When a leftie refers to supporters of Israel as "David Dukes", does he ever realise that David Duke is on HIS site, not on Israel's?

When a leftie calls a Muslim Arab-Canadian a "fucking pig" because he happens not to support Hamas, I begin to wonder whether the anti-war left really have such a high respect for Islam or whether it is really just about support for anti-Israeli terror.

http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/2006/03/foreign-policy-with-spine-part-2.html

(Check the comments.)

The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social harmony. Now does Bush represent any of these principles. You decide.

There is no "classic philosophy of conservatism". How could there be? That would as ridiculous as a "classic philosophy of progressivism".

What you describe is a political position that does (unfortunately) exist. It's a system that watches the world disintegrate. It's a system that caused hardship and death by neglect.

If you think that you can somehow "prove" that Bush's policies are wrong by showing how they are not the same policies as those of a philosophy you simply call "conservatism", you are really not as smart as I thought you might be.

First of all you would have to show that the policies you describe are "right", or at least working (define "working" too). Then you would have to show that no other policies could possibly work as well, better, or slightly worse.

Then you would have to be honest enough to find a real name for your position. Just calling it the "classic philosophy of conservatism" doesn't cut it, as there is no such thing as a "classic philosophy of conservatism". (The term "conservative" describes a relationship to other philosophies, it does not define a philosophy.)

Conservatives want the preserve what they consider the good elements of the current system or an older system that was already abandoned. That system CAN be the policies you describe.

But it can also be the exact opposite or something completely different. It depends on which country you live in or what components of the existing system (or the earlier system) you want to preserve.

I certainly don't want to preserve American isolationism. It was never a good system.

When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market. I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

In the speech I reference on my blog, Harry Belafonte described the same thing, and called it apathy. Thus it becomes a no-win situation.

When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market.

And rightfully so!

I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

It's only sad that Bahu's ideals always seem to represent philosophies that fail to prevent or even end such tragedies.

It seems he is only happy when hundreds of thousands die. In foreign countries.

I don't believe that. I just think he's looking at the Bush administration in a vacuum.

He is obsessed with George Bush. He went as far as denying Saddam's crimes just to make the invasion look more evil.

And he completely believes that it is all right to lie in order to serve the greater truth or whatever the left call it these days.

And he did lie. He lied about Saddam's Iraq. He was corrected many times. There is no benefit of the doubt any more. How could there be.

I bet he only supports isolationism because his beloved fanatical Muslims are currently the target of the opposite policy.

I tell you what I think:

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.

He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture.

He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others.

The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam.

That's what I think he believes.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard.

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

Your statement on 'humanity's acheivements' is facetious and ignorant. The world without Christianity wouldn't look much different either.

Perhaps. But a world without western culture would. And there is nothing facetious or ignorant about pointing that out.

I don't think I made any claims about Christianity at all.

You might, at the same time, learn what the word "Arab" means. You may be shocked to find that "Arab" isn't very descriptive in terms of your argument.

I thought it was pretty clear what "Arab" means in the context of comparing cultures. There is an Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists. What the word "Arab" really means, according to you, has hardly much to do with the culture of nationalism I was referring to.

I and German nationalists also disagree about what "German" means. But that doesn't mean I cannot make statements about the German nation as they defined it.


Bahu doesn't make excuses for the worst parts of Islamic and Arab nationalist culture, he merely claims these things, like Saddam's crimes, didn't happen. I don't see why that is better.

You know I agree with you a lot of the time Leauki, but you're way beyond the pale with that attack. The Col says things far more nutty than Bahu, and you don't accuse him of being a crazed muslim nationalist. You see this guy's name and detect that perhaps English is his second language, so you take a short cut in the debate.

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

I thank Baker Street for putting the record straight. I am not a Muslim and I am not a blinkered apologist for evry brutal Arab or Non Arab dictator. I am by convi tion a civil libertarian with a strong civil society inclination. At a personal note I had my entire education in the USA and do have tremendous admiration for many American values and institutions. There are many who believe that USA under George Bush is imposing military solutions in the place of diplomatic and political solutions. This is what Fukuyama is saying. I am just writing my critique of Fukuyama. I am familiar with his work though I sisagree with some of his views. I always say that you should subject evetrthing to a critical test and only then accept. Do not believe political leadres blindly.

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin. Did you know that both Paris and Oxford Universities had chairs for Arabic Language studiers in the 14th century.

That Israel maufacures mirochips is not surprising.

the UK you can hear all the usual far left suspects decrying the war using the usual rhetoric of stopping 'American Imperialism'. Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument - there are those on the far left who were Hussein-supporters

In fact the Conservative Party should have opposed the war right from the very beginning. You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives. A large number of Labor MPs abstained or voted against the Blair sponsored resolution along with the Liberals.

No, the problem is many/most of the people you are talking about when you say "arab culture" aren't even arabs. Iranians aren't arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Afghanis aren't arabs. Even if you make it mean people who speak Arabic, you'll find that much of the time you aren't talking about Arabs.

I am sorry, Bakerstreet, but that is ridiculous. I don't see why I cannot make statements about the Arab nation just because the Iranians are not a part of them.

You seem to be under the assumption that I cannot possibly criticise Arab nationalism without including Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis. Well, I never did include them. They have NOTHING to do with Arab nationalism or the Ba'ath ideology.

I was making no statements about Iranian culture specifically, except under the greater umbrella of Muslim culture. My statements about the Arab nation was, as I said before, about the Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists.

Your point is not even a fallacy. A fallacy would be to say that I cannot make statements about the Arab nation because there are different definitions of what the Arab nation is (I have told you which one I employed here). But to say I am wrong based on your belief that by "Arab nation" I meant to include Iranians/Afghanis/Pakistanis which would be wrong, is worse.

If you made a point about Germans (as defined by Hitler) and I would tell you that your point is of no value as Poles are not German, what value would my criticism have? Would your statement about the Germans be wrong because I believed you were falsely counting Poles among their numer?

Muslim culture in general and Arab culture in particular are not contributing much (or anything) to humanity's achievements at the moment. That just happens to be true.

And if not true, you can certainly make a better point than "Iranians are not Arabs", because I never made the claim that they were.

Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.

Please don't imply a quote when you are not quoting.

I said it is possible that he is a Muslim. I don't find that sad or self-defeating.

You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives.

In fact I forget nothing of the kind. I think you have completely misunderstood my argument. First of all, I am not a British Conservative, so I'm not in a position to defend their (shifting) position(s) on the Iraq war, nor would I ever want to. However, that part of your argument which pointed out that the so-called neo-conservative agenda currently being played out in the middle east is many ways a contradiction of traditional conservative values struck a chord with me and I was agreeing with you. That is all.

As for my overall view, as I told Leauki:

I'm afraid on the matter under discussion (whether America's intervention in Iraq is justified and will eventually bear fruit in increased freedom, prosperity and stability in the middle east) you will find me a bewildered agnostic, so no kind of opponent at all.

Not a clear position, but an honest one.