Glazov exposes the Left

[Trolldor]

BAA,

I agree with al rawandi that your post (specifically the phrase 'You're ignorance is hilarious') was a direct personal attack rather than a challenge to his arguments. Please watch this in future.

Consider this an official reminder.

Except ignorance refers solely to a specific lack of knowledge in an area, and saying someone is ignorant means they have no grasp of the concept, which is the same as saying that their argument has no logical origins.

[al-rawandi]

Yes there are anti-Semites on the right. I think Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

Yes, but he's hardly the only one.

My point about using a PM would be revealed if you care to do so privately. As I said I have some insight on the matter that I would much prefer be revealed in a private arena, these forums can be viewed by anyone. If you would care to know my personal insight on leftism send me a PM, I assure you it would be worthwhile. In any event you can continue to use it as a sarcastic jab if you so wish.

You are free to PM me with any information you think is germane to the subject. If you don't want to, and you have some reason for not wanting to post it, then don't bother mentioning it.

Actually Saudi Arabia is a cluster fuck. A country of which you know nothing about, which explains your parroting of Stephen Schwartz here.

I have no idea who Stephen Schwartz is. You are trivialising my previous post by associating it with this dude who I have never even heard of. Don't do that again. Kthanx.bai.

Saudi Arabia has no need to export such ideologies, as a political entity. They do so to placate Ahl al-Shaykh so they can make sure their King is Khadim al-Haramayn for the foreseeable future. Beyond this there is slight benefit for them. Granted they involved certain elements in Bosnia and Chechnya. Beyond this the Saudis are primarily worried about solidifying future cash flow. The export of Islam is a distraction from that. But they certainly are a problem, but one which is monitored by intelligence agencies in the west. Again, regarding Saudi Arabia, I have some personal experience that may be worthwhile if you care to correspond on a personal level.

You have used two Arabic terms in your post. I can ask my Arab friends on the ex-muslim forum to translate them for me, but maybe you would like to explain first why you used them. They are both perfectly translatable into english, after all.

Ahl al-Shaykh

Khadim al-Haramayn

I will ask my Saudi Arabian friends to translate them into english, and also show them your post. Then we can talk.

Very well I shall post all the "cards". You needn't go to the ex-Muslim forum. I am an ex-Muslim myself, and before that a devout leftists, whose own self loathing and identification with evil led to the former. The two terms are:

1) Ahl al-Shaykh... meaning descendants of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone I am sure your "friends" are ignorant of, however a pivotal figure in the development of the Saudi power structure.
2) Khadim al-Haramayn.."Custodian of the two Holy Mosques". Something your friends will know.

Please preface your bewildered appeal to you Saudi friends with your nasty words about the Saudi Regime. It is interesting that you maintain such close ties with Saudis yet spew such animus here. A curious dichotomy to say the least. In any event Stephen Schwartz is a fraud who has faked a conversion to Islam under the tutelage of a Balkan shaykh named Ka'abani. His sole purpose in life is to blame every awful thing about Islam on the Wahhabis and every to attribute every laudable (from his perspective) aspect to Sufism. He is a half witted fraud, in short.

How about this, why don't you step out as middle man and allow me to discuss with your "Saudi friends" issues which seem to be well above your pay grade. If they don't know Ahl al-Shaykh they are completely useless. A bit like discussing quantum physics with a bushman. Perhaps they would care to log on to our little forum?

[al-rawandi]

BAA,

I agree with al rawandi that your post (specifically the phrase 'You're ignorance is hilarious') was a direct personal attack rather than a challenge to his arguments. Please watch this in future.

Consider this an official reminder.

Except ignorance refers solely to a specific lack of knowledge in an area, and saying someone is ignorant means they have no grasp of the concept, which is the same as saying that their argument has no logical origins.

I can accept this explanation if you identify exactly what I am ignorant of. Once that takes place I can withdraw my objection to your slight, because then I will surely be convinced of my own ignorance.

[charlou]

al_rawandi: "This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements."

baa: "You're ignorance is hilarious"

Essentially, you're both saying the same thing to each other.

[al-rawandi]

al_rawandi: "This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements."

baa: "You're ignorance is hilarious"

Essentially, you're both saying the same thing to each other.

No I attacked his post. He attacked me.

It is demonstrable fact that BAA did not read the book, and that he is making judgments. It is not at all established that I am ignorant of any of the matters, quite the opposite in fact, I am the one who has listed people, point by point, that carry the day for my argument. Ones who epitomize the problem, and I quoted them to boot. I am not ignorant in the least.

And I made no personal attacks. We are talking apples and oranges here. Please, leave your bias against me aside and deal with the facts at hand. Thank you.

[charlou]

al_rawandi: "This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements."

baa: "You're ignorance is hilarious"

Essentially, you're both saying the same thing to each other.

No I attacked his post. He attacked me.

It is demonstrable fact that BAA did not read the book, and that he is making judgments. It is not at all established that I am ignorant of any of the matters, quite the opposite in fact, I am the one who has listed people, point by point, that carry the day for my argument. Ones who epitomize the problem, and I quoted them to boot. I am not ignorant in the least.

And I made no personal attacks. We are talking apples and oranges here. Please, leave your bias against me aside and deal with the facts at hand. Thank you.

I have no bias against you. Happy to get that misconception out of the way.

Instead of reporting baa's post, you could have asked for his rationale and argued that with him (as you've done since he provided it).

"Your ignorance is hilarious" was as much baa's opinion (however right or wrong) as "This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements." was yours. I see no personal 'attack' in either.

[Hermit]

It is the LEFT, however you define it that produces some segment of its ranks who flock to the most wretched theocratic and dictatorial regimes in an attempt to invert reality and root for their own destruction.

(emphasis added)

The underlined bit is the key of Glazov's failure in his rant titled United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Much like others refer to "the Jew", "the muslim", "the christian" "the capitalist" and so on, he tars all "lefties" with the same brush. In an excerpt of less than 500 words (published by Amazon.com with the author's approval) he stereotypes every member of "the left" (whatever that means) as "the believer" no less than nine times. "The left" covers a very wide spectrum ranging from essentially capitalist social democrats to anarcho-syndicalists. "Christians" similarly span viewpoints anywhere between the Westborough Baptists and Unitarians, the latter being virtually indistinguishable from atheists. Need I point out that ranges like that can be observed among "the capitalist" and any other group of humans one can possibly slap a label on?

Despite mentioning that "the LEFT, however you define it [...] produces some segment of its ranks who" basically support oppressive and murderous regimes because those regimes are regarded as leftist, you make the exact same mistake as Glazov when you say: "The difference between right and left is as follows....", and then go on to quote a few people's idiotic statements, but the examples of the idiotic statements by the likes of Chomsky give you no more justification to make them representative of all "lefties" than Phelps' insane rants makes him representative of all christians or Gardener's wish to bulldoze every single religious architectural structure makes him representative of all atheists.

[Trolldor]

How about this, why don't you step out as middle man and allow me to discuss with your "Saudi friends" issues which seem to be well above your pay grade.

Oh, might al-rawandi, please tell us all you know, what with your high standing and access to confidential information.
...Well, I suppose you might call it confidential, but for the rest of us wikipedia is called 'open source'.

[Don't Panic]

Yes there are anti-Semites on the right. I think Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

Yes, but he's hardly the only one.

My point about using a PM would be revealed if you care to do so privately. As I said I have some insight on the matter that I would much prefer be revealed in a private arena, these forums can be viewed by anyone. If you would care to know my personal insight on leftism send me a PM, I assure you it would be worthwhile. In any event you can continue to use it as a sarcastic jab if you so wish.

You are free to PM me with any information you think is germane to the subject. If you don't want to, and you have some reason for not wanting to post it, then don't bother mentioning it.

Actually Saudi Arabia is a cluster fuck. A country of which you know nothing about, which explains your parroting of Stephen Schwartz here.

I have no idea who Stephen Schwartz is. You are trivialising my previous post by associating it with this dude who I have never even heard of. Don't do that again. Kthanx.bai.

Saudi Arabia has no need to export such ideologies, as a political entity. They do so to placate Ahl al-Shaykh so they can make sure their King is Khadim al-Haramayn for the foreseeable future. Beyond this there is slight benefit for them. Granted they involved certain elements in Bosnia and Chechnya. Beyond this the Saudis are primarily worried about solidifying future cash flow. The export of Islam is a distraction from that. But they certainly are a problem, but one which is monitored by intelligence agencies in the west. Again, regarding Saudi Arabia, I have some personal experience that may be worthwhile if you care to correspond on a personal level.

You have used two Arabic terms in your post. I can ask my Arab friends on the ex-muslim forum to translate them for me, but maybe you would like to explain first why you used them. They are both perfectly translatable into english, after all.

Ahl al-Shaykh

Khadim al-Haramayn

I will ask my Saudi Arabian friends to translate them into english, and also show them your post. Then we can talk.

Very well I shall post all the "cards". You needn't go to the ex-Muslim forum. I am an ex-Muslim myself, and before that a devout leftists, whose own self loathing and identification with evil led to the former. The two terms are:

1) Ahl al-Shaykh... meaning descendants of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone I am sure your "friends" are ignorant of, however a pivotal figure in the development of the Saudi power structure.
2) Khadim al-Haramayn.."Custodian of the two Holy Mosques". Something your friends will know.

Please preface your bewildered appeal to you Saudi friends with your nasty words about the Saudi Regime. It is interesting that you maintain such close ties with Saudis yet spew such animus here. A curious dichotomy to say the least. In any event Stephen Schwartz is a fraud who has faked a conversion to Islam under the tutelage of a Balkan shaykh named Ka'abani. His sole purpose in life is to blame every awful thing about Islam on the Wahhabis and every to attribute every laudable (from his perspective) aspect to Sufism. He is a half witted fraud, in short.

How about this, why don't you step out as middle man and allow me to discuss with your "Saudi friends" issues which seem to be well above your pay grade. If they don't know Ahl al-Shaykh they are completely useless. A bit like discussing quantum physics with a bushman. Perhaps they would care to log on to our little forum?

Play nice al-rawandi, you reported BAA for accusing you of ignorance, defend your assertion that this is beyond the ability of Ghost to understand or else consider this an official reminder for a personal attack.

[al-rawandi]

How about this, why don't you step out as middle man and allow me to discuss with your "Saudi friends" issues which seem to be well above your pay grade.

Oh, might al-rawandi, please tell us all you know, what with your high standing and access to confidential information.
...Well, I suppose you might call it confidential, but for the rest of us wikipedia is called 'open source'.

I am not quite sure what you are asking here. What would you like to know? And I don't bother referring to Wikipedia on matters related to Saudi Arabia. Mostly Wiki is lacking this arena.

As I said, you seem to be a bit short on information there and I would be happy to discuss this with your mysterious Saudi friends.

[al-rawandi]

It is the LEFT, however you define it that produces some segment of its ranks who flock to the most wretched theocratic and dictatorial regimes in an attempt to invert reality and root for their own destruction.

(emphasis added)

The underlined bit is the key of Glazov's failure in his rant titled United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Much like others refer to "the Jew", "the muslim", "the christian" "the capitalist" and so on, he tars all "lefties" with the same brush. In an excerpt of less than 500 words (published by Amazon.com with the author's approval) he stereotypes every member of "the left" (whatever that means) as "the believer" no less than nine times. "The left" covers a very wide spectrum ranging from essentially capitalist social democrats to anarcho-syndicalists. "Christians" similarly span viewpoints anywhere between the Westborough Baptists and Unitarians, the latter being virtually indistinguishable from atheists. Need I point out that ranges like that can be observed among "the capitalist" and any other group of humans one can possibly slap a label on?

Despite mentioning that "the LEFT, however you define it [...] produces some segment of its ranks who" basically support oppressive and murderous regimes because those regimes are regarded as leftist, you make the exact same mistake as Glazov when you say: "The difference between right and left is as follows....", and then go on to quote a few people's idiotic statements, but the examples of the idiotic statements by the likes of Chomsky give you no more justification to make them representative of all "lefties" than Phelps' insane rants makes him representative of all christians or Gardener's wish to bulldoze every single religious architectural structure makes him representative of all atheists.

I believe you have missed my point. My point was that not a single rightist has stepped forward to support a murderous regime on MORAL grounds. Merely on pragmatic grounds. I could go on about indifference to suffering and what not, but there was a specific point.

But allow me to forward this discussion by asking you why you think it is that so many liberals have come forward to make the comments that Glazov details and some I have detailed here? Why do you think someone like Ward Churchill would lie about Indian descent and then call the occupants of the WTC "Little Eichmanns"? What would drive such duplicity and self deception? And why is this trait shared with a number of others on the far left?

[Chinaski]

If these accusations of the left supporting obviously immoral leaders are true, it doesn't seem to be out of a shared immorality rather than ignorance of the immorality they are supporting.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If these accusations of the left supporting obviously immoral leaders are true, it doesn't seem to be out of a shared immorality rather than ignorance of the immorality they are supporting.

I think the accusation is of deliberate ignorance. Confirmation bias if you like. "These people are fellow travelers, so they can't be as evil as the right-wing press paints them." That kind of thing. Although I haven't read the book, so I am merely going on what has been said in this thread. Would I be right?

If so, I think that was definitely true back in the cold war days but I don't see it as being anywhere near as prevalent these days (although not completely absent either.)

[Arse]

Very well I shall post all the "cards". You needn't go to the ex-Muslim forum.

Oh, don't worry, it was no bother. I'm a mod on one so I have to go there every day anyway.

I am an ex-Muslim myself, and before that a devout leftists, whose own self loathing and identification with evil led to the former.

Oh. You're one of those. Just as long as you don't make the mistake of projecting your own personal failings onto the entire left, eh?

1) Ahl al-Shaykh... meaning descendants of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone I am sure your "friends" are ignorant of, however a pivotal figure in the development of the Saudi power structure.

This is a strange comment. The founder of the Salafi brand of literalism is one of the most famous names in Islam - I would imagine there are very few people in Saudi Arabia who are ignorant of him. As it happens, the two people who have answered me so far on this subject are an Egyptian and an American ex-convert, and even they are not ignorant of him.

2) Khadim al-Haramayn.."Custodian of the two Holy Mosques". Something your friends will know.

Yes, and its also the title given to the ruler of Saudi Arabia.

Now, having cleared away your red herrings, and ignoring your pathetic attempts to belittle me with ad homs and sly insinuations that my friends are imaginary, let's translate your previous statement into plain english in order to further examine how pointless and empty it really was.....

The Saudi Arabian royal family has no motive for funding mosques, schools, etc across the world, other than to appease the Salafists in their own country, in order to hang on to their power and have the head of their family retain his position as head of the entire country.

The above is basically what you said - so as an attempt to refute the notion that the right is at fault for supporting oppressive regimes, eg, the Saudis, you write a pointlessly convoluted post talking about the motives of the Saudis for spreading Salafism which doesn't in any sense refute the fact that they do. Your pathetic attempt to use the Arabic language as if it was some kind of magic incantation which would obscure your red herring failed, and in the process your attempt to defend the right against the charge of being in no way morally superior to the left, also failed.

Try and take on board the fact that you are not the only ex-muslim on the planet. Needlessly over complicating your posts to try and hide what you're really saying won't work - not even in Arabic, we will just ask the other ex-muslims we know to translate.

[al-rawandi]

If these accusations of the left supporting obviously immoral leaders are true, it doesn't seem to be out of a shared immorality rather than ignorance of the immorality they are supporting.

I think this is basically incorrect. When Castro was sending homosexuals to concentration camps in Cuba, a number of liberals issued praise. One that stands out was that the homosexuals must feel like it is paradise to be put in a place with so many others of their kind. It is as if concentration camps are a good thing. Auschwitz was an extended Passover party they might assume.

The precise immoral acts were what were called not only moral but the pinnacle of human civilization. For instance Chomsky's praise of Hanoi as the "eternal city". It goes beyond "they aren't so bad" to "the eternal city". There is a huge difference.