An Israeli muslim will not be discriminated against, however an Arab of any stride will be.

[Palestinians are the indiginous people of Israel. They are of mixed arab, persion, and semetic descent, but a large majority of them are Islamic.]

I am aware of what a Palestinian is mind you, and yes the majority of them are Islamic, especially now, but religion is not a big issue here. Its an ethnic and class issue. I would probably never come to the defense of Muslims, since if they would come into power, they would do these same things. I dont take a religions side in any conflict or ordeal.

[It was blatantly unfair, and most of them didn't get compensation at all for their land. This feeds the perception that islamic people are unfairly treated, even if not 100% of the Palestinians are Islamic. It's the opression, and the fact that the USA supports Israel, no matter what it does, that drives the hate.]

It drives the hate of Arabs, and many others, but islamist are driven by more. While many people join those islamic groups simply to get back at us and those who help Israel, many of them see this as a war of religions, and that Islam is to win, because God is on their side after all.

[Frankly, I am just as guilty of being prejudiced against Islam, but because I'm an atheist, and see all religions as being harmful. I just don't focus a lot on Islam, because we don't have them all over the TV and in Washington lobbying the president.]

Well, I agree with you on religion being harmful, I focus more on Muslims than I do on Christians, when it comes to religion. Christians, for the most part (and I mean those in power), in America are just corporate executives pretending to be Christian. Most muslims in power however really are islamic, and you can tell by their policies. Mind you, maybe Saudi Arabia is run by frauds, but still.

[It teaches violence at it's core no more and no less than does Judaism and Christianity. ]

Well, duh. Most of its violent tendencies come from Christianity.

[. For pat Robertson to claim that it's core is violence is just plain hypocritical, because the core of Christianity is the same, and has the same track record.]

I just pointed out the hypocrisy of him saying that. However, just because a hypocrite said it does not mean it should not be said.

[However, if I went out and publicly stated that the core of Christianity is violence, would Christians be justified in being offended? If you say YES, then Islamic people have every right to be offended by Robertson.]

Well, I dont really care about the justification of offense, I do not believe in the right not to be offended. Things should be more offensive if you ask me.

[We saw any leftist -- even those in favor of democracy, transparency, and civil rights, as communists who could not be trusted, and we threw our resources at people who were patently AGAINST democracy, transparency, and civil rights.]

Well, at least in the end we are in agreement. However, if I may ask, what groups do you think we should now be talking to in the Middle East, if any at all?

David W. Irish said...

Gaming asshole wrote:

Democracy is not automatically good, and democracy for the most part, just props up theocracy in the Middle East now. Democracy is actually bad thing in that case. You need a rational, secular culture and an informed, educated population to make democracy good. There are no such things as universal democratic ideals.

Actually, I don't think that any of the nations in the Middle East are democratic. I don't consider Turkey to be middle-eastern -- it's most definitely an Eastern European nation, in terms of it's culture, it's heritage, and many other factors.

Iraq Used to be a democracy, then came Saddam, now it's SORT OF a democracy, albeit, controlled by the USA (Currently, only candidates that the USA approves can run for office, and this is expected to change after we pull out). Lebanon and Israel are the only democracies there currently.

I disagree that you need a secular culture. I beleive that having constitutional protections, and secular courts that enforce those protections, is what is needed for democracy to work. I agree that an educated population is important, otherwise, you end up like the USA :)

I disagree that "there are no universal democratic ideals". I think there are -- all democracies think that the common man should vote for their representatives, and that people should hold fair elections to vote on issues. That's pretty much it, though.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Uh, who told you that? Which socialist and which communist, and in what context? Maybe certain European parties that have "socialist" in the name might be friendly to the Americane example of free enterprise, but that is all. Free trade sure is promoted by the left, but free trade hurts free enterprise, so they are not connected.

Well, the socialist governments of France, Norway, Sweden, and Germany are all friendly towards free markets. They may regulate them, but they certainly don't ban them.

Free Trade -- such as removign tarriffs and taxes, is definitely bad. The multinationals and world bank would love to have absolutely no taxes or tarriffs to pay if they could get away with it. It's their way of saying "screw you" to countries whose resources and governemnt acces they use. I believe that all businesses need to be regulated by laws that prevent things like what's currently happening on Wall St, but also international laws to prevent companies like Bectel from screwing tiny countries.

