Welcome! This briefing will be looking hard at the dark places the mainstream media sometimes seem determined to look away from, to better understand our declared enemies on their own terms and without illusions. Our goal is to bring you some of the top jihadi rants, idiotarian seething, and old-school Jew-hatred from around the world, leaving you more informed, more aware, and pretty disgusted every month. This Winds of Change.NET HateWatch briefing is brought to you by Omri Ceren of Mere Rhetoric. Past briefings and posts on related topics can be found here.
HIGHLIGHTED TOPICS
- Religious Hate: British Islamic experts: best way to dampen terrorism is to forget about Holocaust; Palestinian extremists also hate Christians; Violent anti-Semitism in the Ukraine; 100 percent of Jordanians hate Jews; British universities overrun with extremism; European anti-Semitism on the rise; Palestinians rampage, destroy synagogues after Israeli disengagement; Islamist anti-Semitism in the United States
- Idiotarian Seethings: Cindy Sheehan: "Occupied New Orleans"; Black Panthers leader blames 9/11, Katrina on Jews, whites; Cat Stevens blames 9/11 on Americans; AP: Bush equal LBJ, Iraq equal Vietnam; Lt. General Honore embarrasses over-eager reporter; Ugly Left justifies vulgarity - poorly
- Race and Culture: Fatwa against woman tennis player for showing too much leg; Anti-homosexual paranoia in Kumasi; Israeli Katrina aid just too Jewish for State Department; German SDP posters exploit photos of dead American soldiers; French FM has zero knowledge of the Holocaust
- A Hopeful Note: Muslim press condemns Gaza synagogue burnings; Hope for more expanded Israeli-Muslim ties; Stockholm Imam advocates expelling extremists
- What's the best way to address the home-grown Islamism that inspired the 7/7 bombers? According to the moderate Muslim leaders that Tony Blair appointed to study the issue, it's to ban Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day:
Advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings are proposing to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is regarded as offensive to Muslims... The draft proposals have been prepared by committees appointed by Blair to tackle extremism.
Why mourning the British memorial day upset Muslims is beyond us: as near as we can tell, the memorials focus mostly on European countries, not on the rather extensive Arab complicity in the Holocaust. Unsurprisingly, this kind of accepted, quotidian anti-Semitism is developing into a palpable feeling of siege among British Jews.
- Christians in Israel are increasingly the targets of Islamic sectarian violence.
- A rabbi and his son have been severely beaten in Ukraine. Despite this incident, and the one last month where a Jewish student was beaten into a coma by skinheads, and the many acts of anti-Semitic vandalism that have taken place over the last two years - despite all of this, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko insists that anti-Semitism is not a problem in Ukraine.
- Every first year college student knows that, in statistics, there's no such thing as probability zero and there's no such thing as probability one. So when the Pew Research Center concludes that 100 percent of Jordanians view Jews unfavorably, the reader is left to infer for him or herself just how overwhelmingly conclusive their numbers must have been. Not 99 percent. 100 percent.
- Over thirty British institutions of higher learning have been infiltrated by Islamist and other extremist organizations
[There are] more than 30 institutions - including some of the most high-profile universities in the country - where "extremist and/or terror groups" have been detected... The study states that the Islamist groups Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun, which are subject to a "no-platform policy" by the National Union of Students, are active on many campuses and often operate under different names. The report catalogues the activities of far-right organizations and animal rights extremists.
Maybe they can solve that by banning Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day. In other news, the National Union of Students - the bastion of at least some of this extremism - has been found by British courts to be not anti-Semitic. So that's a relief.
- Israeli Preside Moshe Katsav is attempting to draw global attention to the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.
- After virtually every rabbinical authority forbid Jewish soldiers from bulldozing the synagogues left in evacuated Gaza settlements, the Israeli cabinet obviously decided to leave the buildings intact. As soon as the IDF finally left, however, Palestinians - in an orgy of looting and arson - rushed in to desecrate and destroy the buildings.
MSM apologias for this outrage ranged from the paternalistic ("what else did you expect from the Palestinians? They can't help themselves": here and here and here and here and here) to the vaguely celebratory ("the synagogues were symbols of the illegal and humiliating occupation" - here and here). Specific criticisms of the former sentiment be found here and here, while criticisms of the latter are here and here.
- Islamic cultural and religious institutions in the United States are becoming fertile ground for vicious anti-Semitism:
Militant Islam is rapidly spreading its tentacles across America. One of the few Islamic moderates in this country, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, estimated that "extremists" have taken over 80% of the mosques in the US. These extremists are working single-mindedly to turn America into an Islamic state, with the Koran as its foundation... The campaign is not limited to mosques. It also includes Islamic community centers, newspapers, schools, youth groups, political organizations, professional associations and business activities - all involved in recruiting, training, supporting and coordinating its members.
- Cindy Sheehan continues to be the moonbat gift that keeps on giving:
George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.
We have nothing to add, except to say that this idiotic meme is now flowing through the various streams and rivers of the anti-war Left. Also, that it's a difficult stance to reconcile with the Left's other favorite Katrina meme: that Bush should have sent more troops into New Orleans sooner. Come to think of it, this Leftist "send no troops in - no wait, send more troops in" schizophrenia seems vaguely familiar.
- Blogger the Political Teen has tape on Black Panther Minister Nashim Nzinga's unhinged diatribe. The Minister seems to believe, inter alia, that the Jews knew about 9/11 beforehand, that there is some type of mother ship guarding earth, and that white people intentionally blew up the levee in New Orleans to kill blacks. The exact reason why said mother ship would allow white people to blow up the levees remains, at the time of publication, unclear.
- According to Cat Stevens, Al Qaeda's murderous attack on Britain had nothing to do with religious fanaticism, cultural resentment, or the desire to establish a global caliphate. Instead, the pitiable bombers were doing what they could to react to British foreign policy in the Middle East.
- The Associated Press is expanding their horizons - whereas before they seemed content with merely quoting Cindy Sheehan's dumb Iraq-Vietnam analogies, they've now begun doing their own rhetorical criticisms of Bush's speeches.
- If you haven't yet heard about "don't get stuck on stupid", we'd like to thank you for making the Winds of Change.NET HateWatch the only thing you read on the Internet.
- There's an extended and nuanced article to be written about political deliberation in the context new media technologies, wherein the decorum of major right-wing blogs would be contrasted with the thuggish machismo that marks sites like Atrios and Kos. That article would look nothing like this post, which is a pathetic attempt to justify the author's ill-bred vulgarity.
- Sania Mirza, like all successful female tennis players, wears shorts or skirts on the court. This, according to Muslim religious leaders, simply will not do:
India's leading female tennis player has been subjected to a fatwa by a Muslim cleric for wearing short skirts and revealing tops on the international tennis circuit. Sania Mirza, 18... became the first Indian woman to reach the fourth round of a Grand Slam at the US Open last week. "The dress she wears on the tennis courts... leaves nothing to the imagination," Haseeb-ul-hasan Siddiqui told The Hindustan Times.
We've only recently been given the honor of producing HateWatch; do you think it's too soon to crack the joke that Mr. Siddiqui clearly lacks imagination? Yes? OK - forget we said anything. Focus instead on the somewhat creepy fixation that Muslim clerics have with the female body. This isn't about modesty, and it's only partly about controlling every last part of every woman. No one should underestimate the extent to which this is just a dirty old man getting to talk about what he's imagining that 18 year old girl doing, and then blaming his prurient thoughts on her short skirt. Psychoanalysis gets some things right and some things wrong, but one would be a fool not to recognize what's going on when someone tries this hard to avoid the sight of a woman's skin.
- The not at all failed state of Ghana is very concerned about all the gay people in their country. But with their help, you too can identify and avoid homosexuals:
The clubs are mostly patronized by high society men and women who drive expensive cars. They are also very fashionable in their appearance. One significant thing about them is that most of homosexuals bleach their skin and wear earrings in one or in both ears. Lesbians dress scantly and in a very seductive manner. The homosexuals are more often recruited through social functions and lured with money and gifts by the affluent. With the lesbians, the Spectator learnt that they are young innocent girls who are initially employed by rich shop owners as shop assistants in the commercial and fashionable areas of the metropolis.
