Krauthammer: Why Can't We Just Say That the Problem Is Islam ++ Americans For Peace Now's Short History Of Israeli Right-wing Terrorism
I'm going to write about Charles Krauthammer today without telling about the time he freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur.
I'll get right to his column today which is a diatribe against the media for not attributing the actions of the Fort Hood killer to his religion. Actually, I have noticed no such reluctance. There is hardly a story about Nidal Hassan that does not mention his adherence to the most extreme and violent strains of Islam. And that is the way it should be. His views matter so do their source.
But Krauthammer wants something more. He ends his column by quoting a headline citing a "Jersey City man" in connection with 9/11. He writes that the man's Jersey-ness is not the point. It's his religion. And the media should say it.
Interesting. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we went back to mass generalizations based on religion or race? . Obviously not. Would Krauthammer like these headlines, "Catholics Block Abortion Compromise," "US Defends Jewish Barbarism In Gaza," not to mention the old "Negro Accused Of Killing Woman?"
No Krauthammer would not like that (except the last one perhaps).
The man is a bigot. I suggest he recuse himself from writing on all issues that even tangentially relate to Israel (i.e. Islam). His subtext is always the same: look, Americans, Muslims are anti-American and violent. They also hate Israel. That is why you must back everything Israel does. Its enemies are yours.
That in a nutshell (good word) is Krauthammer's entire ideology. If it's good for the Likud party, it's good for us. He is entitled to his passion. But we can't allow him to mask it even if the mask is so utterly transparent. Meanwhile, here is Americans for Peace Now's primer on right-wing Israeli terrorism (not including military actions).
NOTE: I WILL SOON BEGIN SENDING out by e-mail a weekly Friday column on foreign policy issues. If you want to receive it by e-mail, send your address to:
mjrosenberg8@gmail.com
As an Italian I'd react to this but am too busy supporting, aiding and participating in organized crime and disco dancing.
November 13, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor - I have no use for Krauthammer, and I agree he's a bigot, but I wonder whether you haven't undermined your own argument with the example you cited.
As far as I know, Italian-Americans are no more likely to be criminals than anyone else - no more likely to mug you on the street, rape your daughter, or embezzle your bank account. In fact, if it turns out they are better citizens than the average, I would not be surprised. Perhaps that's true for American Muslims as well.
But ask yourself this question - If a murder were committed with the hallmarks of an organized crime hit on a member of a rival faction, would you consider the probability that the perpetrator had an Italian surname to be no greater than for any other ethnic group?
The issue that Krauthammer addresses, however unfairly, involves a mass killing of American soldiers not based on a known personal grudge against the individual victims. The question is not whether it must necessarily have been a jibadist act, because of course it might not have been, but whether someone with a jihadist mindset would be more likely to be the perpetrator than someone else randomly selected from the American population. The history of groups plotting multiple killings unrelated to personal enmity toward the victims indicates that the answer is yes. Fortunately, almost all plots have been discovered in time to prevent them, with one of the latest being plans to blow up the New York subway system.
The task facing those of us who don't want the Krauthammer diatribe to lead to Muslim stereotyping - "you can't trust any of them" - is to be accurate in describing the realities, including the reality of Islamic belief in America as a decent and law-respecting constellation of values, and the reality of a small minority within that community who have perverted those values to engage in murderous violence. To deny either reality is to yield the advantage to Krauthammer in the eyes of the public.
November 13, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred will find every opportunity to make the same point, apparently. He's fixated, it seems, on making us all admit that, while Muslims are mostly good people, a disproportionate number of them are bad people. This makes Fred Moolten, for all his protests, a fellow traveler with bigots. Oh yes, he'll object, he's just being "relentlessly" honest. But even if he is (and until he presents the data on which he bases his conclusions, we have no way of knowing), honesty isn't always the best--or most moral--policy. When a minority group is under threat by bigots (as Muslims clearly are today as anyone who listens for just a few minutes to right-wing radio knows), the moral imperative is to defend the minority by pointing out the exaggerations of the bigots. What is completely immoral--and I'm afraid even despicable--is to spend all one's time trying to prove that there is some tiny grain of truth amongst the outrageous and pernicious lies of the hateful.
November 13, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State - I understand your frustrations, but unlike you, I believe honesty is the best means of persuading the public not to impute the ideology and intentions of a violent few to the large majority of Muslims. The public is already worried, and if they believe you're trying to paint an inaccurate picture, they won't listen.
It's not correct to attribute to me the view that there are a disproportionate number of bad people within the Muslim community. The jihadist segment poses disproportionate dangers because it has been plotting attempts to inflict mass casualties on innocent individuals uninvolved in conflicts with Muslims. Blowing up the subway system is an example.
