« Why They Hate Us Revisited | Main | Torture Redux »

January 24, 2005

Comments

Now that is a good quote.

...but wanna bet it won't get any play, except possibly to disparage it, on your usual anti-Muslim websites?

on your usual anti-Muslim websites?

I know it's just the usual turn of phrase, Jes, but they're not Sebastian's...

I know it's just the usual turn of phrase, Jes, but they're not Sebastian's...

Whoops. Ooops. No. No such implication was intended, and I apologize to Sebastian for the unintended implication.

Maybe if the Imam would open a U-2 concert he could get some ink!!

No worries, Jes. I've grown hypersensitive to the use of "you" online (it's usually obvious IRL) because I've been in the midst of one too many flame wars that grew out of a missed referent. I presumed everyone else understood but I wanted to make sure.

[That's actually the reason I sometimes use the pronoun "one" even though it sounds excessively twee to me: it's much harder for people to accidentally take offense.]

FWIW, I'm with Jesurgislac on this one: while it may be nice, for a change, to see a quote from a prominent Muslim imam which, for once, actually makes some sort of statement in favor of "tolerance" and against war, terrorism and bloodshed on religious grounds, it's unlikely that this will change anybody's fundamental opinions about Islam: least of all the online blood-and-guts, nuke-Mecca fringe which pollutes the outer ranges of the blogosphere. Like most extremist exponents of politics and/or ideology, the nutball anti-Muslim ranters will proabably just, as Jes posits, disparage Sheikh Al-Sudais' comments; contrast them with some kill-the-infidel hate-blather lifted off al-Jazeera or someplace, and go on, utterly unfazed in their online hatemongering.

Jay C,

Yes, perhaps. But at least now when faced with some anti-Muslim blogger who insists that the entire Muslim world is supporting the terrorists and challenges me to point to where a leader of the religion has in no uncertain terms condemned their methods (this has happened to me countless times), I can point to this one. It weakens their argument in the eyes of perhaps some on the fence.

Yes, in such arguments as these, it always is good to focus on the fact that you are more likely to influence a listener than your opponent.

Curiously, just for research purposes, I cruised around a few of the usual-suspect blogs for their take on the Sheikh's sermon, and, far from "disparaging" it, seem to be simply (well, as of now) ignoring it: not so much as a line on it on LGF or JihadWatch or any of the ones I surfed. Strange.

I actually learned about that from Chrenkoff and Crossroads Arabia, which is a great source for all news related to the KSA.

Any reason why this didn't get more play?

...but to stay on the topic:

And on April 19, according to Reuters, Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Sudais, one of the top Imams at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest shrine, in a sermon carried live by several Arabic television and radio networks, prayed to G-d to "terminate" the Jews, whom he described as "the scum of humanity... the rats of the world... prophet killers... pigs and monkeys."

Edward, will you update yout post?

Ah, Edward. So willing to swallow the propaganda at face value. You used to tout Qaradawi in the same manner. al-Sudais is, of course, a Saudi mouthpiece (hence this story being in Arab News, which itself has all the news value of an official press release), touting this particular line only because it benefits the royals at this moment to nullify the threat to their rule from al Qaeda. When left to his own devices, of course, he is busy urging good Muslims to kill Christians and Hindus, and denying the humanity of Jews. Naturally, many comply. Canada won't even let the good Sheikh visit due to his detestable religious views.

Oh yes, he also endorses the Iraqi insurgency.

So why don't "anti-Muslim Americans" take note of this fellow's proclamation? Perhaps because it's utterly insincere in light of the Imam's bloody hands?

So, let me see if I get this right Stan.

Your response to a message that Islam prohibits violence is to try and discredit its messenger rather than promote that message?

Do you see your own role in the cylce of violence here?

Edward, given that you specifically emphasize the messenger in your post -- "the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca," natch -- your riposte to Stan is not an honest one. Shame. He's not contributing to any "cycle of violence" by pointing out the truth on your source.

Edward,

Your response to a message that Islam prohibits violence is to try and discredit its messenger rather than promote that message?

You can do better then that, Edward. You were hyping the guy up a second ago: ...but the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca decries extremism...

