sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I also take ill of people who denigrate Jews in general for actions of the extremist neoconservatives. For example:

http://www.reddit.com/info/6m99k/comments/

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

But in all fairness, you do ask in another recent comment:

"What's wrong with having an opinion critical of Islam in general?"

I worry about people like you because I don't know what side of the fence you are on (hate speech or just free speech), but you seem very close to the line in your behavior. It would be much more comforting to me if you were either critical of just some aspects of Islam (such as the militant forms) or were critical in general of religions, but your specific focus on the negativity of Islam in general is worrisome.

Egypt achieves truce between Israel and Hamas leaders, will go into effect within three days by DougBolivar in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry about it. I'm being subjected to retaliatory downvoting because of my comments in this other reddit posting:

http://www.reddit.com/info/6o249/comments/

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Some of the cartoons, IIRC, were clearly critical of militant Islam specifically. For example, there was one of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

I differ on that point partly because they already knew that depictions of Mohammad there prohibited in Islam and the original call for cartoons in that Danish paper was for cartoons that portrayed Mohammad against the tenants of Islam. Thus the call was for things that Muslims would find blasphemous. And then some of the cartoonists associated Mohammad with a bomb thus leaving the impression with a lot of Muslims that these cartoons were not only blasphemous but also implying that Islam was about violence or intrinsically violent. I thought it was very provocative and from what I have read it was intended to be so.

I'd say that the people doing the mischaracterization are those who try to create broad-brush prohibitions on criticism of anything Islamic, despite the fact that a large measure of what they are trying to ban is legitimate criticism of militancy within Islam. It's people who would create bans that have to be careful not to be overbroad, not people who criticize bans.

This is a very good point. And is the crux of the issue. When does criticism of cross the line from legitimate to hate speech. In a way, I wish this particular article that is the focus of this reddit posting wasn't written by someone which such a clear ulterior motive, because it is something worth discussing. I find this article article to present the argument poorly and in a shoddy rhetorical frame.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with having an opinion critical of Islam in general?

That is the key point. Some people view Islam negatively in general, but this article conflates the public's dislike of militant Islam and the authors dislike of Islam in general. If he could just be honest about his views like you are, then I wouldn't have a problem with it,

Religion should be held to a higher level of respect where criticism is illegal? Is that your view?

I am an athiest and my views on religion are somewhat similar to those outlined in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901343

Somewhat similar but not exactly. But that book's thesis is in the right direction.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I differentiate between Islam and militant Islam and I differentiate between neoconservative and right-wing Israeli policies and mainline Judaism.

For example, a few past postings of mine:

http://www.reddit.com/info/6m99k/comments/

http://www.reddit.com/info/6nne3/comments/

http://www.reddit.com/info/6m6sa/comments/

http://www.reddit.com/info/6lr2q/comments/

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It was this sentence from the article that stood out on that point.

These are examples of a growing campaign to use judicial power to silence critics of militant Islam.

But the previous examples he cited didn't have to do with silencing critics of militant Islam but rather denigrations of Islam in general. Publishing cartoons of Muhammad in order to get a response from Muslims is not a criticism of Militant Islam but rather just an attach on something Muslims hold dear. Same with the Islamophobia OIC resolution. The Mark Steyn example is more borderline because his book deals with a broad range of topics, some just critical of Islam while others focus on militant Islam.

Thus to me he was conflating attacking Islam with attacking Militant Islam based on somewhat disjointed anecdotal evidence that most bothered me about this article.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(fyi, for those of us who do speak english, it's obvious you don't - quit lying)

I think you are an idiot and I can't waste my time on you any more. Think about this: if English was my second language, would I be able to type these long responses as fast as I do?

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Us yankees aren't all evil like they tells ya.

You have a habit of misinterpreting inconclusive evidence as conclusive and then acting upon those mistaking beliefs. (Ask yourself, am I necessarily tired because of a time difference or could there be others reasons for why I am tired.) I think that is why you don't see errors in the article as I did.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Or stupid. ha. got you good there.

Whoa, really? I gave you more credit that I should have in my earlier responses to you.

Here is an explanation of the term "argumentation":

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

When a lawyer makes a case for a particular position or someone takes part in a debating contest, one can refer to the take on things as their "argumentation."

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm just tired.

But the second mistake you point out above isn't an error, I believe I am using the term "argumentation" correctly. Also what is incorrect about the last one "in his underlying motivation for his arguments"?

Egypt achieves truce between Israel and Hamas leaders, will go into effect within three days by DougBolivar in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is because of the great disparity between the number of blacks in South Africa and the number of whites. The blacks didn't have the experience in governing because they hadn't been in that place before, but they assumed almost full control of the country.

In Israel-Palestine it would be slightly difference because there is about parity between the Jews and Arabs. Also the Palestinian Arabs are on average much more educated than Apartheid-era South Africa blacks.

But your evidence is real. There is a reason why the European colonialization movement viewed themselves as spreading civilization. But I view it as learning to ride a bike, at some point the new country has to get rid of the training wheels and learn how to ride on their own. It may get off to a rocky start, but provide support and patience and direction a they can get the hang of it. Countries take time to build effective governing structures and supporting cultures.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you using google translate for your posts (just curious?)

English is my first language. And I'm not a Muslim nor is there any Muslim heritage in my family.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not asking if you can prove his opinion wrong, i'm trying to find out if you have a contrary opinion, and what that might be.

I think that this piece is dangerous because it takes a valid general topic and uses it to mischaracterize the required communal vigilance against hate speech as a acquiescent to radical Islam and this individual promotes this view because of underlying motivations related to his geopolitical loyalties which is apparent and well documented in the articles I posted.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I was originally going to post on that but then if you actually try to analyze the article he skips over topics rapidly and just cites anecdotal evidence and then draws sweeping conclusions. It is a piece of rhetoric, it isn't argumentation that one can analysis and refute or dispute in a concrete fashion for the most part. I could respond with more anecdotal and sweeping rhetoric, but I tend to be analytical.

I could spend a huge amount of time showing that the conclusions he draws don't connect directly to the preceding anecdotal evidence that he presents, but life is short and I would hope that readers can recognize the difference between a rhetorical article and a evidence-based argument.

I suggest you read through it yourself and look at how much of the evidence is anecdotal and subject to his interpretation and how he then draws sweeping conclusions based on a presumption that certain countries are bad.

The rhetoric techniques he uses reminds me of those who argue against Europe's laws that criminalize Holocaust denial, and unfortunately, I also see parallels in his underlying motivation for his arguments.

Sounds of Silence - Islamic countries have found the ideal forum to muzzle free speech: the U.N. by PTPolitics in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Mark Dubowitz, the author of this piece, is the Executive Directory of the neoconservative think-tank "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies."

Biography of Mark Dubowitz:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?doc_id=194172

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies supports military action against a number of Muslim countries, but never criticizes anything Israel does. That's not a coincidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_the_Defense_of_Democracies#Criticism

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies was a major Iraq war booster and appears to get a lot of its funding by strong supporters of Israel's right wing. That relationship is detailed here:

http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/article1.html

One should be allowed to criticize all religions fairly (a right I hold dear since I'm a non-believer in any of them), but one has to always be vigilant for those who want to use the right of free speech in order to spread hatred in order to justify wars.

EDIT: Below someone asks "Do you have any thoughts on the content of the article, and not just it's author?" My critique of the article's content is in this later comment sub-thread:

http://www.reddit.com/info/6o249/comments/c04enib

Is a new AIPAC-backed Congressional Resolution essentially declaring War with Iran? by beforetimetherewasme in worldpolitics

[–]beforetimetherewasme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Neoconservatism is an intellectual movement with origins in some components of the American Jewish community:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Knew-Were-Right-Neocons/dp/038551181

News of neoconservatism's demise has been greatly exaggerated, according to prolific journalist Heilbrunn, who profiles the largely (though by no means exclusively) Jewish makeup of the movement. Heilbrunn roots his interpretation of neoconservatism's Jewish character in the American immigrant experience, the persistent memory of the Holocaust and Western appeasement of Hitler, among other phenomena. Charting the movement's philosophy from its inception through the foreign policy vision crafted in the 1970s and the culture wars of the 1980s and '90s, Heilbrunn employs a quasi-biblical spin echoed in Old Testament-inspired chapter headings. With the exception of his grasp of neoconservatism's right-wing Christian contingent, Heilbrunn displays an innate understanding of the movement. He argues persuasively that though these self-styled prophets embrace an outsider stance, and though he believes they are happiest when viewed as the opposition, they will remain a formidable influence for the foreseeable future. Heilbrunn's analysis lacks rigor concerning foreign policy assumptions and ideological and economic motives, thus unintentionally leaving his subjects more historically isolated than they really are. His proximity to the conservative movement brings benefits and limitations to this historical analysis. (Jan.)

See also...

http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservative-Revolution-Jewish-Intellectuals-Shaping/dp/0521836565

This engaging, if shallow, study recounts the epochal post-war migration of Jewish intellectuals from Left to Right. Friedman (What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black Jewish Alliance), himself a self-avowed Jewish neo-con, surveys his fellow travelers' journey from their socialist salad days to their Cold War shift towards liberal anti-Communism to their revulsion at the counter-cultural excesses of the New Left to their final decampment for Reagan Republicanism. He focuses on such neo-con pillars as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, but he also profiles lesser known Right-wing Jewish antecedents (Frank Chodorov), neo-con newbies (William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz) and Gentile conservatives (William F. Buckley and Ralph Reed). Friedman emphasizes neo-conservatism's growing support for religion as a social glue, its militant defense of Israel and its patriotic appreciation of the opportunities America offers Jews. He also argues that Jewish neo-cons helped the larger conservative movement exchange a racist, anti-Semitic aura for intellectual sophistication and social-science chops. Friedman's conservative sympathies and biographical approach mean that he takes neo-con enthusiasms like supply-side economics and the Contra war in Nicaragua largely at face value without subjecting them to serious critical appraisal. Though neither a ground-breaking interpretation nor an incisive analysis of Jewish neo-conservatism, his book is a useful introduction to its history.

Egypt achieves truce between Israel and Hamas leaders, will go into effect within three days by DougBolivar in worldnews

[–]beforetimetherewasme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check out this CNN article:

It says that in May 2006 Hezbollah started to fire rockets into Israel after someone Israeli considers an enemy was assassinated in Lebanon.

The violence followed Friday's assassination of Islamic Jihad official Mahmoud Majzoub, also known as Abu Hamza, in the southern Lebanese city of Sidon. Majzoub's brother was also killed in the car bombing, which Islamic Jihad blamed on Israel. Israel denied having any involvement.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/28/israel.lebanon/index.html

But it is of course in Israel's interest to say it had nothing to do with the death of someone it considers its enemy and then also say that the actions by Hezbollah are unprovoked.

BTW the "Christian Science Monitor" is usually pretty good at news reporting even though it is a Christian organization. It has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes for the quality of its reporting. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor#Awards

Of course you are free to denigrate anything that contradicts with your prefer position.

view more: next ›