November 13, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your bigoted desire to paint the others as extremist killers, you very conveniently ignore the fact that we send unmanned drones to launch missiles into buildings that house innocent people, causing them to be incinerated. And we have not done this on only one occasion, but continually - which I believe can be argued to exacerbate the terror in our terrorist acts in a way that far exceeds the terror effect of the singular attack on 9/11 wherein Al Qaeda sent planes into buildings housing innocent people causing them to be incinerated.
I won't even go into the torturing of innocents and the detaining of same without recourse to the Rule of Law - all of which are terrorist acts we commit in the name of protecting our Liberty. I only wish to point out the most extreme example of our complicity in terror that equals or surpasses that committed on 9/11 as a means of showing that you are sufficiently bigoted to fail to see or even address the obvious equivalence.
Sorry, fred, but Cheney and Co. ensured that we have no moral high ground upon which to stand when they chose to abandon the Rule of Law and common decency in pursuit of an "eye for an eye" response to the terrorist's attack on 9/11. The terrorists won. And your myopic desire to single out Islam as the enemy says a whole lot more about your prejudice and bigotry than it reflects any consideration for just how pernicious and immoral is this "War on Terror," regardless of which side is engaged in the terrorist activity. We are chasing our tail here, fred, and it ain't a muslim we will catch on the other end, but rather our own dirty backside.
Enjoy the view in your circuitous travels! I, for one, will have none of it.
November 13, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, you really do frustrate me! You've got this point that you just can't seem to let go! In you're earlier posts you were talking about "demons" in the "Muslim community." Now you're narrowing your observations to the "jihadist segment" which "poses disproportionate dangers." This is an improvement--jihadists do present a disproportionate danger because their ideology is clearly one of war--but it's taken numerous critical posts from me and many others to get you to narrow your "dilemma" from Muslims to jihadists. If you want to talk in public about the danger presented by jihadists, all the while explaining that Muslim does not equal jihadist, then maybe I can support you. But until this post, you've been talking about a "Muslim community" that presents a threat. Limit it to the jihadists and maybe you can help the public. But even then, the way you help is to focus on explaining that all Muslims aren't jihadists and jihadists are constitute just a small fraction of the nation's Muslims.
As far as Hasan goes, he seems to be a psychopath first (not unlike many other loners who "go postal") whose apparent interest in jihadi ideas may have been a symptom of his psychosis more than a cause.
November 14, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to mention here that my nephew who happens to be a Muslim served his country bravely in the marines. He's had stones tossed at him though by fellow Americans because he is (and looks) Arab and therefore is seen by some as a "threat." If you're interested in the truth, please fight this misconception that ordinary Muslim citizens are dangerous. Don't give it further impetus by saying that the Muslim community presents a disproportionate danger and has demons to address. My nephew is an ordinary American just like you and I and he has no demons he needs to address . . . .
November 14, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or rather (and with better grammar): My nephew is an ordinary American just like you and me, and he has no demons he needs to address other than those we share as Americans. And the most dangerous of those demons in a multicultural society and a multicultural world is the demon of bigotry.
November 14, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, very well said, Purple State.
He may have no demons he needs to address, other than Fred and his ilk. Unfortunately, they aren't listening.
November 14, 2009 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sleepin. I'm sensitive about this subject because I see how "honesty" like Fred's affects my Muslim relatives. It means they're constantly under suspicion. And that's simply not fair. They didn't commit Hasan's crimes and have no more to do with them then you, Fred, and I do.
November 14, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State - You said above, If you want to talk in public about the danger presented by jihadists, all the while explaining that Muslim does not equal jihadist, then maybe I can support you.
I had tried to distinguish between the violent extremists and the vast majority of Muslims in almost about every comment I wrote. If I failed to make that clear, I offer you my apologies.
I honor your nephew's service. He is far from the only example. In another place and time (the presidential campaign), I passionately defended Colin Powell's statement of support for Barack Obama, with particular emphasis on Powell's response to claims that Obama was actually a Muslim. As you may remember, Powell pointed out that the claim was false, but then went on to say, "And what if he is?". He then told of seeing the photo of a woman at Arlington Cemetery with her head on the headstone of her son's grave - a son killed in Iraq at the age of 20 - and he described the inscription on the headstone, which did not show the Christian cross nor the Star of David, but the Star and Crescent of the Islamic faith.
Recalling that still moves me to tears, because I am as dedicated to denouncing bigoted perceptions of an entire people as was General Powell. My "dilemma" has been how to emphasize the essential goodness of the values and decency of the large majority of Muslims while acknowledging the need to address dangers emanating from the violent few. If it were easier, I would have done it better, but the truth is that there are pitfalls on the side of either too much or too little, and in an atmosphere as charged as this one, almost anything said is likely to be misconstrued by at least someone.
Perhaps readers reviewing the exchanges in this thread will find that between what is said by one participant and what is said by another, a reasonable perspective will emerge. I hope so.