Is there a reason why you chose this particular speaker and stressed his credentials?

Will you update your post?

Tacitus, beat me by a few seconds!

Further, despite that being presented as a "Reuters" story, I can find no evidence of it anywhere except that website you cite, which doesn't seem to be a particularly unbiased source.

But back to my original comment...why is your first instinct to discredit a message that you should welcome?

Edward,

I can find no evidence...

If I find the evidence, will you update your post?

why is your first instinct

Because this is not the first day (or year) that I am following this particular subject.

....why is your first instinct to discredit a message that you should welcome?

Er, because you have a long history of citing these folks without criticism, context or, apparently, cursory Googling?

I'll ask the same of you Tacitus. Here's a man who may or may not have voice support for violence in the past, but who is in no uncertain terms condemming them now...why jump to discredit him?

Why not focus on what he's saying now?

natch -- your riposte to Stan is not an honest one.

Like hell it's not. The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this and yet when one comes along, the first response is to discredit and dismiss it. Who exactly is being dishonest here?

From National Review:

The themes of his sermons are characterized by confrontation toward non-Muslims. Al-Sudayyis calls Jews "scum of the earth" and "monkeys and pigs" who should be "annihilated." Other enemies of Islam, he says, are "worshippers of the cross" and "idol-worshipping Hindus" who should be fought. Al-Sudayyis has been consistent in calling for jihad in Kashmir and Chechnya, for Jerusalem to be liberated, and for the "occupiers in Iraq" to also be fought. He often claims that Islam is superior to Western culture.

There's also a ton of other (rather extensive) quotes. Will you update now, or should I keep digging?

And let's be really clear about the messenger here. He is the chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. One assumes that his word carries weight. If one were to really, honestly, want a message of nonviolence to be broadcast by such a man, one would celebrate this speech.

The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this and yet when one comes along, the first response is to discredit and dismiss it.

Will you support David Duke for the head of NAACP based on one quote?

Fine. I'll update the post and point out that the messenger here has seemingly endorsed violence in the past.

Then each of you will explain, in return, why your knee-jerk reaction is to refuse to see this as a good thing. Deal?

Why not focus on what he's saying now?

If you're determined to be a sucker -- and you are where things Muslim are concerned, it seems -- you are of course free. Sensible people (and the Canadian foreign office to boot) tend to think that context and background are important. If someone has repeatedly stated to fellow Muslims that non-Muslims deserve slaughter and/or are inhuman, and then produces a contrary statement for non-Muslim consumption, one may rightly think two things: 1) we've heard this sort of double-messaging from these sources before, and 2) the latter statement may not be entirely sincere. Toss in the realities of the Sheikh's occupation and current events in the Kingdom, and things become fairly clear. I'm happy he's saying this; I also think he's lying.

Like hell it's not.

Indeed it's not. You can't tout your source, and then complain that the source is inviolate when it's completely demolished.

The anti-Muslim contingent will chew your ear off demanding to hear messages like this....

Sincere messages, sure. And by the way: folks who demand to hear them aren't ipso fact "anti-Muslim." Just saying, chief.

Edward,

Given the context and history, it seems that it's your knee that's jerking here.

Will you support David Duke for the head of NAACP based on one quote?

Wow. Edward was not endorsing anyone for anything based on anything. He was providing a quote that indicates a welcome message (IMO), regardless of what else this man may have said. By all means, provide those other quotes, but if you are doing so in an attempt to dismiss the topic of the post, I don't find it useful, as I've been noticing a degenerating quality of debate here of late.

Tacitus,

You can't tout your source, and then complain that the source is inviolate when it's completely demolished.

Fake, but accurate?

If one were to really, honestly, want a message of nonviolence to be broadcast by such a man, one would celebrate this speech.

Wrong, Edward. Decrying dishonesty and not wearing your own set of rose-colored glasses is not evidence of dishonesty or a lack of desire for a "message of nonviolence."

I'll update the post and point out that the messenger here has seemingly endorsed violence in the past.

Seemingly? You really consider the examples presented as being in any way ambiguous? I am repulsed.

Then each of you will explain, in return, why your knee-jerk reaction is to refuse to see this as a good thing.

It's as if you haven't read this thread at all, Edward. Short version: you have a history of uncritically swallowing these propaganda stunts without any examination of source or background. We have to check, because your agenda -- the promotion of Islam -- is a constant and skewing bias in your writing on the subject.

We have to check, because your agenda -- the promotion of Islam -- is a constant and skewing bias in your writing on the subject.

You are so wrong and out of line here as to be bordering on libel Tacitus. I'll accept your retraction in lieu of banning you. Your call.


Edward,

Here's a question. Since I am against terrorists and those who support them, and, as we all know, a *real* Muslim simply can not be a terrorist or a terrorist supporter, then how can I be "anti-Muslim"??

Clever Stan.

I updated the post...why don't you offer your part of the deal?

Tac, I gotta say I'm surprised by the statement Edward quotes above. I generally have quite a bit of respect for you, but that seems unkind, untrue, and a personal slag that goes beyond the bounds of decency.

Here is my take on this. Even if the quote is only a propaganda game, it can be easily turned. It should be quoted again and again as publically as possible.

Edward,

Tacitus is right, you're biased. Why, look at your own update! Biased sources? A biased source might have a certain spin on things, but unless all those sources are outright lying, there's simply no context where those quotes would be acceptable.

The irony here is that Tacitus and I were asking you the exact question that you've posed in your update.

So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??

I did take note of it. See my post from January 20 at

http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2005/01/haj_pilgrims_ur.html

Even if the quote is only a propaganda game, it can be easily turned. It should be quoted again and again as publically as possible.

Exactly. Which is why googling the speaker to find previous endorsements of violence totally misses the point.

Edward: beat me to it. Tacitus: if it's not possible to make your points without resorting to personal attacks, they aren't worth making. If it is, then make them that way.

Just out of curiosity, if the Pope suddenly announced that the Catholic church had changed its position on preisthood for women, would we be pulling up previous quotes from him as evidence that he were lying?

I'm all for discussing the possibility that it's a political ploy, but the ferocity with which some parties are attacking the notion makes me think that there is a vested interest in maintaining an internal model here.

So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??

The only answer to that I can see Stan is that they don't want that message to influence nonMuslims.

And for the record, Tacitus didn't write that I was biased. Of course I am. He wrote that my agenda is promoting Islam. That's a lie on so many levels it's impossible to know where to begin dismissing it.

My agenda is keeping the hatemongerers from stirring up otherwise tolerant Americans.

Edward,

So, again, Edward, why would someone suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??

Bah. My question was directed at you given your reaction to my post: January 24, 2005 07:43 PM

Again, why would someone [you] suggest that a message that potentially influences millions of Muslims worldwide is not worth notice??

Ah well. I have to admit I was assuming Tacitus and Stan LS and others like them would prove my point on some other weblog than this one, but my point was proved.

Too bad.

I'm perhaps still lost Stan. Your time stamp is different from my display.

Your question seems to be why would I suggest that the Imam's previous messages endorsing violence were not worth notice. In another context they would be, but as Sebastian and doubl-plus-ungood rightly point out, in the context in which I first presented this new message they are not.

Here is the message that anti-Muslim Americans have been demanding. The anti-Muslim Americans win here. They got what they demanded.

Now they should acknowledge it. Not dismiss it because of the messenger.

Edward,

anti-Muslim Americans...

Such as?

Not dismiss it because of the messenger.

Again, you hyped the guy up because of his status and now, suddenly when it doesn't fit your agenda, the messenger is no longer relevant?

Again, you hyped the guy up because of his status and now, suddenly when it doesn't fit your agenda, the messenger is no longer relevant?

You can cling to that all you like Stan. Everyone else here appears to appreciate its irrelevance in this context. The point of emphasizing his position is to make clear his is not an irrelevant opinion. Folks worldwide will take notice. Not to suggest he has always been true to this message.

But while we're discussing "agendas," I revealed mine. Care to do the same?

You are so wrong and out of line here as to be bordering on libel Tacitus. I'll accept your retraction in lieu of banning you. Your call.

Eh. Ban away. I've seen you surrender your otherwise keen faculties of reason on this subject enough times to know that your personal connections override all else. You are intent on promoting Islam -- and yes, I think that is an accurate phrasing -- inasmuch as you chronically misrepresent it and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively. If this isn't "promotion," precious little is. While I appreciate your point that al-Sudais' statement ought to be taken as it is, that point is ultimately wrong. There were plenty willing to publicize the calls to peace of Hitler and Stalin as well: you've chosen un-admirable company in that respect.

And Hilzoy, this is the second time you've jumped in to chide without reading the attendant thread: the subject of Edward's chronic bias was brought up specifically in the context of his request for reasons why many of us refused to take his post at face value. If you consider answering his question directly to constitute a "personal attack," so be it. Meanwhile, of course, the embittered obsessives who compare me to David Duke(!) and smear Moe Lane as a bigot(!!) continue their baleful residence here. Meanwhile, a site editor who declares that disagreement with him is ipso facto evidence of intellectual insincerity continues his residence here. Noted, Hilzoy. Noted, Edward.

Hasn't Edward identified himself in the past as an evangelical Christian? Promoting Islam would seem to be a weird agenda for someone so identified, but I've been wrong about weirder things in the past. I'm gonna take it as given, though, that it ain't so.

Edward,

Not to suggest he has always been true to this message.

You didn't include that bit in your post. Didn't find the speaker's credibility as relevant?

But while we're discussing "agendas," I revealed mine. Care to do the same?

Point things out as I see them.

"I'm perhaps still lost Stan. Your time stamp is different from my display."

I've complained about this before - when you do preview, the timestamps are shown in Greenwich (or some other even less intuitive zone).

Eh. Ban away.

Done.

This acrimony sucks.

I would ask the powers-that-be to consider shunning before banning - and to consider getting a non-involved opposite-ideology power to do the banning if necessary in order to avoid questions of emotion and bias.

You didn't include that bit in your post. Didn't find the speaker's credibility as relevant?

We can rounds on that until we're dizzy, but in this context, no. I found his position relevant. I expect his message to influence those who remain impressionable because of that position.

This acrimony sucks.

I would ask the powers-that-be to consider shunning before banning - and to consider getting a non-involved opposite-ideology power to do the banning if necessary in order to avoid questions of emotion and bias.

A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. Thanks for the input rilkefan. But there has been plenty of "shunning" already in this instance.

No, shunning doesn't work. Too many people get too much of a kick out of troll-baiting; trolls get validated, not shunned. Banning is best.

Edward,

Note that you found it relevant to comment on the credibility of the sources I've provided (without providing an example of them being biased), meanwhile I question the crediblity of the Sheikh by actually providing a quote from him and suddendly his credibility is not relevant.

Note that you found it relevant to comment on the credibility of the sources I've provided (without providing an example of them being biased),

Fair enough Stan. You'll see I've updated the the update.

I was having a bit of a coniption (sp?) when I did that...and have since seen its irrelevance.

Edward,

A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. Thanks for the input rilkefan. But there has been plenty of "shunning" already in this instance.

If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I'm requesting to be banned instead of shun. Maybe then you guys can have a real "debate" - not some silliness where people disagree with you.

Stan,

is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?

I've complained about this before - when you do preview, the timestamps are shown in Greenwich (or some other even less intuitive zone).

anyone familiar with typepad who knows how to fix that?

Sigh, this got way too personal for absolutely no reason.

This may very well be a propaganda ploy for US consumption. But if we use it properly, so what? Every time a Muslim religious leader defends terrorism, we need to ask him to deal with this quote. A couple of good things could happen with that:

A) The quote becomes important and authoritative.
B) Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais refutes the quote later and is exposed as a propagandistic hack.
C) He didn't mean it, but ends up forced to defend it as a sort of pseudo-A.

This same quote:

"Recently, at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Sudais gave a sermon, broadcast live, in which he prayed to Allah to "terminate" Jews, "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs, and monkeys."

can also be found in a New Yorker piece by David Remnick. Which is about as trustworthy a source as you will find.

I'm sorry, I recognize that there are Muslims who can be anti-Israel and even anti-semitic, yet sincerely reject violence against innocents. And I do not think the United States and Israel's interests always overlap, and I especially do not think the United States and the Likud party's interests always overlap.

But there is being anti-Likud, and then there is being anti-Israel, and then there is being anti-Semitic, and then there is praying for the genocide of the subhuman Jews. I don't think you go from that to a sincere renunciation of extremism and violence against innocents in two years.

As Sebastian points out, it could be useful & hopeful even if it is insincere. It could be a sign that:

1) the political climate in Saudi Arabia has changed--they seem to have started taking terrorism more seriously when terrorists started killing them too.

or

2) that you still can be as disgustingly anti-Semitic as you want, but the Americans are rich and powerful and you have to make nice ocasionally.

or both. Of which 1 is still good news, 2 not so much.

But then, my agenda--the promotion of Judaism--is a constant and skewing bias in my writing on the subject.

Seriously: yes, of course it affects your perspective when the religion they are talking about includes the person you love most in the world. That can lead you into some errors, but it can lead you out of others. It is not a good reason to completely dismiss everything someone says, or accuse them of bad faith. It does not mean you have an agenda of promoting that religion--especially as Edward, unlike, say, me, is a practicing Christian who has no plans to convert to his partner's religion.

cleek,

is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?

When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.

I can't really comment on this case, but in general I think it's important for this blog to cultivate strong conservative commenter voices given the current balance. If not I'm going to start picking fights with hilzoy and Anarch. $0.02.

Sigh, this got way too personal for absolutely no reason.

Amen to that. I continue to hold my opinion that Tacitus is eloquent and generally thoughtful. I'm disappointed by this banning, as I appreciate the voices of conservatism on this blog, and thought him representative. Sadly, I may have to reassess that thinking, as slipping into an emotional attack like that is intolerable, in my opinion.

Stan: "If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I'm requesting to be banned instead of shun."

I don't know who rilkefan meant, but I suspect it was directed at the comment immediately preceding yours, and thus not about you. I don't want to shun you or ban you, at any rate. There are posting rules, and I don't see that you've violated them.

Katherine,

I'm sorry, I recognize that there are Muslims who can be anti-Israel and even anti-semitic, yet sincerely reject violence against innocents.

But can rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs, and monkeys. be considered innocents. What's the Sheikh's definition of innocents?

Fights with the gentle rilkefan??! Yikes!

When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.

Now I'm getting confused. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the original question?

Stan, no one's shunning you that I can see - hope you'll stick around.

"When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past."

I hold the president to a higher standard than some religious figure in another country. And when Bush says something admirable he should be praised for it, or at least until he takes it back or fails to carry through. Edward wrote just such a pro-Bush post recently.

double,

My point is that the Sheikh's past statements are very relevant and I am in no way out of line when I question his credibility by bringing them up.

But can rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs, and monkeys. be considered innocents. What's the Sheikh's definition of innocents?

And that is an excellent point. But whatever the answer, one would assume that the 3,000 killed on 9/11 would be included as innocents, so it's still a welcome denouncement, no?

When our President makes a statement, it gets dissected and compared with everything he has said (or done) in the past. On this very blog, too.

no Stan, what I asked was: is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?

"Fights with the gentle rilkefan??! Yikes!"

Aren't fights over minor points reportedly the most vicious? Think how bad fights over nothing at all would be.

double,

one would assume that the 3,000 killed on 9/11 would be included as innocents

That's your assumption and mine, but I'ld like to see his definition.

cleek,

is what he said here a good thing for a man of his position to say, or a bad thing ?

I am sceptical for reasons shown on this thread. Let's wait and see what else comes out of his mouth.


For the record, I don't think my opinion on this would be much different if I were not in love with a Muslim. I believe that tolerance is something you look for opportunities to practice. This speech was one of those opportunities.

I was perhaps a bit lazy in not researching the messenger, but as I lifted it wholesale from Sullivan, I figured I could rely on him to have revealed any obvious problems there...my bad.

But none of that changes the fact that this sort of message, sincere or not, is exactly what critics of Islam have been demanding. All criticism of the messenger should, in this context, begin with acknowledgement of that.

If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I'm requesting to be banned instead of shun. Maybe then you guys can have a real "debate" - not some silliness where people disagree with you.

This was in no way directed at you Stan. I'd sincerly miss you around here.

Not to make too much drama out of this, but when I noted that A similar offer has been made behind the scenes. I meant that I've asked the conservative writers here to feel free to override the banning if they see fit.

Edward,

But none of that changes the fact that this sort of message, sincere or not, is exactly what critics of Islam have been demanding.

That's right, and if his statements will be consistent in the future I'll buy him a beer ;)

"I believe that tolerance is something you look for opportunities to practice. This speech was one of those opportunities."

Yeah, I know, I know. You're always looking for opportunities to say nice things about Bush too...I should probably err more on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt. But when people are consistently not honest, or they go around calling my family members subhuman, I think they ought to lose the benefit of the doubt. It can be earned back, but it takes more than one conciliatory remark.

SH is right here (4:07 post): ObWi really ought to be above this sort of flaming nonsense - and his points re the Sheikh are what I was hoping someone would (finally) mention.
However, Edward, Tacitus did have a point in his original post (2:46, following Stan LS's of 2:43) - posting a piece citing a quote from a prominent Muslim cleric, which a little research would quickly show to be quite at odds with prior statements of his is, sorry to say, sloppy blogging (and I am also surprised Andrew Sullivan didn't catch this bit in his post, either) - but props to you for seeing to it in your Update (although it shouldn't have needed "badgering from conservative readers").
However, Tacitus being Tacitus, the valid point he made was quickly lost behind the screen of superior sneering
and ad hominem snark which has unfortunately seems to have afflicted most of his post-RedState blogging.
Too bad you've banned him though, because I would have liked to get his clarification on this particular item:

"You are intent on promoting Islam -- and yes, I think that is an accurate phrasing -- inasmuch as you chronically misrepresent it and its spokesmen in order to portray it positively."

I wonder, thus, what Tacitus would accept as a "correct" attitude towards "[Islam] and its spokesmen"? - inasmuch as I interpret his comment to mean that anything that "portray[s] it positively" is "misrepresent[ation]". Is this not almost a caricature of anti-Muslim prejudice in action? Or is it just prejudice against exclusionist violent jihadist Islam? And if so, why not just say so, instead of stooping to personal sniping?

Tacitus,

(The terrible truth, you see, is that the links are delicious. MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!)


??????????

That's right, and if his statements will be consistent in the future I'll buy him a beer ;)

You're just saying that cause you know he doesn't drink! ;-)

But when people are consistently not honest, or they go around calling my family members subhuman, I think they ought to lose the benefit of the doubt. It can be earned back, but it takes more than one conciliatory remark.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting Sheikh Al-Sudais win a Nobel Peace Prize.

posting a piece citing a quote from a prominent Muslim cleric, which a little research would quickly show to be quite at odds with prior statements of his is, sorry to say, sloppy blogging

Agree.

(although it shouldn't have needed "badgering from conservative readers").

But it was only due to Stan's badgering that I updated the post. He deserves the credit. ;ppp

Murat, I think "Tacitus LS" is a different person attempting to lighten the mood around here (it's a joke).

e

forget it, murat, troll in action.....

"Murat, I think "Tacitus LS" is a different person attempting to lighten the mood around here (it's a joke)."

If so, I'm not amused - for one thing, the handle is a posting violation.

If so, I'm not amused - for one thing, the handle is a posting violation.

My first thought as well, but then I figured I'd give the person the benefit of the doubt. Having said, that these two comments do seem to be the very first from this person, so I suspect you and Jay C are right.

Taken care of.

To reiterate: No impersonating other posters!

If you want to make a joke, you had best make it very clear that it isn't really the poster. Posting under Sabastian Holsclaw instead of my actual name (for instance) is not going to cut it.

We work really hard to try to keep this place nice. Comeon guys.

Yes, obviously I was a different poster trying an experimental "threadjack into absurdity" technique to defuse by confusion (if I'd stopped and read the rest of the rest of the thread I'd have noticed things had already gotten too flamey too fast). I apologize for any posting rules I broke in the name of comment vigilantism.

The links lead to Ice Cream of the Future, a not-uncommon State Fair attraction which can be described as many things, but rarely as "delicious."

My opinions on the thread itself fall somewhere between Sebastian and Tacitus and bear little repeating.

-Lurkerman

Lurkerman,

your current IP address is different from the one the other comments were made from. Please confirm you wish to continue commenting. No offense intended, but I'd like to nip this tangent in the bud.

I'm on a different machine, but yeah, same poster - I just felt the need to apologize, since I posted stupidly and in haste. I don't usually post so if you want to ban this IP to be sure I don't really mind.

I don't usually post so if you want to ban this IP to be sure I don't really mind.

Not at all. Please stick around.

Whew. Go away for a while, and it all goes downhill ... I unfortunately was not aware of his prior statements, but I don't think they are ambiguous. Point to Tacitus. That said, personal attacks are out of line.

Stan:
If this is directed at me (someone has already publicly asked you for a ban to be placed on me), then I'm requesting to be banned instead of shun.

I have not seen a request for banning you, and would be suprised to see one.

Edward:
As I stated before in a thread: After the murder on Theo van Gogh a Shia Mosque decided to ask the three major Shi'ite religious leaders for a fatwa. Ayatollah Mohammed Hoessein Fadlallah from Lebanon, ayatollah Sadik Al-Hoesseini Al-Shirazi from Iran and ayatollah Ali Al-Hoesseini Al-Sistani from Iraq all condemned violence by muslims in the Netherlands by fatwa. But there was hardly any publicity given - sensationalism scored better at the time.

Fadlallah told Muslims in the Netherlands to face the attacks with "civilized dialogue, away from acts of violence."
"We call upon our sons and brethren to preserve public order in the good country that has hosted and provided them with the means of a decent living," Fadlallah wrote. He was AFAIK also one of the first condemners of 9/11 and has made fatwa's before forbidding people to play their own judge; they should use the courts. At the same time is this the guy strongly associated with Hezbollah and thus with suicide bombers (at least in the eighties).

al-Sistani you know. Al-Shirazi is as conservative as they come, but describes the use of violence i.e. like:

Just as violence is a weapon, non-violence is a weapon too. However, the weapon of non-violence is sharper than the weapon of violence. Just as the soul is stronger than the body, so too is non-violence, since it is the weapon of the soul, and so it is more powerful than the weapon of the body which is made of matter. For this reason, the non-violence of the prophet Abraham (pbuh) defeated King Nimrod's violence, and Moses' non-violence defeated Pharaoh's violence, and Jesus' non-violence defeated Herod's violence, and the non-violence of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) defeated the violence of the pagans’ great knights.

If an individual is able to use the weapon of non-violence then it is inevitable that his adversary would succumb to him no matter how strong or ferocious his enemy may be. So we see that Jesus (pbuh) ordered his followers to offer the right cheek of their face to he who slaps them on the left. In doing so he does not want to encourage the offender but he wants to draw the offender to the territory of justice and virtue. Since such a reaction would create a powerful storm in the soul of the offender in sympathy with the victim, which in turn leads the oppressor to be humble before the oppressed. What a transcendental wisdom it is that one can sustain a continuous and satisfactory victory by enduring a little suffering and attract the intelligent foe to one's principles.

wow, the left has started showing some teeth around there, maybe it's time to start posting again. congrats edward, you would have been quite justified doing this many months ago.

wow, the left has started showing some teeth around there, maybe it's time to start posting again.

I don't think this was a partisan issue. I think it was one of a lack of respect shown to each other, regardless of which side of the fence it was on. As I said, aside from the snark, I admire Tac as a thoughtful poster, despite having a difference in political view.

dutch, edward,

Ah! I guess it was posted by a troll under praktike's name. It's not longer there.
The discussion was pretty heated (as always) and I fell for it. Feeling stupid now :(

I see

"Ban him and Stan.

Posted by: praktike | December 30, 2004 01:19 PM"


Stan:
The discussion was pretty heated (as always) and I fell for it. Feeling stupid now :(

Don't. If you had not said anything things might not have been cleared and you would still feel the (non-existing) resentment.

No, that was me.

IIRC, it revolved around one posted saying something nasty about Edward and a misunderstanding involving Stan and someone with a grandmother. I thought I apologized for overreacting, but if not, I do now.

Oh, no biggie then :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad