Good points, Richard. Perhaps you should point out a bit more some of the unsavory elements of the BJP, though. They do have some nasty Hindu nationalist elements, which, as you point, colors Anil's views. Neither of India's choices are particularly appetizing, although at least they have a choice and a democracy.
Anil
· 7 years ago
Nice try, Richard. I wasn't raised on the Congress/BJP debate, I came to find out about it from my own research into my family's history before my parents came to this country. I was raised on American debates, as befits my heritage.
More to the point, you accuse me of not getting the point of Charles' site, which is blatantly false, as I consider the highlighting of religious extremism a necessary and important task. In fact, it's *because* I see it as important that I don't want it cast as the domain of bigots and zealots. What you seem to misunderstand is that a rational person, coming to Charles' site absent of context or advance knowledge, would see the news he posts and be rightfully alarmed and concerned by the threats he describes.
They they would proceed to the comments on each post, and see the vitriol, extremism, and odd fixation on the obscure glossary of a small Internet community, and would probably dismiss the news that's reported there as the rantings of some closed, out of touch, self-congratulatory community. In short, he does disservice to the message he's charged himself with communicating.
I think it's fascinating that you would deem to judge me unfamiliar with the effects of Congress Party policies, when my family was fighting against many of their efforts for decades. And how dare you call me a lost soul? You create the fiction that my anguish is faked? We've never met, never communicated and you see fit to judge me? I think that damns yours as a soul far more lost than mine.
I've never tried to suppress Charles' speech. I did accuse Charles of racism, and then retracted it in the same venue in which I made the charge in the heat of anger. I also categorically stated on my site that I don't believe Charles is a racist.
I agree the focus should be on stopping hatred, not just in the Middle East, but around the world, and I wonder why you don't chastize the people who agree with you and found it more important to threaten me and make up false accusations of anti-semitism and anti-americanism. Were they not trying to stifle debate? Were they not ignoring the fight against these threats from the Middle East?
Your hipocrisy is rank. I invite you to review the tone and tenor of the venomous attacks against me, and ask if that's the voice of reason. I invite you to forfeit your contempt for "web elves" who created the very tools you and Charles and others use to expound your messages. If I didn't believe in free speech, I wouldn't spend my life building tools, technologies, and companies that help individuals express themselves to a global audience.
By choosing rhetoric over reason, and by refusing to engage in discussion with your fellow Americans, you reveal that you'd choose your personal fixations over working with other citizens in a conversation that will find a useful solution. You feel that undifferentiated contempt for the millions of muslims around the world is justified, so it's no surprise that you'd be confused enough to think that contempt for rational Americans is somehow acceptable, too.
Mookie
· 7 years ago
I love how you claimed that the reason Anil spoke out against LGF is because he's an "apologist of terror" seizing on an excuse to "not hear the message".
When did schools stop teaching basic reading comprehension?
Richard Bennett
· 7 years ago
First, Anil, we have communicated before, and at that time you attacked me for being critical of the technical skills of web site designers.
Second, I don't care if you've been attacked for attempting to label Charles Johnson someone who promotes racism. If this is true, you certainly asked for it.
Third, neither Charles nor I has shown "undifferentiated contempt for the millions of muslims around the world"; rather, we (he much better than I) have endeavored to show that anti-Americanism, anti-rationalism, and anti-secularism are dominant paradigms in the Middle East, and not just the property of a small minority of people.
Your assertion that we're simply dealing with a bunch of religious extremists who've hi-jacked the peaceful religion of Islam is not really supportable. While I'm familiar with the fact that Indian Muslims and Southeast Asian Muslims are predominately moderate, rational, and pro-democratic, we can't plausibly make the same claims about Middle Eastern Muslims, who completely lack any tradition of secularism, rationalism, or moderation.
The vast majority of Arab Muslims hate us, and not simply because of our support for Israel. They hate us because we live better than they believe we're entitled, as infidels, to live. And short of converting to Islam, practicing Shari a law, and giving up our wealth, there is no way to appease them.
It's a serious situation, and naive multi-culturalism doesn't address it.
Incidentally, I made my first trip to India during the Emergency Period in 1977, when the BJP was just emerging as the opposition to the Congress. If you're familiar with the excesses of the Congress, as you say you are, then you're also familiar with the struggle between the BJP and the Congress, which you say you aren't.
Anil
· 7 years ago
Richard, you're right, we did communicate about web designers before. I'd forgotten. Now I find it curious that you see an unequivocally retracted statement against Charles as justification for death threats. Would you feel the same way if the supporters of Charles who had threatened me were muslim?
I do think the majority opinion in arab muslim countries is biased and hateful towards the United States and our culture. I've never said anything to contradict that. But there is a fundamental unwillingness of Charles and his supporters (including, apparently, you) to read those words and believe them, after having heard my other criticisms. I am, frankly, puzzled by this.
I would like to ask you a simple question. Today, Charles linked to an incident where hateful pamphlets were left in front of a mosque in Hawaii. His reaction was to mock the incident as trivial, which is not his reaction in analagous situations involving christian churches or jewish temples. The members of that mosque are Americans. Why do you feel it's acceptable to defend some innocent Americans and not others?
Richard Bennett
· 7 years ago
Some threats are serious, and some aren't. I'd be willing to bet that your life isn't in danger as a result of any of LGF's readers, and I'd be willing to bet that the lives of Hawaii Muslims are not in danger either.
America has been attacked by Arab Muslims, however, and 3000 people died. I take threats backed-up with that kind of track record more seriously than most.
Alan Cook
· 7 years ago
Richard, in your main post you ask
Rather than trying to decide whether Charles is racist, or Anil is lying sack of dirt, shouldn't we be trying to determine just how widespread anti-Western racism and hate is in the Middle East?
but then in response to one of Anil's comments you say
The vast majority of Arab Muslims hate us . . . They hate us because we live better than they believe we're entitled, as infidels, to live. And short of converting to Islam, practicing Shari a law, and giving up our wealth, there is no way to appease them.
Sounds as if you've already made up your mind on the question. No one disputes that anti-Americanism of one sort or another is widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Daniel Pipes, no Muslim apologist, estimates that 10 - 15% of the Muslim world shares the Islamicist politico-theological ambitions of Al-Qaeda, and about 50% is broadly anti-American. He may be right; there are no effective measures of public opinion in most Muslim countries. But the kind of anecdotal evidence presented on LGF (the posts I've seen, anyway) is worthless for serious inquiry into the issue! Charles can post links about mullahs and fatwas and suicide bombers from now until doomsday, and none of it will ever constitute any kind of argument for any general conclusions about public opinion in the Middle East, or Islamic culture, or anything else. Rather, the purpose of the site is pretty clearly to confirm the prejudices of those whose minds are already made up, as well as to persuade those who are susceptible to cheap rhetorical tactics.
Richard, when you claim that
They hate us because we live better than they believe we're entitled, as infidels, to live.
I understand you to be offering an explanation of the real motivations of several hundred million people. A couple of questions: -- What evidence would you cite in support of this claim? -- Is this a claim about conscious or unconscious motivation? That is, do all these Muslims realize that that's why they hate us, or is this a motivation that's hidden even from themselves?
J
· 7 years ago
It's really sad to see so many (relatively)bright people miss the entire point.The future will not bring a glorious multi-culti world,1920's Paris writ large.It's bringing a new world of old tribalisms.People everywhere are identifying themselves based on race/ethnicity,culture,religion and region.The end of the nation state won't empower the U.N.,a corrupt and useless entity,it will bring tribal warfare on a huge scale.And those on the left who would deny this,please explain how the official policies of the federal government,all predicated on tribal identity,represent something inclusive and not divisive.
Alan Cook
· 7 years ago
J, I have no doubt that "the future . . . is bringing a new world of old tribalisms." How is that relevant to anything that's been discussed on this blogthread? A lot of what I see on LGF strikes me as nothing more than an incitement for our tribe to exterminate their tribe. If I'm misunderstanding it, then in what way does the kind of discourse promoted on LGF contribute to a solution?
And where in the world did the nonsequitur in your final sentence come from? Nobody's said a word about domestic policy (assuming by "federal government" you mean the U.S. government, which is far from clear.)
All Comments
More to the point, you accuse me of not getting the point of Charles' site, which is blatantly false, as I consider the highlighting of religious extremism a necessary and important task. In fact, it's *because* I see it as important that I don't want it cast as the domain of bigots and zealots. What you seem to misunderstand is that a rational person, coming to Charles' site absent of context or advance knowledge, would see the news he posts and be rightfully alarmed and concerned by the threats he describes.
They they would proceed to the comments on each post, and see the vitriol, extremism, and odd fixation on the obscure glossary of a small Internet community, and would probably dismiss the news that's reported there as the rantings of some closed, out of touch, self-congratulatory community. In short, he does disservice to the message he's charged himself with communicating.
I think it's fascinating that you would deem to judge me unfamiliar with the effects of Congress Party policies, when my family was fighting against many of their efforts for decades. And how dare you call me a lost soul? You create the fiction that my anguish is faked? We've never met, never communicated and you see fit to judge me? I think that damns yours as a soul far more lost than mine.
I've never tried to suppress Charles' speech. I did accuse Charles of racism, and then retracted it in the same venue in which I made the charge in the heat of anger. I also categorically stated on my site that I don't believe Charles is a racist.
I agree the focus should be on stopping hatred, not just in the Middle East, but around the world, and I wonder why you don't chastize the people who agree with you and found it more important to threaten me and make up false accusations of anti-semitism and anti-americanism. Were they not trying to stifle debate? Were they not ignoring the fight against these threats from the Middle East?
Your hipocrisy is rank. I invite you to review the tone and tenor of the venomous attacks against me, and ask if that's the voice of reason. I invite you to forfeit your contempt for "web elves" who created the very tools you and Charles and others use to expound your messages. If I didn't believe in free speech, I wouldn't spend my life building tools, technologies, and companies that help individuals express themselves to a global audience.
By choosing rhetoric over reason, and by refusing to engage in discussion with your fellow Americans, you reveal that you'd choose your personal fixations over working with other citizens in a conversation that will find a useful solution. You feel that undifferentiated contempt for the millions of muslims around the world is justified, so it's no surprise that you'd be confused enough to think that contempt for rational Americans is somehow acceptable, too.
When did schools stop teaching basic reading comprehension?
Second, I don't care if you've been attacked for attempting to label Charles Johnson someone who promotes racism. If this is true, you certainly asked for it.
Third, neither Charles nor I has shown "undifferentiated contempt for the millions of muslims around the world"; rather, we (he much better than I) have endeavored to show that anti-Americanism, anti-rationalism, and anti-secularism are dominant paradigms in the Middle East, and not just the property of a small minority of people.
Your assertion that we're simply dealing with a bunch of religious extremists who've hi-jacked the peaceful religion of Islam is not really supportable. While I'm familiar with the fact that Indian Muslims and Southeast Asian Muslims are predominately moderate, rational, and pro-democratic, we can't plausibly make the same claims about Middle Eastern Muslims, who completely lack any tradition of secularism, rationalism, or moderation.
The vast majority of Arab Muslims hate us, and not simply because of our support for Israel. They hate us because we live better than they believe we're entitled, as infidels, to live. And short of converting to Islam, practicing Shari a law, and giving up our wealth, there is no way to appease them.
It's a serious situation, and naive multi-culturalism doesn't address it.
Incidentally, I made my first trip to India during the Emergency Period in 1977, when the BJP was just emerging as the opposition to the Congress. If you're familiar with the excesses of the Congress, as you say you are, then you're also familiar with the struggle between the BJP and the Congress, which you say you aren't.
I do think the majority opinion in arab muslim countries is biased and hateful towards the United States and our culture. I've never said anything to contradict that. But there is a fundamental unwillingness of Charles and his supporters (including, apparently, you) to read those words and believe them, after having heard my other criticisms. I am, frankly, puzzled by this.
I would like to ask you a simple question. Today, Charles linked to an incident where hateful pamphlets were left in front of a mosque in Hawaii. His reaction was to mock the incident as trivial, which is not his reaction in analagous situations involving christian churches or jewish temples. The members of that mosque are Americans. Why do you feel it's acceptable to defend some innocent Americans and not others?
America has been attacked by Arab Muslims, however, and 3000 people died. I take threats backed-up with that kind of track record more seriously than most.
but then in response to one of Anil's comments you say
Sounds as if you've already made up your mind on the question.
No one disputes that anti-Americanism of one sort or another is widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Daniel Pipes, no Muslim apologist, estimates that 10 - 15% of the Muslim world shares the Islamicist politico-theological ambitions of Al-Qaeda, and about 50% is broadly anti-American. He may be right; there are no effective measures of public opinion in most Muslim countries. But the kind of anecdotal evidence presented on LGF (the posts I've seen, anyway) is worthless for serious inquiry into the issue! Charles can post links about mullahs and fatwas and suicide bombers from now until doomsday, and none of it will ever constitute any kind of argument for any general conclusions about public opinion in the Middle East, or Islamic culture, or anything else. Rather, the purpose of the site is pretty clearly to confirm the prejudices of those whose minds are already made up, as well as to persuade those who are susceptible to cheap rhetorical tactics.
Richard, when you claim that I understand you to be offering an explanation of the real motivations of several hundred million people. A couple of questions:
-- What evidence would you cite in support of this claim?
-- Is this a claim about conscious or unconscious motivation? That is, do all these Muslims realize that that's why they hate us, or is this a motivation that's hidden even from themselves?
And where in the world did the nonsequitur in your final sentence come from? Nobody's said a word about domestic policy (assuming by "federal government" you mean the U.S. government, which is far from clear.)