November 14, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, Fred, though I think many of us read your initial posts a bit differently. Your language has become more careful or more precise in recent posts, and I'll take you at your word that this is what you intended all along. In this medium we all write quickly and with less discipline than we might do if we were writing professionally rather than for pleasure, and so the possibility of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation is always high.
On your main topic: Jihadism seems to me to be a rather rare phenomenon among American Muslims. Doubtlessly, there is a small percentage of American Muslims who have sympathy with the violent cause promoted by al Qaeda and the like. But most of the jihadi plots uncovered in America to date seem half-baked to me and often the product of minds so clearly unstable for other reasons that it is hard see these events as any kind of serious, sustained, or organized threat. Interestingly, many of the "Muslims" who launch these plots appear to be recent converts, probably already violent, who are seduced by the rhetoric of jihadism and convert to Islam merely to give an ideological cover to their psychopathic desires. For those looking for a way to make a desire for violence appear heroic, jihadism may play a similar role to the role socialism sometimes played in the 1960s and earlier. Neither Islam nor socialism are themselves bad, but Islam today unfortunately is at times co-opted by the violent in the same way that socialist ideas were at times co-opted by the violent during prior decades. Further, much as in the fifties and sixties there were socialist nations and revolutionaries that were antagonistic to the US, so today we see similarly antagonistic nations and groups who adopt extremist concepts of Islam. These phenomena create an appearance that Islam is a threat, much as socialism appeared in many minds to be a threat in the 50s and 60s. The reality, though, is that Islam itself is benign as was socialism. Our duty, I think, in times like these is to create distinctions between the ideas, which may themselves be wholly good, and those who co-opt them to justify their desire for violence.
November 14, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said!
November 13, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But even if he is (and until he presents the data on which he bases his conclusions, we have no way of knowing), honesty isn't always the best--or most moral--policy. When a minority group is under threat by bigots (as Muslims clearly are today as anyone who listens for just a few minutes to right-wing radio knows), the moral imperative is to defend the minority by pointing out the exaggerations of the bigots.
So lying is okay if it is done with the intention of maintaining egalitarianism? (This, by the way, is why it is only acceptable to note the races of the people involved in a violent crime if the perp is white and the victim is black).
Why should anyone take any accusations of bigotry from you seriously if you are essentially admitting that you believe that it is okay to lie (by commission or omission) in order to maintain your goals?
November 14, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is a complex thing, and one can choose to focus on different parts of it. What part of the truth one chooses to emphasize says a lot about one's values. That's all. The world isn't black and white, but words (and actions) have power to make it either more black or more white. Words don't just reflect the truth, they help create it. One, therefore, should be responsible with one's words and use them more for good than for evil.
November 14, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this fred guy irritates you or for that matter Krautie..just do not read them...It is best for mental health to not provide opportunity to be frustrated! If you know the arguments/positions are without merit for you, do not waste your time or energy.
November 14, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then what would be the point of a blog? Isn't part of the purpose to argue (and by doing so refine) one's opinions?
November 14, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
I was kidding around.
You don't have to deconstruct everything.
But to answer your question about organized crime -- actually you can't generalize about ethnicity in the case your described. Seems like every social group has its own style of organized crime.
I think what's worth keeping in mind is that individuals are individuals. When they yell something like "Allah is great" you can't necessarily generalize. Anyone can say those words, for any reason.
While Krauthammer's looking for jihadists he's missing the batshit crazy guy under his nose.
November 14, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you were kidding, so I probably shouldn't have commented in a way that implied you weren't. I agree with you about overgeneralizations, and I tried to make more sense out of all of this in my most recent comment above to Purple State.
November 14, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, if instead of goldman sach the firm was called guccini and sambini, during the financial crisis the firm would have been investigated for criminal activity because everyone would have thought 'mafia'.
November 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to deconstruct everything.
hmmm, I hope you realize that this might be a minority view among the intellectual left, destor. :-)
Here you go, an example: Ungood Fellas, by George De Stefano
November 14, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Scotch English Protestant descendant I would react to this but I am too busy dancing with my hands down at my side and waiting for Krauthammer and the rest of the neocons to start that apocalypse in advance of the second coming of Christ.
November 13, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg - is a bigot. I suggest he recuse himself from writing on all issues that even tangentially relate to Israel.
November 13, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, I think you're the one full of hate AnnaA. MJ and everyone else here has penty to say about Israel, and no one is going to shut up. Get used to it.
November 13, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, I think you're the one full of hate. Charles Krauthammer and everyone else has penty to say about Israel, and no one is going to shut up. Get used to it.
November 13, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You type pretty well for a 3 year old.
November 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You type pretty well for a 3 year old.
November 13, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think pretty poorly for a 3 year old. Two year old maybe...and a badly parented on at that. Since all seem to be able to to is repeat what other people say.
C
November 13, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think pretty poorly for a 3 year old.
November 13, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
November 13, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think pretty poorly for a 3 year old.
November 13, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: You have sunk to new lows. Not that it even seemed likely, but I suspect most three-year-olds would be heartily embarrassed by a comparison to you.
Take your hatred elsewhere. You love the Likud, the IDF, and their murderous behaviors so much, go take the point on a patrol on the West Bank. And be sure to show those cowards how you'd do it tough-guy style - no helmet or flak vest.
Put your sorry, pathetic, cowardly, racist ass on the line for what you claim to espouse (most likely from the comfort of an easy chair someplace) or shut the fucking hell up.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, and an abject embarrassment to a noble people that has produced Hillel, Freud, Mendelssohn, and more.
Were they alive, they would be among the very first to condemn you unequivocally.
November 13, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Old Grouch, You have sunk to new lows. Not that it even seemed likely, but I suspect most three-year-olds would be heartily embarrassed by a comparison to you.
Take your hatred elsewhere. You love Obama, American military, and their murderous behaviors so much, go take the point on a patrol in Afghanistan.
November 13, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
November 14, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he didn't.
Hah.
November 14, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we should just go ahead and wipe 1.2 billion people off the face of the earth.
He solves nothing by writing this tripe.
But when was the last time he had a good idea anyway?
November 13, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I think, for the ringing endorsement of bigotry:
"There is hardly a story about Nidal Hassan that does not mention his adherence to the most extreme and violent strains of Islam. And that is the way it should be. His views matter so do their source."
A sick, or sickened mind, violates everything that is in that mind. It will find excuses for that violation. Indeed, a sick mind will find affirmation in social status, religion, race and neighborhood that his sickness is in fact 'clear thinking'.
No, Columbine High is not "adherence" to middle-class life in an upscale neighborhood.
No, Virginia Tech is not an "adherence" to Korean values.
No, wife beating is not adherence to "Biblical and rabbinic sources" http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n2/v1n2grae.htm
There is no such thing as "most extreme and violent strains of Islam". If there were such strains, all Muslims would need to be subjected to the test of what version of Islam they 'really' subscribe to. The kind of test which the subject's denial is taken as a lie, a self-incrimination.
November 13, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is such thing as most extreme and violent strains of Islam, and many other religions. The difference is that the most extreme and violent strains of Christianity want to deny the same sex marriage, that the most extreme and violent strains of Islam want to hang gay man in public.
November 13, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that and blowing up abortion clinics, assassinating doctors, burning crosses on lawns, waging guerrilla wars in Africa, etc, and that's just the recent stuff.
But yeah, every religion has its extremists.
November 13, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that that people who hang gay men in public are in power in Iran. People who assassinate doctors and burn crosses on lawns are in prisons.
November 13, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who cane a 16 year old American for graffity are in power in Singapore. And, folks responsible for torture, and killing Iraqi men/women/children whether or not they were gay, are making money appearing on TV.
November 13, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your examples have nothing to do with religion.
November 13, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it does.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18rumsfeld.html
November 13, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it does not:
“The suggestion that Rumsfeld would have used these reports to somehow curry favor over at the White House is pretty laughable,” Mr. Di Rita said. “He bristled anytime people put quotes or something extraneous on the reports he wanted to read.”
Mr. Rumsfeld’s reputation at the Pentagon was as a strong ideologue, but not as someone motivated by religious convictions.
November 13, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an obvious lie.
November 13, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not anymore anyway.
Religion is a red herring.
November 14, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I make the point badly. I do not mean that there are no criminals who happen to be ... (Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu, take your pick).
What I mean is this. Once you brand any mainstream creed, or identity with having 'extreme strains', then for me the logical extention becomes the dreaded 'test'. When it comes to Muslims, the test can yield only three subtypes: Jihadis, lying Jihadis, and future jihadis)
Apply it to any creed, identity or group, religious or otherwise. I think you will see what I mean.
November 13, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seems to be saying that we should not call any creed with having 'extreme strains' even if it does, because it might lead to undesirable side
effects. I don't think you can prevent people to say truth even it's not a comfortable truth.
November 13, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are being somewhat too literal and protective. By your rules would have had to ignore the Nazis in the political culture of Germany for fear of labeling ordinary Germans by a test that could yield only three subtypes: Nazis, lying Nazis, and future Nazis.
Recognizing that one version of any religion as being violent and extreme should not contaminate the truth that most believers in that religion are moral and peaceful.
November 13, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have made the point for me. Nothing wrong with the term Nazism, an affliction, itself a label that needs no further labeling. But, fraught with potential for abuse if you start talking about 'extreme Germans'.
For me Islam is defined by the huge number of scholarly books in the vast libraries of major Islamic cities. Find me one line, of one chapter, of so much as a single book that condones shedding innocent blood. In fact, Islam like any other religion is the antidote to the type of violent political doctrines that prescribe terrorism and nihilism. Indeed, religion was derided as the 'opium of the masses' by revolutionaries not long ago.
We are being conditioned to think a certain way. Open season on Islam, Iran, etc. Personally, I refuse to go along.
November 13, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Let's use Arab Nazism.
November 13, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only wish that your version of religion were true.
Religion after religion have developed sects who think that heretics in particular should be killed and infidels also. Acknowledging that Islam is currently dealing with one such, says nothing which differentiates Islam from other religions. Catholicism dealt with a similar problem with the Inquisition. It matters how the underlying culture reacts -- Nazis as the German equivalent of skinheads was one thing, Nazis elected and ruling Germany were another.
That said it is hard to separate accusations against individuals and sects from accusations against the larger groups to which they belong. Quixote writing in Historiann's blog has a good illustration of the problem:Indeed. The focus on Islam is in the same vein with discrimination generally.
" xkcd has a great cartoon about sexism: one guy is watching another do math on a blackboard and says, “That’s wrong. You’re bad at math.” In the next frame, a woman is working the problem on the board and he says, “That’s wrong. Girls are bad at math.”
So when an avowed Christian killed Dr. Tiller for explicitly religious reasons, the murderer was “crazy.” In Fort Hood, Muslims are crazy."
November 13, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken. To your warning about man-made religions, I only add the health warning about man-made labels about man-made religions.
November 13, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synthetic v. organic?
November 13, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Find me one line, of one chapter, of so much as a single book that condones shedding innocent blood.
This ignores the issue of what constitutes "innocent." Very few, if any religions, condone shedding "innocent" blood, but not everyone defines "innocent" in this context as "poses no direct threat to others."
November 14, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you prove your own point.
November 13, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: "The difference is that the most extreme and violent strains of Christianity want to deny the same sex marriage, that the most extreme and violent strains of Islam want to hang gay man in public."
No, the most extreme and violent strains of Christianity want to bring an apocalypse down upon the heads of all of us.
They want EVERYONE dead, AnnaA. You can't get any more extreme and violent than that.
November 13, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
They dream. It's fine with me, as long as they don't kill. We can't put people in prisons for dreaming.
November 13, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets start useing the Obama lexicon:
I want to give a Shout Out to Rosy for telling us about what happens in Temple to a guy in a wheelchair. I am sure it was just like a ROYAL Jihad to the ROYAL Yom Kippurers.
At least you are not covering The Muslum Crips trial that are going in WHOO TOWN.
November 13, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a class act.
Thanks so much for the contribution!
November 13, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disgraced chickenhawk Krauthammer is predictably full of himself in this column, i.e. full of crap.
In 2002-03 and his fellow-shovellers of fearmongering deceit cheerled the most bungled cock-up of American foreign policy since Vietnam (at least) willfully trashing America's reputation and military strength for no justifiable reason whatever. He has no grounds now for complaining that the US army has had to rely on any warm body it can get, including such dubious characters as the Fort Hood shooter, after being flung mercilessly into the morasses of Afghanistan (for understandable reasons, but with unjustifiable incompetence) and Iraq (out of utter stupidity).
Shame on any newspaper publishing this shameless scoundrel's paranoia.
November 13, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
in regards to israeli terrorism, please read the haaretz recent coverage of the lavon affair.
i think it is important to point out the crazies on all sides. in the US everyone accepts that there are lots of islamic crazies but in the US media israeli are presented as innocent victims.
November 13, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed 100%
November 16, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli/Palestinian threads are becoming a pain to read. Folks please, please just ignore AnnaA - don't respond to his/her ridiculous lttle fire bombs. Ignoring his/her comments will at least make the threads easier to read if the tit for tat BS goes missing.
November 13, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello JDL (not the organization founded by Kahane, FYI). I'd say the BS, bombast and posturing emanates from the top down. AnnaA is a cruder mirror image of his/her antagonists. Without the Annas of the world, where would MJ be?
November 13, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a cruder mirror image of his/her antagonists. I'm exact mirror.
November 13, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe AnnA and MJ are the same person! That clever devil sure knows how to get traffic to his posts!
November 14, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nidal Hasan is an extremist Muslim who went nuts, and killed plenty.
Is his extremism relevent to explaining what he did?
Yeah, of course it is.
Should we vilify every member of his faith because it contains within it an extremist wing?
No, not only is that crazy, it is certain to make things worse.
What you should do is engage with the mainstream Muslims to help them marginalize the extremists, while keeping a vigilent eye out for the crazies WHEREVER they may be coming from.
To illustrate:
Tim McViegh as an extremist libertarian who went nuts and killed a lot of people.
Is his extremist views regarding libertarianism relevent to explaining what he did?
Yeah, of course it is.
Should we vilify every admirer of Ayn Rand merely because there are some crazies (helloooo, Timothy!) who hold an extremist view of libertarianism?