About Eisenhower...

As far as crusading against communism goes -- all anti-communist crusaders are conservatives. There is nothing liberal about telling people that they are illegal because of their beliefs. Anti-communist crusading, witch-hunts, and the foreign policies that dictate that the USA must go and smash communists wherever they are in the world (but only if they're in a small country whose ass we can easily kick) is part of FASCIST conservative ideology. The proper response to communism is not to smash it but to treat it like any other political party -- let them have their conventions, vote, and print newspapers, and participate in the political system. Conservatives, at their core, do not like FAIRNESS, and would never let people whom they hate have equal rights.

As far as I'm concerned, "democrat" and "republican" did not become "liberal" and "conservative" until the 1980s. Prior to that, they were essentially a toss up. You could have liberral republicans and conservative democrats. After Reagan, the two parties polarized. Truman was liberal on some issues, conservative on others.

On the middle east --

We should be talking to all the nations there, and encourage them to make peaceful gestures towards one another. I mean, that's the only way to get along with people is to put your hatred aside and have dinner with them. However, I don't think we can see much progress in the region without more democracies there.

GamingAsshole said...

[Actually, I don't think that any of the nations in the Middle East are democratic.]

Really? Iran is democratic, for example. Its democracy yields a sort of theocracy, although in recent years a lot more power is put into the presidency, and average citizens have a lot more say in what goes on. Remember democracy does not mean automatically mean fair and free elections. I mean, most of Americas history is one of restricted democracy, which is a new concept, since democracy really just started off as a way for establishment tenets to have more representation, and of course many argue it still is.

Democracy just means majority rule is all. If the majority of your population want religious rule, then democracy shall give it. There is nothing inherently good about democracy.

[I don't consider Turkey to be middle-eastern -- it's most definitely an Eastern European nation,]

Uh, no it is not. And I do not consider Turkey very democratic. Its mostly a militarily ruled state in which dissent is crushed, and of course the military does not operate even remotely democratic. The population is mostly conservative islamic, but the military wants to keep it secular, which is good, but they use brute force and oppression to keep it, so thats bad. They are trying to maintain a culture that really does not exist outside of the military.

[in terms of it's culture, it's heritage, and many other factors. ]

Its culture is most definetely middle eastern.

As wikipedia states: "Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements of the O─čuz Turkic, Anatolian, Ottoman (which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures) and Western culture and traditions, which started with the Westernization of the Ottoman Empire and still continues today. "

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

[Iraq Used to be a democracy]

When?

[, then came Saddam, now it's SORT OF a democracy, albeit, controlled by the USA (Currently, only candidates that the USA approves can run for office, and this is expected to change after we pull out).]

While there is a kernal of truth in what you are saying, how puppety (is that a word?) can they be if they are demanding we leave, including any leftover forces? I would say we might have planned them to be puppets, but it kind of backfired on us. Mind you, people are just going to elect shia fundamentalist once we leave, shows yet again how democracy is not automatically good.

[Lebanon and Israel are the only democracies there currently. ]

How can one argue that Lebanon is a democracy and Iran is not? (I am just assuming you think Iran is not. Lebanon is less fair and more restrictive than Iran by the way).

[I disagree that you need a secular culture.]

I never said you need a secular culture for democracy, you do not need any specific culture for democracy. I do not think democracy is the best part of our culture, in fact I view our democracy as seriously flawed and mostly a tool to put people down, instead of give them a voice and power.

[I beleive that having constitutional protections]

A constitution really does not mean much. Just look at ours, for example. I do not see a constitution as something vital to a rational and open society.

[and secular courts that enforce those protections, is what is needed for democracy to work]

How does secularism go into place with democracy? The neo-cons act as though “democracy” = “human rights”, but his is not the case. Democracy only means that the majority opinion holds power, and if the majority opinion in a country is that people should be killed for leaving Islam then following democratic principles is going to contradict Western ideas of “human rights”.

[I agree that an educated population is important, otherwise, you end up like the USA :)]

And most of the world, for example.

[I disagree that "there are no universal democratic ideals". I think there are -- all democracies think that the common man should vote for their representatives, and that people should hold fair elections to vote on issues. That's pretty much it, though. ]

No, it does not. Democracy simply just means majority rule. However that majority rule is established, and how it is used to govern is up to whoever sets up the system. Democracy does not define fairness.

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

[Well, the socialist governments of France, Norway, Sweden, and Germany are all friendly towards free markets.]

How are they socialist? Especially France, I mean how can one conclude they are socialist? They may have powerful socialist groups that have recently reemerged, but at least at the moment, they are not socialist. Those countries are nearly as capitalist as Nevada is. I mean, theres more socialist areas in the US!

[They may regulate them, but they certainly don't ban them. ]

Regulating capital is not socialism though. Fascism is based on the idea of regulating capital.

[Free Trade -- such as removign tarriffs and taxes, is definitely bad. ]

Why? Taxes, in this sense, and tarriffs, are just ways for countries like the US to exploit people. For example, as a site I link to often states: "many people propose a variety of solutions to protect American industry, such as tariffs, tax incentives, or a lowering of the labor and environmental standards in America. This is all the exact opposite of what should be done. American business has worked over the years to keep labor and environmental standards low in foreign countries for their own benefit and now American workers are having a difficult time competing. Obviously the solution here is not to lower standards for American workers, it is to work to raise the standards of the people of the world, that is the just thing to do for the citizens of the world and its also what will help to protect American jobs. When companies can't subcontract labor out to China or Honduras or even American territories like Saipan for significantly less than American minimum wage where they have lax environmental standards, then some of those jobs will stay here. By the same token if we support progressive leaders in foreign countries who look out for their own citizens as their top priority then those countries will see an increase in their standard of living and become increasingly able to fuel their own economy with their own domestic demand. When we see things like the worker strikes in Venezuela, which cost us Americans at the fuel pumps, we have to also remember that it took strikes like those, and many more for years in America, to get the types of labor laws that we now enjoy here. We have to be patient with foreign workers and support their right to protest and their right to demand increases in quality of life. In doing this we will not only help the citizens of the world, but we will help ourselves as well."

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/americanprosperity.htm

There is nothing socialist in tarriffs or taxes. What you are purposing is simply neoliberal views on global commerce. Socialist and Communist consider neoliberalism their biggest enemy, so what are you? A socialist or a liberal?

[The multinationals and world bank would love to have absolutely no taxes or tarriffs to pay if they could get away with it.]

And what gives you that idea? Taxes and tarriffs benefit corporations. What makes you think they do not? A free playground for everyone to play in is a corporations biggest nightmare.

[It's their way of saying "screw you" to countries whose resources and governemnt acces they use. ]

So setting up a system that would benefit them would not be a screw you to these countries?

[I believe that all businesses need to be regulated by laws that prevent things like what's currently happening on Wall St]

Of course, but how are tarriffs going to do that?

[but also international laws to prevent companies like Bectel from screwing tiny countries. ]

Well yeah, but thats a whole different matter.

[
As far as crusading against communism goes -- all anti-communist crusaders are conservatives.]

What about FDR and JFK? They are liberals in most senses of the word, and they were very much crusading against Communism. Mind you, the crusading against communism during FDRs time was bogged down because of WW2, but he still did it.

[There is nothing liberal about telling people that they are illegal because of their beliefs.]

Well, no, not necessarily, however Liberalism is simply the position that government needs to be hands off, so according to Liberalism, there is nothing wrong with certain people making it illegal, as long as it is not the overarching government.

[Anti-communist crusading, witch-hunts, and the foreign policies that dictate that the USA must go and smash communists wherever they are in the world (but only if they're in a small country whose ass we can easily kick) is part of FASCIST conservative ideology.]

Well, no, it is part of a paranoid foreign policy afraid of losing its influence and gaining enemies that would surround and destroy it. Please tell me how only a fascist would think like this?

[The proper response to communism is not to smash it but to treat it like any other political party -- let them have their conventions, vote, and print newspapers, and participate in the political system.]

Well, no argument there.

[Conservatives, at their core, do not like FAIRNESS, and would never let people whom they hate have equal rights.]

What conservatives would not, and in what context? American conservatives sure, since America was founded on anti-fair ideas.

[
As far as I'm concerned, "democrat" and "republican" did not become "liberal" and "conservative" until the 1980s.]

While thats a very, very simple way of looking at it, there is a certain truth to that.

[Prior to that, they were essentially a toss up. You could have liberral republicans and conservative democrats.]

Um, which still exist. They did not disappear, you know.

[After Reagan, the two parties polarized. Truman was liberal on some issues, conservative on others.]

But mostly crazy.

[We should be talking to all the nations there, and encourage them to make peaceful gestures towards one another]

Which you really cannot do as long as they are all religious and hateful towards each other.

[I mean, that's the only way to get along with people is to put your hatred aside and have dinner with them.]

Mind you, Id never have dinner with Hamas.

[However, I don't think we can see much progress in the region without more democracies there.]

Wrong. What they need is promotion of rational, secular, open cultures. They need to be shown how our culture is better, how it fosters better living conditions, more advanced technology, more safefty and more social cohesion. Democracy is not going to do that, in fact just give them democracy now and they will do the opposite.

GamingAsshole said...

If I may make a small observation Psycho Dave, it seems you make a certain flaw that American conservatives also make: they vote against their interest. Both Leftist and Rightist in America support, in one way or another, the corporate liberalism which controls this country, thinking their agenda and views will come forward, not realizing these views are being destroyed by the institutions they are supporting!

David W. Irish said...

Yeah, the topic was actually "Dinesh D'Sousa is a Lunatic". Do you have anything to say in defense of him, or do you have a concise point to make?

GamingAsshole said...

[ Yeah, the topic was actually "Dinesh D'Sousa is a Lunatic". Do you have anything to say in defense of him, or do you have a concise point to make?]

Why didnt you just say that in the beginning? I have observed you doing this before, going into a conversation and then just backing out saying, "That is not on topic!" If that is how you feel, then do not get into such conversation in the first place.

On a side note: Who cares about some foolish indian catholic? I was just here to correct your crap about Islamic "anger."

David W. Irish said...

If you mean well, then don't be such an asshole about it. The problem with you is that you behave like a troll with an agenda.

GamingAsshole said...

[If you mean well, then don't be such an asshole about it. The problem with you is that you behave like a troll with an agenda.]

Is someone talking in the mirror? I mean, you try really hard to be a troll, even trying to goad me into being mocked. I mean, how do you think you can get into Anonymous by acting like this :(?

Pocket Nerd said...

I mean, how do you think you can get into Anonymous by acting like this :(?

Okay, now I call troll. (Besides, his writing style is very similar to another guy who spent rather a lot of time concern-trolling Pharyngula a while back.)

David W. Irish said...

I agree. I had a few random trollers on other boards who would do that, including this one dick early this year, who simply masqueraded as other people, posting links to their sites, and claiming to be them, trying to start flame wars between us. I've had a troll follow me around for years to different boards, but I'm not convinced that Gaming Asshole is the same person. There are, after all thousands of people out there who troll.

I just have to concede that my sites are magnets for trolls.

David W. Irish said...

I just updated the original post with edits to correct mistakes -- such as the fact that the 1953 Iranian Coup was not a US Invasion, but what merely planned, financed, and supported by the USA, as well as adding a couple more relevent links to sources.

Also -- from now on, I will not argue over mere differences of opinion, and I will not argue in a one-way direction. One of the problems with agitants, such as Gamingasshole, is that he objected to opinions I held, and seemed to demand that it was a lack of objectivity that made our opinions different. Take the Eisenhower comments. I claimed he was conservative. I cited as my evidence, the fact that the Eisenhower doctrine was essentially just what the Bush Doctrine is, and the fact that he was a staunch anti-communist, and largely a key player in the bullshit that went on with McArthyism. Somehow, Gamingasshole tried to make it a point that he wasn't, but in my opinion, those things make more of a conservative than a liberal.

Liberals would not care if you were a commie or not, and certainly would not ascribe to "preventative warfare".

One thing that Gamingasshole did do, that was less annoying, was point out actual mistakes I made which were of a factual nature, and I've corrected them. That's the type of criticism that I don't mind. It's being put in the position of having to explain every little thing I believe, and justify every opinion to someone else's satisfaction, when I go through all the trouble of providing relevent links to my facts, that annoys me. What especially annoys me is the people, like Gamingasshole, who will not allow their own beliefs and statements in my blog, to be questioned in the same way. I asked several times for him to justify or clarifty, and he either refused, or just skipped past it.

When you argue with me about facts, it will be a two-way exchange, or no exchange at all.