Hide your children folks - young boys and girls are being enticed into a life of lecherous promiscuity by high society, expensive car-driving shop owners. If you're not careful, next thing you know your kids will be wearing earrings and dressing scantly. And then what will you do?
- The US State Department refused to accept aid from Israel in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They were apparently concerned that accepting aid immediately - while people were still dying - would prevent Muslim countries from giving aid later - after most of those people had already died.
- Davids Medienkritik is right: using photos of dead American soldiers to win votes is truly sick:
We have learned that one of Gerhard Schroeder's senior ministers and a top SPD man in eastern Germany, Rolf Schwanitz, is using the following poster in an attempt to win votes... How could anyone exploit the images of fallen American soldiers in flag-draped coffins for political gain. Haven't those soldiers earned the right not to be exploited by some European politician? We honestly didn't think the SPD would resort to this.The photo shows a row of coffins draped with American flags, and the caption reads "She (Merkel) Would Have Sent Soldiers". If Schroeder has not been as openly anti-American in this election as he was in the last one, his party seems to have made up for his lack of breadth with depth. Who knew they could sink that low?
- If you've ever wondered why the French political establishment can't seem to wrap their minds around the necessity for a secure Jewish state, we suggest that you consider the possibility that they don't know anything about history:
[D]uring the visit of French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to the new Holocaust museum in Jerusalem's Yad Vashem on September 8, he asked... whether British Jews were not also murdered... "But Monsieur le minister," [his hosts said] "England was never conquered by the Nazis during World War II." The minister apparently was not content with this answer... and persisted, asking: "Yes, but were there no Jews who were deported from England?"
- The Palestinian synagogue-burning rampage was too much even for some Muslims.
- Last post, we posted on the talks that Pakistan has opened talks with Israel. This week, other Islamic countries expressed their interested in following suit. Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes writes on the historic, incredible, earth-shattering significance of the Israeli-Pakistani relations thaw.
- The Imam of Stockholm's largest mosque, reacting to the 7/7 bombings and threats to his own life, has issued a call for national unity in Sweden. He called on the government to remove the threat posed by Islamists, and complimented the British government for expelling the "preachers of hatred" from their own country.
It is good that a short note on a few reassuring notes have been included. When asked to explain why the Islamist invaders had to retreat from Spain, a scholar replied that in Spain Islam met resistence from another fundamentalist religion.Merely Islam-bashing wo'nt work in the plural work where one canot and should not think about ethnic cleansing.
It is good that a short note on a few reassuring notes have been included. When asked to explain why the Islamist invaders had to retreat from Spain, a scholar replied that in Spain Islam met resistence from another fundamentalist religion.Merely Islam-bashing wo'nt work in the plural world where one cannot and should not think about ethnic cleansing.
Strange to call yourselves Hatewatch without mentioning discrimination or hate against Muslims, Asians, Afro-Carribeans or Arabs. Next time maybe?
If you're short on ideas, what about the numerous examples of discrimination in Israeli law. Eg. A Jew born anywhere in the world has the right to settle in Israel. And If an Israeli Jew marries a Hungarian or a German, the new spouse can move to Israel.
If an Israeli man who happens to be Arab falls in love with a Palestinian woman from Bethlehem, he will be expelled from the country or forced to live separate from his wife. Their children will be denied the benefits of citizenship. No such ethnic marriage laws apply to Jewish choices in marriage partners.
Or is your aim something other than highlighting discrimination and hate in general?
Even a 10-second look at your link to the Cat Stevens article shows you misrepresented him.
You said: "According to Cat Stevens, Al Qaeda's murderous attack on Britain had nothing to do with religious fanaticism, cultural resentment, or the desire to establish a global caliphate. Instead, the pitiable bombers were doing what they could to react to British foreign policy in the Middle East."
Yusuf Islam ACTUALLY said Britain's foreign policy "was not the only factor but it was a major contributory."
Er - even labour politicians admit that the Iraq fiasco was a primary motivator for the bombers.
What else did he say: "At the same time we have to look at how the teaching of Islam has been distorted," he added. Islam said schools should teach young Muslims the true meaning of Islam to keep them away from extremist ideas. "Right now there is a more vital role for education to play in painting a truer picture of Islam," he said. "If you don't give it to the children in schools, anybody can give it to them on the streets or outside the normal environment for learning."
He also said Muslims should do more to integrate into British society.
"Coming to Islam from a Western background, I was slightly surprised early on by the insular approach," he said. "I can understand it because many feel insecure and perhaps they weren't appreciated or were misunderstood. With a new generation of English-speaking Muslims we have an opportunity to build many more bridges between the great faiths."
Yeah....real hate-monger isn't he.
Durruti:
Your snarky little "next time maybe" seems a touch incautious - and unintentionally revelatory. The post had numerous entries about discrimination against Muslims and Arabs that, for reasons which are entirely your own, you seem to be ignoring. Sania Mirza, the Indian woman being persecuted for wearing too short a skirt, is an Asian Muslim. I imagine many of the gay men and women in Ghana who have become the target of public hysteria are similarly devout. The Palestinian Christians being attacked by Palestinian Mulsims are ethnically Arab. The extent to which you confidently and unequivocally complain that the post did not "mention discrimination or hate against Muslims, Asians, Afro-Carribeans or Arabs" seems to indicate that you do not consider these outrages to be genuine instances of discrimination - perhaps because they're targeted against women, gays, and Christians rather than people who you consider to be "good" or "authentic" Muslims and Arabs. Whatever your motives, I suggest that you be a little more careful about urging people to highlight "discrimination and hate in general" when your own attention seems somewhat… myopic. And stop making up Israeli "if an Israeli man who happens to be Arab falls in love with a Palestinian woman from Bethlehem, he will be expelled from the country or forced to live separate from his wife" is patently absurd (poor grammar is yours in the original).
I also remain unimpressed with Cat Stevens's "clarifications". If you start out with the bombshell that the 7/7 victims brought terrorism upon themselves, it does no good to spend the rest of the time saying "oh, and it'd also be nice if mosques in London didn't harbor clerics who preach jihad".
You say: "A rabbi and his son have been severely beaten in Ukraine."
Revolting, no doubt, but the original article you yourself linked to says:
"A Ukrainian rabbi and his 14-year-old son were beaten in Kiev [...] Neither was seriously injured."
A bit of embroiderment?
Solomon: Reports as to the severity of the beating vary, but most accounts agree that the beating was prolonged and involved knives and chains. Though Rabbi Menis and his son did apparently serious injury, I think one would be hard-pressed not to consider such circumstances severe. Nonetheless, exaggeration or excitability in description does no one any good, and your point is well-taken.
>>British Islamic experts: best way to dampen terrorism is to forget about Holocaust.
I consider it very important to remember the holocaust, and remember it correctly.
The Holocaust isn't important because 6 million Jews were murdered.
The Holocaust is important because ~15 million PEOPLE were murdered.
According to Cat Stevens, Al Qaeda's murderous attack on Britain had nothing to do with religious fanaticism, cultural resentment, or the desire to establish a global caliphate. Instead, the pitiable bombers were doing what they could to react to British foreign policy in the Middle East.
If that isn't a lie, it will do until a lie comes along.
You might think, a commentator who indulges in gratuituous slander, and accompanies his untruths with the links that belie them, would be better off avoiding terms like "hatewatch" and "idiotarian".
Also dishonest and stupid are:
Sigh. I gave form and text to thought in response to the first troll, and now this. But as they say, in for a pound....
TJ: We don't need to get into a philosophical discussion about the uniqueness of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust to agree that banning a memorial to that experience is inappropriate, and that those who claim that they're just trying to universalize the memorial are being disengenuous. If they really cared about remembering all the victims of WWII, they'd suggest another memorial day - to say that they simply wanted to mark atrocities in general by banning a memorial to specific atrocities strains credibility.
Robert:
* It's true that the reports "don't show him excluding religious fanaticism etc as causes". They don't show him excluding alien mind-control death rays as causes either.
* I've addressed the "there are other factors too" canard in a previous comment - life isn't the Los Angeles Times: one may not state something bombastic or inflammatory - something that skirts the line of propriety and truth - and then say a lot of other true stuff to make up for it.
* Re "they don't show him calling the bombers "pitiable": give me a break. They also don't show him calling the bombers mammals with hair on top of their heads, but one can infer, can one not, that someone who believes that attacks are justified would sympathize with the attackers?
* He denounced 7/7 in the same way that Arafat used to denounce suicide bombers. In other words, it seemed that his statements lacked something in the way of full-throatedness.
>>We don't need to get into a philosophical discussion about the uniqueness of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust to agree that banning a memorial to that experience is inappropriate, and that those who claim that they're just trying to universalize the memorial are being disengenuous.
Most (including the Muslims discussed above) likely are being disengenuous. I am not.
I was very pleased with the Holocaust museum in DC, for example. It had lots of flyers about the Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, etc. who got killed.
The reason that looking at the Holocaust from primarily a Jewish perspective is dangerous is that it allows non-Jews to exclude themselves psychologically from the "area of effect." It makes it harder for people to "get" the lesson that "NEXT TIME IT COULD BE YOU." It also distracts attention from the visceral reality that those Jews who were killed were HUMANS.
>>If they really cared about remembering all the victims of WWII, they'd suggest another memorial day (...)
The Holocaust is distinct from WWII in important ways. It involved the targeted murder of civilians under that particular regime (democide) rather than attrition from combat. It likely would have occurred even if WWII had not.
The Saudis seem to hate freedom, and approve of trafficking of children as sex workers. Does that bother Bush?? No, not at all!! It would only bother Bush if people were trafficking in human embryos!
See
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_human_trafficking
Omri
Calling yourselves 'Hatewatch' implies taking a stand against hatred and discrimination in general. So why the overwhelming obsession in your very long article with (particularly) Muslim hatred/discrimination against (particularly) Jews? A hidden agenda perhaps?
Sure, these examples are important, but lets have a more level playing field in your 'briefing'. Couldn't you find stories about Asians, Africans or Muslims suffering discrimination, beatings or extremist hatred in Europe or the US for example?
As for your ridiculous examples in reply to my post:
1) A conservative religious figure criticising an Asian Muslim woman for her dress sense is obviously not hostile to her Asian race or Muslim religion.
2) Its good that you highlight hostility towards gay people in Ghana, but that hostility didn't originate (as you suggest) from the victims' religion or race, but from their sexuality alone.
3) The idea that you can somehow represent anti-Arab racism merely by the actions of a few Palestinian Muslims against their Christian neighbours is totally ridiculous. What about the experience of being at the receiving end of hate by the many tens of millions of Arabs settled in the West? Or what about the fact that Palestinian Arabs (both Christian and Muslim) live under occupation, and are restricted in their democratic and legal rights (eg. land ownership, freedom of movement)
And now you write: "The extent to which you confidently and unequivocally complain that the post did not "mention discrimination or hate against Muslims, Asians, Afro-Carribeans or Arabs" seems to indicate that you do not consider these outrages to be genuine instances of discrimination....Whatever your motives, I suggest that you be a little more careful about urging people to highlight "discrimination and hate in general" when your own attention seems somewhat… myopic."
Well thanks for the suggestion....actually my "attention" highlighted the staggering lack of balance in your cherry-picking of 'hate' sources and victims. Contrary to your insinuations, I don't condone hatred against anyone on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, caste, sexuality or anthing else. But neither would I conveniently ignore certain types of hatred and discrimination under the pretext of promoting an anti-Muslim pro-Zionist political agenda.
"And stop making up Israeli "if an Israeli man who happens to be Arab falls in love with a Palestinian woman from Bethlehem, he will be expelled from the country or forced to live separate from his wife" is patently absurd (poor grammar is yours in the original)."
Please correct my poor grammar AND MY FACTS. Obviously research isn't a strongpoint of yours, but perhaps you would care to investigate the contents of The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law. (or you could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arab or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_and_racism).
"I also remain unimpressed with Cat Stevens's "clarifications"."
Clarifications??? Nope. Unlike you I actually quoted what he said! You can be as impressed or unimpressed as you want. If you are pretending to give readers a roundup of news, a 'briefing', then quote what he said. Don't misrepresent him and then criticise things he didn't say. Very shoddy.
Durruti,
At the risk of seeming impolite, one gets the impression that you're being deliberately obtuse. "Religious hatred" means religiously inspired hatred - and thus the Islamist attacks against Muslim women, Muslim gays, and Arab Christians certainly qualify. If you're concerned that we've neglected some critical bull that the Catholic Church has published in the last two weeks, please feel free to enlighten our readers as to its content so that we can all be better informed. If your claim is that we never discuss new Jewish or Christian hatred, I urge you to read previous postings. And if, as it seems, ill will towards our highlighting of jihadist rants has caused you to jump the gun a little bit on your reading skills, then please take a moment - calm down and ask yourself what it is that you're trying to accomplish by repeatedly asserting the transparently false argument that we didn't highlight discrimination against Muslims or Arabs.
Incidentally, and this is neither here nor there, but there reaches a point in deliberative communities when certain words or phrases either lose their currency or become markers for a particular kind of discourse. Ignoring the plight of women, gays, and Christians in the Arab and Muslim world while hysterically ranting about our "anti-Muslim pro-Zionist political agenda" seems to identify you as a particular kind of apologist for a particular kind of ideology. In that context, prefacing said hysterics with "I don't condone hatred against anyone on the basis (sic) of gender, ethnicity, religion, caste, sexuality or anthing (sic) else" comes off as, shall we say, both predictable and disingenuous because it's predictable. Kind of like saying "Of course nobody wanted to see Saddam stay in power, but..." or "Clearly we had to do something after 9/11, but..." or "I have plenty of black friends, but...". It's simply that not very many reasonable or serious thinkers think that "pro-Zionist" is really a slur any more - and those that missed the memo and still do missed it because they are immersed in very particular kinds of political communities.
The Cat Stevens thing has been addressed repeatedly now. Only someone who approaches the article looking to vindicate him will accept his "of course there are other causes of terrorism, but American and Britain brought this upon themselves" as anything but blaming the victim and excusing the victimizers (or someone who, as suggested above, is being deliberatively obtuse).
One last thing: It would behoove you to avoid ad-homs about research or reading skills when you get called out for lying and then are incautious enough to link to articles which fail to confirm your lies. Neither of the links you provided came close to demonstrating that, as you said, "if an Israeli man who happens to be Arab falls in love with a Palestinian woman from Bethlehem, he will be expelled from the country or forced to live separate from his wife". You can check me on this, but if memory serves me there have been less than ten Israeli Arabs expelled from Israel under civil law, and both of those were for terrorism-related charges .Remember - ad-homs can make you sounds more credible when you're on the right side of a debate, but when you're patently wrong lashing out just makes you sound like an idiot.
Omri
I see. A so-called briefing on hatred and religious craziness, rounding up news from around the world. And in all the stories you chose to write about where Arabs, Muslims, black people, gays or women are victims the hatred always seems to come from....MUSLIMS! So no cherry-picking of news there then!
What about the Jewish extremist imprisoned in the US last week for plotting to blow up a mosque and a politician's office(the judge said his crimes were "promoting hatred in the most vile way")? Or the vatican stating that homosexuals are 'disorded' and even celibate homosexuals cannot become priests. What about media racism in early comparisons of white 'finders' and black 'looters' after hurricane Katrina? Or Christian leader Pat Robertson's advocating the assassination of a democratically elected head of state. Or various lunatic rantings by Westboro Baptist Church. Or recent sectarian violence by protestant paramilitaries in N Ireland.
I could go on, but hopefully other readers will get the idea by now even if you don't.
If you want to write a briefing which is just a sequence of cherry-picked stories (some of which were very, shall we say politely, misrepresented) about 'those awful Muslim fanatics' thats up to you. Briefing is too polite a word for it though.
Thanks for the insinuations and accusations of hysteria in your second paragraph. Eg "Ignoring the plight of women, gays, and Christians in the Arab and Muslim world while hysterically ranting about our "anti-Muslim pro-Zionist political agenda...".
Actually I did neither of those things. I would also criticise someone who pretended all was rosy in the Muslim world and that Jews / Americans / Christians / Gays / whites / Zoroastrians were the predominant source of hatred today. It's just sloppy thinking, aimed at encouraging division rather than helping any objective understanding.
"not very many reasonable or serious thinkers think that "pro-Zionist" is really a slur any more"
Fascinating, and nor do I. I was using it as an adjective, not a slur. What 'political community' do you accuse me of belonging to exactly?
Only someone who approaches the article looking to vindicate him will accept his "of course there are other causes of terrorism, but American and Britain brought this upon themselves" as anything but blaming the victim and excusing the victimizers (or someone who, as suggested above, is being deliberatively obtuse).
Others here have also pointed out how you twisted what he was quoted as saying. I guess you don't trust readers here to make conclusions which fit with your own.
It would behoove you to avoid ad-homs about research or reading skills when you get called out for lying and then are incautious enough to link to articles which fail to confirm your lies. Neither of the links you provided came close to demonstrating that...- ad-homs can make you sounds more credible when you're on the right side of a debate, but when you're patently wrong lashing out just makes you sound like an idiot.
Are you claiming there is no discrimination by religion in Israeli law? The links I provided both contained information about the "The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law". Before you accuse me of lying again, type it into Google. Or here are ayou could also try here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0808/p06s03-wome.html?worldNav or here: http://web.amnesty.org/wire/September2004/Israel
You may find this article interesting: http://www.jewschool.com/2005_01_01_archive.php
So if I'm lying (never mind just mistaken!) lets have some evidence of it please.
I'll keep my opinions of prople who start sentences with "It would behoove you to avoid ad-homs" to myself. I was trying to make some serious points without descending into pathetic insinuations, name-calling and pretentious language.
You're starting to get absurd:
Now, throughout our conversations, I've suggested that you make things up as you go along - that you substantiate your accusations with neither careful research nor sound reasoning. And in response, you list several past acts of discrimination that you say we don't address as evidence of cherry-picking "only hatred that comes from Muslims". Presumably, if you're not just pulling any random example you can find in a desperate attempt to climb out of the rhetorical and argumentative ditch you've dug yourself into, then actually mentioning these things would have been evidence of the opposite - that we do in fact try to call attention to prominent acts of discrimination, hatred, and bigotry across the board. Otherwise, you'll always be able to dig up buried stories that even people on the blogosphere miss - I'm sure you'll agree that no post can cover everything, and so the goal is to cover the most prominent stories.
Which is why it was a particularly poor argumentative move to castigate us for not addressing the 'find'/'loot' media controversy and the Pat Robertson/Hugo Chavez fiasco - given that WE DID cover it in the previous post. So either you didn't do the most cursory research into Hatewatch before accusing us of vile bigotry or you did do that research and you're outright lying about it. Either way, you've helped us establish that there's plenty of attention paid to non-Muslim forms of hatred, and made yourself look like a wild-eyed hysteric in the process.
Regarding the “Loot versus Find” Controversy, it might help to ask the people who actually wrote the captions (two different people witnessing two different events) why each chose the term they did
From the one who wrote “found:"
Source:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204
And the one who wrote “looting:”
Source:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/?x
In other words, each journalist chose the terms they did in the caption of their respective photographs because of what they witnessed the subjects doing. The person who went into someone's business and takes stuff that clearly belonged to someone else was called a "looter" wheras the person who took stuff that was floating away down the street was called a "finder."
Go peddle phony charges of racism somewhere else.
Thorley,
The Hatewatch briefing which included the loot/find controversy also included a link to the quotes you provide, which you feel are dispositive on the point that racism played no part in the captioning. I'm less certain, but certainly there is a genuine controversy here, one that it would behoove people who track contemporary disputes over discrimination and bigotry would be remiss not to call attention to. If those quotes are as overwhelmingly clear as you think, then there's no harm in saying "lots of people think this was racism - go here and come to your own conclusions." Surely if the choice is between ignoring a controversy or presenting all sides of a controversy, space permitting the latter is superior.