No, not only is that crazy, it is totally counter-productive.
Now, transport yourself over to the West Bank and repeat the same exercise, only this time substitute in the words "Barach Goldstein", "zionism", and "Kahanist"
Is it justifiable to call every "zionist" a racist because of there are extremist forms ("Kahanism") that do, indeed, cough up crazy racist f**kers ("Goldstein")?
The answer, I would suggest, is "No".
And when the UNGA did exactly that the outcry was "No! No! That's so very wrong!".
But if Krauthammer were to apply his views without prejudice (though he would not) then his answer would have had to be this:
Yeeeeeah! That's what I'm talking 'bout, folks! Goldstein *is* Kahanism, and Kahanism *is* Zionism, so we need to cut the crap and recognize that all Zionists are Goldsteins".
November 13, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "without telling about the time he freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php "
MY COMMENT: I'm so glad you did not mention the time he freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php
The only time it would be appropriate to bring up the time he freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php - would be when his 'mental stability' (or lack thereof) is relevant and material to the issue being discussed.
Of course, I suppose one could legitimately argue that when Mr Krauthamer writes one of his snarky columns (issues an edict), then the author's 'mental stability' (or lack thereof) might well be relevant and material to a discussion of said article. In such an instance, it might well be appropriate to mention the time he freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php
I trust I have clarified my position in the matter of when it is appropriate to bring up the time Mr Krauthammer freaked out royally in synagogue on Yom Kippur - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php
November 13, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
M. J. Rosenberg - the Master of Preterition.
November 14, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "here is Americans for Peace Now's primer on right-wing Israeli terrorism (not including military actions)"
ALSO SEE: "Alex Odeh, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
(excerpts) Alex Odeh (April 4, 1944 – October 11, 1985) was an Arab-American anti-discrimination activist who was killed in a bombing as he opened the door of his office at 1905 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, California. Odeh was west-coast regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)...Born into a Palestinian Christian family in Jifna, the West Bank, Odeh immigrated to the US in 1972.[1] He was a lecturer and poet who recently had published a volume of his poetry, Whispers in Exile.[2] The Boston office of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee suffered a bombing on August 16, 1985, injuring two officers.[3] The Santa Ana bombing came the day after the ending of the Achille Lauro incident where Jewish American Leon Klinghoffer was killed...
...Irv Rubin, who had become chairman of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) the same year, immediately made several public statements in reaction to the incident. "I have no tears for Mr. Odeh," Rubin said. "He got exactly what he deserved."[6] He also said: "My tears were used up crying for Leon Klinghoffer."[7]...
...Four weeks after Odeh's death, FBI spokesperson Lane Bonner stated the FBI attributed the bombing and two others to the JDL...In February 1986, the FBI classified the bombing that killed Alex Odeh as a terrorist act...Immediately after the 1985 assassination the FBI identified three suspects, all of them believed to be affiliated with the JDL, who fled to Israel. In 1987 it was revealed that Israel was hindering the FBI investigation. Floyd Clarke, then assistant director of the FBI, claimed in an internal memo that key suspects had fled to Israel and were living in the West Bank town of Kiryat Arba...
..In April 1994, the Alex Odeh Memorial Statue, created by Algerian-American sculptor Khalil Bendib, was erected in front of the Santa Ana Central Library over protests by the Jewish Defense League. On October 11, 1996, the eleventh anniversary of his murder, vandals defaced the statue. On February 6, 1997 vandals poured two gallons of red paint on the statue...The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee called for greater government efforts to catch Odeh's killers.[11]
On August 27, 1996, the FBI announced a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Odeh’s killers. JDL members heckled the FBI spokespersons announcing the reward.[10][11] The reward is still in force.[12]
In 2007, the FBI revealed they had received information from a deceased informant, believed to be former Jewish Defense League member Earl Krugel who had been sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for 2001 plots to bomb a Southern California mosque and office of an Arab American congressman. It is believed that Irv Rubin, who died in prison while awaiting trial on the same charges, revealed to Krugel the names of those responsible for Odeh’s death and Krugel shared those with the FBI before he, too, died in prison. The bombers are believed to be Manning and two individuals now living in Israel.[13]
WIKIPEDIA SOURCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Odeh
November 13, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would Krauthammer and his defenders here say the same about Judaism based on this:
http://didiremez.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
November 14, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to believe that if the Ft. Hood shooter were an AQ agent he would not have been so open about e-mail communications with the radical sheik and espousing militant views.
November 14, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
is nice !
November 14, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
My being late to this thread, proves once again, that Krauthammer hasn't had an Idea, even an "artificial" Idea since he entered America's political discourse. Obviously his "intellectual vigor" will continue to be maintained at his self-ascribed low wattage level.
Maybe learning how to disco dance and as has been suggested by destor23, would prove more productive of my valuable time since I already know how to do the Chicken Scratch that has been perfected by the To'hono O'dom here in the Sonoran Desert.
Jaango
November 14, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for adding the link to the timeline of acts of terrorism by Israelis. There is nothing tremendously revelatory in this list, but it usefully documents the long term association of the West Bank settler movement with terrorism. Were it not for the unrelenting backing of the region's most powerful and aggressive military, it is a practical certainty that such incidents of murder and mayhem by these crazed extremist Israelis would be considerably more frequent and deadly, and resemble much more closely, if they were distinguishable from them at all, the heinous acts of violence regularly perpetrated by stateless Palestinians. The list provides further proof -not that any more is really needed- of the moral bankruptcy of the majority of US Congress members who line up like brain-dead lemmings to betray America time after time after time by providing knee-jerk 100% support to one of the these two groups of foreign thugs (pretending in disgustingly predictable deceit that their support is for the state or people of Israel as a whole).
November 14, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they doing that? How come few crazy Jews control the US Congress?
November 14, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about your 20th post here, Anna, contributing nothing to the conversation. You should learn to speak proper English or shut up.
November 15, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How come few crazy Jews control the US Congress?
November 15, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
K's column may be a little over the top, but he hits some good points. Elements of the mass media have indeed made fools of themselves with the theory of contagious PTSD. Yes, there is a secondary effect on therapists of listening to trauma victims. But this is simply not known to cause mass murder, or even violence.
There are, in fact, many ideologies that stimulate people to horrible violence. Jihadism is one of them.
Many in our leadership were so worried about weakening Muslim-US cooperation (by acts of bigotry agains US Muslims) that they over-reacted in an attempt to preempt the problem.
It's clear the Ft Hood shooter deserves the death penalty; Are you (MJR) saying other terrorist acts, whether by Jews or Sri Lankans, mitigate the Ft Hood crimes? If not, what are you saying?
November 14, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The L.A. Times recently ran a front page article on the problems American soldiers with Muslim backgrounds had with their own families, who accused them of being traitors for fighting in our army!
Assuming the story was representative don't you think that presents a problem? The only other group I know with similar sentiments is progressives.
November 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped by to say that the Peace Now article really does show why the US should pull all funds out of Israel NOW. It is a criminal state. It holds Palestinians with no charges longer than it holds Israelis it has CONVICTED of terrorism. The US must STOP funding Israeli criminal action.
But, now I see that we have our own bigots here as well.
Fred, when I see a terrorist action in the US, why should I be more likely to expect it to have come from a Muslim than, say, from a member of the anti-immigration movement? Is that because the Bush administration spent 8 years defining radical Muslims as terrorists and their identical counterparts in the anti-immigration movement as patriots? Why do we now have the phrase "environmental terrorist" but not the phrase "second amendment terrorist"?
November 14, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I answered your question earlier in the thread. The extremist fringe minority group within the larger Muslim society in America has no monopoly on violent intentions, but the nature of their plots are such as to pose a particular danger of mass casualties.
There is a repetitive quality to some of the comments, particularly the more confrontational ones, that I find unfortunate, because I see ourselves as coming closer to mutual understanding even over the course of this particular thread, than at the start. I don't see attempts to reignite angry feelings as contributing to that trajectory. Somewhere closer to the top than the bottom is an exchange involving myself and Purple State that I hoped would do some good, and so when it comes to my own thoughts, I'd rather have readers review that section than repeat those thoughts here.
November 14, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no time to read your rantings. You are a bigot, nothing else.
November 14, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very reviling point. People who peacefully advocate enforcing existent US laws are the enemies of the Left, but the people who kill Americans soldiers are heroes. Most of the lefties are smart enough to hide their true feeling. Instead they direct their hate towards Americans allies such as Israel.
November 14, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is a client state, not an ally. And it is a very poor example of a client state, since it makes us cringe at everything it does. Stop embarrassing yourself.
November 14, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna is wrong; most Lefties aren't smart enough to wipe their asses. I read recently that pigs are smart and loyal. Since Lefties are dumb and disloyal, I think we should make sausages out of them and leave pigs alone. All that would be necessary would be a warning "Eating this crap can be dangerous to your health".
November 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is a "leftie"?
Start with your chopping up your own left hand for sausage meat, then we could expect half as much formulaic ranting from you here.
November 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be foolish, Troub. Every poster on this thread knows whether he is a lefty or a righty, a progressive or a conservative.
The theme of this thread is the extent to which disloyalty and violent expressions of same can be linked to the Muslim religion, both here and in Europe.
Look at the responses on this thread. How many posters respond by saying that whatever Muslims have done wrong, here or elsewhere, is exceeded by what we and our allies - especially Israel, MOST especially Israel - have done wrong?
If this thread is representative - and I think it is - then progressives are self-evidently disloyal to this country as it really is (not as it might be if everything was altered to suit you swine).
November 14, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't hate America per se, They hate capitalism, they dream about social justice, brotherhood, and equality. US is the last barrier to achievement of their dreams.
November 14, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Utter nonsense.
November 14, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your are relying rotely upon old obsolete talking points instead of thinking for yourself, Spider.
No one here is arguing FOR disloyalty, violence, or Islamic fundamentalism.
The issue is hypocrisy, e.g. the unAmerican rantings of Charles Hypocrite CabbageHammer.
Hypocrisy as a way of life has also contributed to further stripping ancient dichotomies of "progressive", "conservative" "left" and "right" of whatever remaining pertinence they still have in the 21st century.
Based on your posts here, a "leftie" is an American who is disloyal to America, and with whom you disagree. But this, to use your expression, is surely foolish.
George W. Bush practiced financial irresponsibility on an unprecedented scale, and appointed notably corrupt and incompetent officials to ruin America's advisory and regulatory agencies, which contributed greatly to producing the worst financial and economic crisis since the 1930s. I don't like that.
Bush and his gang also used every trick they could think of fear-monger Americans into a massively hypocritical and monumentally bungled misadventure in Iraq that has led to serious long term damage to American power and influence in the world. If a Democrat had done this, the cries of disloyalty would be deafening, but at least not wrong.
Using your approach, however, I don't need to get into any such thoughtful detail, I simply say I don't like Bush and he was disloyal, therefore he is a "leftie." As if irrelevant insults amount to any kind of meaningful comment.
November 15, 2009 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hypocrisy, huh? Ok, if it's an honest criticism. But is it? (My reply will be a quick one. Rushed.)
Why do Americans and Israelis perform the terrible acts attributed to them by the posters? Are they random acts of lunatics? Or are they intimately tied to Jewish and American religion and ideology?
Posters overwhelmingly opt for the latter. But when it comes to similar acts committed by Muslims they opt for the former, or for connections only to extreme fringe groups.
The pattern is consistant over many posters and numerous threads. Any act committed by our enemies, no matter how violent or heinous, is ultimately the fault of America and Israel. We have provoked them beyond human endurance. Why? Because of our evil ideologies; racist, bigoted, capitalist, apartheid, selfish, cruel, unbalanced. Any and all evils any leftie shmuck can think of.
Sorry, but no. Your explanation doesn't wash. Lefties are what they've always been; haters of America, apologists for any and all ideologies which oppose it, traitors and fellow travelers, useless idiots...and, now in addition, virulent anti-semites.
November 15, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your kneejerk "Leftie" term remains meaningless, despite silly repetition. Do you refer to someone in favor of vastly bigger and more reckless government spending and budget deficits than Bill Clinton, such as that "leftie shmuck" G.W. Bush?
And this delusion is without basis in fact:
"over many posters and numerous threads.Any act committed by our enemies, no matter how violent or heinous, is ultimately the fault of America and Israel. We have provoked them beyond human endurance. Why? Because of our evil ideologies; racist, bigoted, capitalist, apartheid, selfish, cruel, unbalanced. Any and all evils any leftie shmuck can think of."
I have never seen anyone here blame America for the crimes of the West Bank settlers.
November 15, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leftie shmuck refers to most of the posters on these threads.
I have never seen anyone here blame America for the crimes of the West Bank settlers.p
Sure you have. Likud backs the settlers and America backs Likud because Jewish neocons run our Middle East policy (with the support of Christian fundamentalists), if not our entire government. How many times have I seen that argument, in one form or another, on this site?
But even if you were right, it wouldn't negate my basic argument. For example, try another one; 911. No one here says it was the right thing to do. No one says its perpetrators weren't murderers. But how many posters have responded with a litany of similar crimes committed by Americans and Israelis - just as they've done here? How many thought the "little eichmans" description of the victims was justified? How many bought into conspiracy theories about who actually committed the crime?
You're full of shit, Troub. An apologist just like the rest.
November 15, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, your real problem is not with Israel, your real problem is with US.
November 14, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How stupid can you possibly be?
November 14, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How stupid can you possibly be?
November 14, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who criticize should learn first what he/she is talking about, if someone doesn't know about Islam, Christianity, Budhism, Hinduism, or any other religion then how he/she can comment on it? This is totally not digestible.
Pumps und Boots
November 15, 2009 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised Cheney hasn't been on Fox to claim the Ft. Hood attack was a result of stopping "enhanced terrogation techniques". He's slippiing.
November 15, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You can’t sign a petition demanding not one but four investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 — i.e., collaborated in the worst massacre ever perpetrated on American soil — and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House.
Unlike the other stuff (see above), this is no trivial matter. It’s beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It’s dangerous. In America, movements and parties are required to police their extremes. Bill Buckley did that with Birchers. Liberals need to do that with 'truthers.'
You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier — a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice."
- Charles Krauthammer
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/
November 15, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink