The Slovenian war lasted about 10 days. The Serbs in Croatia carved out a separate republic of Krajina from the lands they historically occupied. Croatia and Slovenia, both having been recognized very quickly by the major NATO players, were firmly in that camp. It wasn’t until the war in Bosnia that NATO could come up with some kind of pretext for getting more deeply involved in the region.

“There are many, many countries close to NATO nations with closer links to China.”

Are they having armed insurgencies, partially led by a man who has known ties to the CIA? And perhaps you’d like to name some of those “many countries” close to NATO nations with ties to China. Nations which are also sources for a significant amount of China’s oil.

“I don’t follow. Please explain”

Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have led to the fall of two trusted Western puppets. Should these uprisings continue and put someone into power in either nation who is unacceptable to the West, it would be nice to have a potential base of operations from whence to lean on either of those new governments.

“In the case of Yugoslavia, it was breaking down and weakening Eastern European states, which has been the norm since 1991. More importantly, it helped establish NATO as a police force in Eastern Europe, to justify its existence, and to establish it as a sort of international authority.”

This doesn’t explain why it took so long for NATO to intervine. If that was its goal, the intervention would’ve started as soon as Croatia and Slovenia broke away.

“In Libya, it is most likely to block access to China[...]”
There are many, many countries close to NATO nations with closer links to China.

“It is also a great way to ensure that Tunisia and Egypt don’t become unacceptably democratic.”
I don’t follow. Please explain.

In the case of Yugoslavia, it was breaking down and weakening Eastern European states, which has been the norm since 1991. More importantly, it helped establish NATO as a police force in Eastern Europe, to justify its existence, and to establish it as a sort of international authority. It was also to check any attempt by Russia for regaining influence in the region. In Libya, it is most likely to block access to China, which was receiving a large amount of its oil from that country; recently 30,000 Chinese workers were forced to leave. It is also a great way to ensure that Tunisia and Egypt don’t become unacceptably democratic.

“Carmichael was not geographically specific, so I saw no reason to be either”

But you were. You limited yourself to the most extreme locales of anti-Semitism so as to invalidate comparisons of Islamophobia.

I cannot speak for the other guy but my point is that the techniques of Islamophobia are almost identical to those used by anti-Semites, even to this day. Some of those I already outlined.

“NATO does not fight to save any lives. It fights to increase its own influence and by extension, advance the interests of its principle members.”
Could you be more specific? What interests of NATO’s principle members were being advanced in Bosnia and Kosovo and are being advanced in Libya aside from protecting the lives of (mostly Muslim) civilians?

“Ian is basically using the extreme example of anti-Semitism in Germany, as opposed to the anti-Semitism in countries like the USA or England.”
Carmichael was not geographically specific, so I saw no reason to be either.

The problem is that Ian is basically using the extreme example of anti-Semitism in Germany, as opposed to the anti-Semitism in countries like the USA or England. Were Jews leaving the USA in droves? Of course not. But it would be ludicrous to say that there wasn’t mainstream anti-Semitism in America at the time, and it frequently resembled what is said about Muslims today.

Perhaps as a compromise we can compare it to anti-Catholic persecution from the 19th century to early 20th. Read some of Jack Chick’s anti-Catholic tracts, and you will see a definite resemblance.

Simply put, I agree that the world does need conditioning for a multicultural, accepting, tolerant environment that is inclusive to all people and discourages hatred and is culturally sensitive. However, when cultural sensitivity comes into conflict to one’s right to free speech, other than in cases of intimidation, I (and the ACLU) stand on the side of free speech.

In response to Ruslan and Ian, Islamophobia and intolerance toward Muslims really is out of control in this country. I don’t like Nazi comparisons, but the propaganda is just as intense as around the mid-late ’30s against Jews.

Side note: I have developed greater disgust at Terry Jones, because I recently learned that his church is an abusive cult, which makes people labour for twelve long hours every day, without pay, packing furniture for his wife’s business.

If you want to know what a right-wing talking point is, this:

“For the third time in as many decades, NATO countries are currently spending millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent the mass murder of Muslims. ”

Nonsense. NATO does not fight to save any lives. It fights to increase its own influence and by extension, advance the interests of its principle members.

“We don’t need to worry about Islamophobia[...]”
While I’m not a fan of the term “Islamophobia”, no part of my post indicates that I think discrimination against Muslims is not something we as a society need to worry about. It seems impossible to have a conversation without you making up strawmen.

“The rest of this is just a lot of typical right-wing talking points.”
There is no shame in not responding to a point if no response can be made to it, but accusing someone of using “right-wing talking points” is not a good enough criticism. It raises too many questions. If I did use talking points, is that a bad thing? I suppose if I stole my arguments from someone else then I’m not very original, but are we showing off writing skills or having a discussion? Are you accusing me of plagarism? Why are they “right-wing”? Does being right-wing or left-wing automatically make an argument invalid? Were your April 26th posts talking points too? They seemed to repeat points I have heard people make them before, so the same criticisms apply.

The rest of this is just a lot of typical right-wing talking points.

It saddens me, that people who yell free speech don’t realize that words hurt. Emotional abuse have scars just like physical abuse. It reminds me of when I used to see the news (I canceled cable, so I don’t see the news often) people who suffer emotional abuse eventually snap, thereby catching the abuser off guard. This usually catches everyone off guard, actually. Or, should I say, surprise people who didn’t or couldn’t believe a person has a breaking point.

I think the biggest mistake that some people who yell free speech make is the lack of good communication skills, and conflict resolution skills. I say this because, it’s not always what you say, but what you say, and when/where you say it. For example, you walk into a rowdy crowd and say something to the crowd that they feel is disrespectful, someone in the crowd will say, ‘you’re not going to take that are you…’ thereby urging/challenging a duel.

I mentioned street degree about a week ago – here goes, for an example, where I live in L.A., looking or staring at someone can cause big problems – it can be disrespectful. A wrong hand gesture can cause big problems, but so can words/slang – for a simple example, the term ‘fag’ in Europe can be used as cigarette, yet, it is considered very disrespectful in the U.S. because this term is used in a derogatory manner towards the LGBT community. As a multi-racial black in America, if I went to Egypt I would be called ‘abeed’ which is slave in Arabic (I think that’s the correct spelling). On that same note, if I went to Nigeria, or some of the other African nation, they would deny that I am black and say that I am more white than black.

To sum it all up, we are all human, we all have feelings, we all have the same needs.

We can’t compare the two since Muslims are not fleeing the nations where Islamophobia is allegedly rampant. Instead, the Muslim population in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and North America is expanding. If michael carmichael’s view was correct, we would see hundreds of thousands going the opposite direction.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ims10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....rojections

We should note that most religiously-motivated hate crimes today are antisemitic, not anti-Muslim. Again, if carmichael’s view was correct, this would be reversed.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html

Most of your comparisons of the methods of Judaism’s critics and Islam’s critics could be made between the any two religions’ critics, yet carmichael has not compared modern discrimination against, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses to 1930s antisemitism. It also ignores the racial aspects of 1930s antisemitism, while I have not seen a critic of Islam worth noting has suggested that Islam is biological.

Re #7, some radical Muslims have said that Muslims should conquer the world. I have never seen a radical Jew, not even Meir Kahne, say the same thing about Jews.

The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were primarily based on ethnicity. Serb ultra-nationalist propaganda looks totally different from the propaganda of Pastor Jones, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, et al (although some paleoconservatives in the US have clumsily attempted to link those conflicts with radical Islam). Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians are very Western and almost totally pro-US.

The majority of Muslims who died violently in Iraq from 1991 to now were killed by other Muslims. Are you arguing that Muslims who kill other Muslims were influenced by Western “Islamophobia”?

“Muslims around the world are being bombed, shot, deported, and discplaced every day[...]”
Again, mostly by other Muslims.

“[B]ut thanks to decades of propaganda, most people simply do not care[...]”
For the third time in as many decades, NATO countries are currently spending millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent the mass murder of Muslims. Muslim nations (including the Palestinian Authority) receive tons of US and European aid and millions of dollars in private and taxpayer money have gone to Muslim victims of other Muslims in Darfur. Disagree or criticize these actions if you wish, but I simply do not see how you can honestly type those words.

“So will [Islamophobia] lead to wholesale extermination of Muslims? Probably not.”
So you also disagree with carmichael? If 1930s antisemitism was “as severe as” modern “Islamophobia” we would see wholesale extermination of Muslims soon.

The propaganda aimed at Jews in Germany and Europe in the 1930′s didn’t necessarily turn most people into vicious Jew-killers. What it did do was make people completely apathetic and/or hostile to the plight of Jews. If the Nazis could actually get Germans as a whole to actively support the wholesale slaughter of Jews and other peoples labeled as undesirables, there would have been no need to cover up and hide these programs from the populace. The effect of the propaganda was that many ordinary people felt no inclination to ask what was happening to the Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, etc.

Muslims around the world are being bombed, shot, deported, and discplaced every day, but thanks to decades of propaganda, most people simply do not care, and many silently or at least quietly approve. These Muslims have been dehumanized and painted as “the other”, in the same ways as Jews and Eastern Slavs once were.

So will it lead to wholesale extermination of Muslims? Probably not. Does it help perpetuate ongoing violence and imperialist actions against Muslim populations? Yes.

So we can’t compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism until someone kills six million Muslims? Would 5.9 million Muslims due? Michael Savage says we should kill 100 million.

I’m very sorry but your comment is idiotic. The tone, techniques, and methods of Islamophobia are the same as anti-Semitism, whether in the 1930s or not. Perhaps nobody ever told you, but anti-semitism existed in a lot of countries which never joined the Axis or participated in the extermination of Jews- like the United States for example.

Let’s look at some methods used by Islamophobes and anti-Semites:

1. Muslims/Jews are said to be one monolithic group, with their own interests, which they serve above all else.

2. The actions of any individual Muslim/Jew or group thereof are associated with Muslims or Jews as a whole.

3. The evil of Islam is alleged to be revealed in the Quran and Hadith, that of Judaism mostly from the Talmud.

4. If a Jewish scholar attempts to explain the Talmud, this is dismissed because the Talmud allegedly requires him not to tell the truth about its content, and sanctions if not demands that he lie about it. Folks like Robert Spencer accuse Muslim scholars of “Taqqiya”‘, an obscure concept that they have totally twisted. Basically they say that any Muslim who attempts to explain something in the Quran is lying, and this lying is sanctioned if not demanded by Allah.

5. Jews are making inroads into power; Muslims are making inroads into power.

6. There are separate, irreconcilable European and Jewish mentalities(which all Jews are assumed to have). There are irreconcilable differences between the European and Muslim mentalities.

7.Jews are plotting world domination, Muslims are plotting world domination.

These are just a few examples. And while thus far, nobody has gone out and exterminated 6 million Muslims, Islamophobia has led to crimes against Muslims, including persecution and ethnic cleansing(e.g. Bosnia). It has also facilitated wars in the Middle East such as Iraq, which have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not a few million if we were to count the deaths in Iraq from the first Gulf War to the present.

But back to the free speech, on Saturday, 4-23-2011, KFI640 AM radio, not sure if the name is Phil Henry or Hendries show, a guest by the name (not sure if it’s a pseudonym or not) Vernon Dozier, alleged to be an educator and diversity teacher/lecturer made some eye raising comments about the case in Sta Ana Califas, a man convicted of putting his semen in a woman’s bottled water. Mr. Dozier made comments in the line of saying that if it was Ariana Huffington or Martha Stewart, most men would be happy. Most men are happy this sad incident happened to this woman because they are suffering from the effects of affirmative action, minorities…and they have lost their jobs/buying power because of it. Later, he asked a black caller what if he was still in Africa, and asked another male caller if he was gay because he didn’t sleep with an attractive younger female.

I use the example above, because regardless if it is considered free speech by some, this is crossing the line and this type of speech has consequences. It makes me wonder how some people can be so insensitive toward others and not feel a thing as if they have an artificial heart. I mentioned money, because it appears this is only thing that causes people to do things they shouldn’t or normally wouldn’t do if they had it – i.e., look at the economy now, do you think the big corporations care about what they are doing to the people – raising gas prices, food prices, utility prices, bank fees – they all feel that we should take the brunt, and they all raise their prices at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsD_a4wujH8

A double standard regarding free speech may send a mixed message to Muslims. Jones’ action did not contribute to a positive environment. But the war in Afghanistan is an act of imperialism and it is due to the unjustified murder of civilians, not to allowing the burning of the Qur’an by a fanatical moron (who hates Muslims), that anti-US sentiment is so prominent in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan alone is evidence that America is not there to “liberate” Afghans, but to wage an imperialist war for control of Afghanistan’s natural resources (a trillion dollars’ worth!) and support the Karzai régime, which is collaborating with the Taliban. The hypocrisy in the agenda of “liberating Afghans” is evident; also, it gives the Taliban a recruiting base (those whose families were victimized at the hands of US occupation forces).

I don’t believe the government’s handling of the Qur’an burning situation created a contradiction between our supposed agenda in Afghanistan and our society’s views on Muslims, because President Obama condemned the action as insensitive and made it clear enough, IMO, that most Americans do not hate Muslims. However, that doesn’t change the fact that a contradiction exists: the TSA harassment of imams on the airplane, for example, showed that our government is not free of discrimination. By and large, I don’t think this really helped fan the flames of anti-American hatred, except among a dedicated group of oppressive fanatics (the murderers of UN peacekeepers).

The murderers ‘protesting’ the Qur’an burning in Afghanistan were not people whose agenda is supported by most Afghans (neither are Karzai, the Northern Alliance, Dostum, or Rabbani). They were Taliban or other fanatical warlord-supporters, who were trying to gain support based around this non-issue (meaning that it has no relevance for Afghans), because Afghans are almost all Muslims and take their religion seriously.

“Islamophobia is now as severe as anti-Semitism was during the 1930s.”

During the 1930s, antisemitism was so bad that Jews fleed Europe for Palestine and the United States. This was followed by the mass murder of six million Jews. Today, Muslims are immigrating to the United States and Europe in huge numbers. There is no mass murder of six million Muslims coming.

To compare the modern “Islamophobia” with 1930s antisemitism is absurd.

While I do not remember the specific incident to which you’re referring (I was 4 years old when Bush got elected), there were several such times when goons from the TSA harassed innocent American citizens for clothing they thought of as “provocative”. Harassment on airplanes for such obviously harmless things as an anti-Bush shirt, or a little gun pendant, only create unnecessary hurdles for airplane passengers. I oppose the creation of such hurdles by TSA on principle, as the harassment is a draconian measure befitting of totalitarian police states, not democracies.

All censorship of free speech (I’d say that, in America, it was more common in the Bush era) is wrong. You’re right that it’s a double standard (of political correctness) with the right-wingers. but I don’t perpetuate that double standard as to the speech that I defend. If you want to wear an anti-Bush (or anti-war, in the case of Katie Sierra) shirt, it should be your right to do so; I think it’s much less provocative than burning a Qur’an. What would be more provocative than both of those exercises of free speech, would be any attempt to stop/censor the free speech.

What’s ironic is that, despite this double standard on the right-wing (supporting the TSA’s plane censorship, while crying “censorship” at attempts to stop Terry Jones), they are the first to make accusations of “PC” at the short gains in racial justice that have taken place (such as affirmative action or diversity training).

My opinion on this, it is a double standard attached with vicious bullying.

As far as standing up for Jones, again, it is almost like you are saying it is okay for emotional abuse, intimidation, and daring someone to act out against the ‘more powerful,’ which to me looks like racism/discrimination.

These actions by Jones also sends a confusing message to the Muslim world – they are not fully accepted here, will never have their full rights here, but, on the other hand, we can go to their countries and we are saviors, we like them, and we are their friends, but, we also want them to change their entire way of life? Please, explain this to me! Also, please explain what is wrong with Muslims being offended over the Quran, as well as Americans being offended over material things, i.e. money.

Quran-Burning Pastor’s Gun Accidentally Goes Off In Michigan</a?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispat.....opment.php

“All of this is blatantly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts.
[...]
That it now involves someone who preaches against civil rights for Muslims is not a legally relevant difference; the government must protect the right to protest and protect those who engage in protest from violent reaction no matter how heinous the message of the protest may be.”

This.

http://www.rawa.us/movies/beating.mpg

(watch as this woman, blue-burqa-clad and bent at the waist, is beaten by Taliban mutaween thugs while a little girl, without her mandatory veil, runs away in horror. The mutaween were the religious enforcers from the ironically-named Committee for the Protection of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, under the Taliban regime, and still active under the same name in US-backed Saudi Arabia, whose people live under the suffocating boot of fanaticism. WHO IS COMMITTING THE ‘UNNATURAL ACT’ NOW? What is the Mutaween thug shouting? It sounds like “Mu’ammar Gaddafi”.)

It is ‘people’ like that who make Islamophobic delusions more believable.

Burning a religious symbol does not harm anyone (that is, unless it is on someone’s person). There will be no resulting injury to over a billion Muslims just because their holy book was burned. Therefore, it is not contradictory to any clause mandating peaceable assembly (the Qur’an burning wasn’t ‘assembly’, either). It is not to be assumed that Jones’ protest will result in rioting, either, and if it doesn’t result in violence, it will not violate the “peaceable assembly” clause.

While one may argue about whether it was “inflammatory”, it seems his intent was to voice his disagreement with the religion, and that was a public expression of such disagreement. It was not an order or suggestion to “kill your Muslim neighbor” (or burn them), or to “bomb a local mosque”.

One has the right to protest in front of a religious institution. If this turns out the same as the protest filmed by CAIR, with people yelling to Muslims walking by that “Muhammad was a child molester”, then it will be harassment. But we shouldn’t make presumptions. All people (even Islamophobes) are not the same.

I was inferring from your username and comments that you’re an objectivist, and my view is that objectivism is just a sort of quasi-Nietzschean, hyperindividualistic form of utilitarianism. If I was mistaken about that being your perspective, I apologize.

But I still think the important point is that Jones does bear some responsibility for those deaths in Afghanistan. He certainly has a right to his opinion about Islam and also a right to express that opinion, but he has plenty of less-inflammatory means of expressing it. He can’t light the fuse and then wash his hands of the resulting explosion, to mix a couple of metaphors.

The U.S. Constitution supports the idea that citizens have a responsibility to avoid harm in their public political expressions, by specifying that citizens have a right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I’d underline “peaceably” if I could; it means, for example, that riot or incitement to riot and other non-peaceable behavior is not protected.

As this document is typically ignored in significant ways by virtually every nation on the face of the Earth, we must conclude that definite “human rights” do not actually exist. Also, some “rights” are contradictory. For example, there is a right to work and a right to private property.

I, for one, am not afraid to affend Muslin. Or for that matter, Cotton, Wool, Linen, or any other fabric. On a serious note, I think that this attempt to suggest that the citizens of Dearborn would be capable of the atrocities commited in Afghanistan does them a complete disservice. In fact, one of the more influential Imams in the area has spoken out against the legal efforts to quash this ridiculous person’s right to free speech.