701. Devolution in Education

Comment #244080 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 9:03 am

Consider me suitably chastised. I'm currently trying to quit smoking, as my demeanor probably reveals. No hard feelings?

702. Devolution in Education

Comment #244072 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 8:56 am

Sciros, droll - you may have noticed the 'so far' part of my comment. In other words, I was provoked to fury just by the opening sentences and didn't get as far as that line.

"Wahahah owned"? Just how old are you, exactly?

703. Devolution in Education

Comment #244068 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 8:47 am

*claws out* Only disagree with one thing - so far - in this article but it needs to be said:

Who would want their kids learning [..] literature classes that cover only the works of dead white guys from Europe who wrote with lots of where-art-thou's?

Well, ME actually. Until some other group than those dismissed as 'dead white guys' starts producing anything that's worth a tenth of what they have produced, my future children will have their hands so full with Homer, Sophocles, Artistotle (literary theory), Xenophon, Virgil, Milton, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Goethe, Schiller, Sienkiewicz, Proust, Keats, Longfellow, Wordsworth, Hemmingway, Byron, Shelly, etc. that they'll be too damn busy to read whatever p.c. screed you've managed to drag up.

Honestly, this makes me so angry. Also, you don't get to dismiss millennia of achievement in the first sentence, and then be shocked, shocked that other knuckledraggers want in on the action.

704. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244030 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 7:48 am

I'll first make a simple point here: Even leaving aside this arguing about the roots of fascism, I stand by my statement about Socialism, which you can observe in a little experiment called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Their economic maxim was that the means of production should be nationalised, to be sure, but that it was never to be ceded to the control of social collectives. Rather, control of the the economy should remain the province of an elite a la plutocratism, and in the politcal field, all political power was represented by the political representatives of that ersatz plutocracy.

I've read this four times now and I still can't see what the hell difference there is between 'social collectives' and an 'elite'. Who gets to run those social collectives? Well, guess what - an 'elite', always and invariably. There's always someone drawing up the Five Year Plan or running the railway committee. Socialism in action.

How can that be construed as approaching anything like a philosophical socialism? It sounds more like the modern United States.

If you honestly can compare life under Fascism to the modern United States, then you have become unmoored from reality. I hope you never have to find the difference out the hard way.

705. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243990 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 6:12 am

<
Fanusi, the fascists hated socialism. They kidnapped, tortured and murdered communists with the same zeal they showed for Jews.

And the Sunni kill the Shia. And the bolsheviks wiped out the Mensheviks. And Stalin's crew massacred the trotskyists. So goddamn what? You haven't even tried to argue about the basic policies pursued, so I don't see that you're in any position to complain about straw men.

From Wikipedia:

The original founders of Fascism in Italy were made up of people who were previously socialists, syndicalists, military men and anarchists but had become angered at the international left's opposition to patriotism and decided to form a new movement; Benito Mussolini, Michele Bianchi and Dino Grandi were all previously socialists.[33] The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration,[34] while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism.[35]

And here's from the Falange manifesto:

We reject the capitalist system, which disregards the needs of the people, dehumanizes private property, and transforms the workers into shapeless masses that are prone to misery and despair. Our spiritual and national awareness likewise repudiates Marxism. We shall channel the drive of the working classes, that are nowadays led astray by Marxism, by demanding their direct participation in the formidable task of the national State." ”
�"José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Falange Manifesto. 1934.

Socialism means bloodshed, pure and simple. This is the point I was stressing right at the start.

Mussolini worked for the Socialist Party newspaper L'Avanti, and he earned his nickname, Il Duce, as a member of Italy's marxist party.

706. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243962 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 3:19 am

Laurie, except for the minor fact that the fascists drew their fundamental doctrines from socialism, many of them were socialists for a long time (Mussolini), their party platforms were riddled with socialist points, and their political activities were peppered with socialist projects (nationalization, taxation, the welfare state etc.).

Let's make this simpler:

Random Muslim spokesman: "Islam is a religion of peace!'
Q: "What about Wahhabism?"
A: "Oh, that's not real Islam"

Random Christian spokesman: "Christianity is a force of good in the world!"
Q: "What about the Inquisition?"
A: "Oh that's not real Christianity!"

Laurie Fraser: "Socialism is a fine thing!"
Q: "What about the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany""
A: "Oh, that's not real Socialism!"

As the eskimo said to the refrigerator salesman: "I ain't buyin' it!"

707. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243924 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 8, 2008 at 12:29 am

Just a quick post - longer one to follow. On the idea that the Nazis weren't socialists - this is usually said by those who haven't really studied the Nazi platform. Here are some relevant bits of its twenty-five point program:

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

Etc. Yep, those industry-nationalizing, property-confiscating, corporate-collectivising, tax-raising, economy regulating, national-health promoting, state-education demanding capitalists! Believe me, there's alot more where that came from.

They were socialists. There are only two real, basic differences between Communism and Fascism, in terms of economics. The first is that Communism is international, whereas Fascism is national, based on the uncontroversial idea that community solidarity is best fostered amongst those who have known each other all their lives, rather than between members of the same "class" scattered around the world. The second is, while many industries are nationalised under fascism, fascism prefers to keep many industries under nominally private ownership, but with government control. Ownership without control - a contradiction in terms.

I'm sorry, Sarmatae; that is complete nonsense. You are confusing the vague term "collectivism" with social in-grouping. In fact, the "collectivists" of which you speak, including socialists (and I am proud to say that I am one of them) are, and always have been, at the forefront of anti-racist social policy

That's true up to a point. The Communist party in Apartheid South Africa fought alongside the ANC, and MLK was similarly supported. However, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany brought with it the most vicious racism seen in human history. Not to mention the other National Socialist regimes elsewhere.

Racism is collectivism. It's raising the interests of a group - the Race - over those of the individual. It's viewing human beings not as individuals, but in terms of the group to which they belong. That policy, always and invariably, leads to carnage. In the Soviet Union people had to prove their proletariat ancestry - or else. Collectivism might be called our primal sin, responsible for all the horrors in human history.

There is the most terrible poverty in the United States compared to Western Europe, despite the fact that the superrich in America give more to charity than their European counterparts.

Really? Compared with, say, the eleven thousand elderly French citizens who all died in one giant heatwave? Fat lot of good socialism did there.

jabber,

what exactly is the problem with believing that the total wealth of a rich nation should be used to the betterment and comfort of those who need it

Translation: What is wrong with taking wealth that you don't own and haven't produced, at the point of a gun, and spending it how you see fit with whatever you consider 'a good cause' as your sanction?

I think the question answers itself.

Again, I'll expand on this later.

708. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243856 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Amen, Sarmate. I get really tired of the idea that atheists have to be leftists - and not just leftists, but the worst kind of relativist, post-modernist multiculti leftists.

Of course, alot of that is because conservatives who are otherwise sensible insist on associating themselves with bronze-age nonsense. You should see some of the rows I've had with religious conservatives, pointing out that as long as they insist on associating themselves with anti-Darwinian knuckledraggers they have only themselves to blame for getting trounced in every argument.

It is long, long past time that the defenders of capitalism, individual rights, and civilization assume the mantle of reason, science, technology, industry and progress that is rightfully theirs. Hell, even the old monster Marx got that!

709. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243821 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm

This "quantum_flux" guy really pisses me off. How can anyone be an Atheist and a Conservative? It's incredible to me that anyone could be that irrational!

Oh, I don't know. It depends on what you mean by conservative. Take conservatisms advocacy of capitalsim. Given that the converse is socialism, which has caused carnage in its international form (Communism), carnage in its national form (National Socialism), and total economic scleroris in its weak-tea form (wellfare statism), it's kinda hard not to be pro-capitalism.

The left has been so consistently wrong about so many issues that it's only thanks to the howling idiocy of the religious right that anyone thinks 'leftism' is synonomous with progress or reason or science.

710. Opening minds

Comment #243087 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 5:07 am

root, could I suggest a very good essay that I stumbled across a while back? You can find it here:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/hierarchy-of-knowledge.asp

I think it might need a subscription, but, believe me, it's worth it just for that essay alone. They also have some excellent articles on the discovery of atoms and Darwin's theory of evolution.

It is a problem because our scientific training is so damn broken up that it become very, very hard to integrate it. Just from reading Isaacson's biography of Einstein, I think that that was one of the absolutely crucial things that made him what he was - that he integrated all of his knowledge.

I'm a biologist, and you wouldn't believe how much extra work I have just chasing down the sequences of proofs of the various theories. Mind you, it's very rewarding, and I come away with a much greater knowledge of what doing, but it's still intensely irritating that I was never taught that at school.

711. Opening minds

Comment #243079 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 4:50 am

root, it's what I've been getting at. The problem is that the teaching of the scientific methods and the facts discovered are taught in parallel, giving the impression that they're disconnected. I think that the right way is just to teach the scientific discoveries in the correct order, describing how each discovery lead to the next one, and the proofs necessary to uncover it.

712. Opening minds

Comment #243069 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 4:19 am

Em.. but what if they don't want to understand just as much as they won't look at the evidence? And doesn't the evidence help one to understand

Well, that's my basic point about not teaching the proofs. If you're just expected to absorb facts, without any proof, what's the difference between memorizing Newton's laws and memorizing the catechism?

713. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243061 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 3:50 am

I know you were referring to me, Fanusi - I just turned it around. I don't think I'd need to consult Al on the topic of Israel; he has some fairly bizarre things to say about that subject as well. And "devoid of the facts"? I don't think so, mate, having followed the progress of Israel pretty well for the past forty years. Please don't come on all "more knowledgeable than thou" on this one. I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you; I have neither the time or inclination.

Then you should have no problem in telling me which of al's statements is incorrect.

If you've been studying the history of Israel, I don't see how you can fail to notice that what's beyond their borders is genocidal savagery.

714. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243035 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 2:25 am

On the subject of "Elites":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBzYSUI5_GM

715. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242998 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 5, 2008 at 12:12 am

*groans* No, I was referring to you, Laurie. I was hoping that noone could be so devoid of the facts as to think that it is Israel's fault what is happening down there.

Read through Al's comments and learn.

And yes, Israel does rank as one of mankind's greatest accomplishments. The jews bought wasteland and made it flourish. They basically created a state from nothing. That is an astonishing achievement.

716. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242988 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Laurie, sorry but my German side is dominating this morning and therefore my sense of humour is our of whack - that was sarcasm, yes?

717. Opening minds

Comment #242985 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Ironically, this is part of a structural problem in our education itself. So much of science teaching really is 'faith based'. To see what I mean, how many people here accept the atomic theory? Right, now how many people can prove that atoms exist, or understand the sequence of historical proofs that lead to their discovery?

See what I mean? We like to talk about science education being an antidote to superstition, but that's only part-right. It's the scientific method that is the real antidote, and that's at most taught as an accessory to a whole lot of memorization of disconnected facts that are usually taught without their proof.

To be clear, I am not saying that the proofs don't exist and that you can't go looking for them - they do and you can - but that they aren't taught. The general effect tends to be one of dogmatism, emphasizing memorisation over true understanding.

There's a good essay you can find online: "Hierarchy: The Most Neglected Issue in Education". Excellent read. I think it is a very bad thing that science is taught in this faith-based method, rather in a hierarchial way with each new idea or theory taught by the sequence of proofs that lead to it.

For example, evolution shouldn't be taught as a 'bolt from the blue', but should only be taught once the kids have understood grouping and taxonomy, and how to organise species into genera and so on, and also learnt enough geology to begin to see how men understood how old the earth really is, and then discussions of artificial and unconscious selection as well as fossil data - that's what you need to really understand evolution.


EDIT: Steve & InfuriatedSciTeacher & others, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that

718. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242980 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Oh, dear, chase one idiot away, and another shows uo. It's no point really, arguing with lgs, because we are talking about the guy who sneers and belittles Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I'll limit myself to the basic observation: Israel is one of us, and it is fighting the same enemy - the hideous tide of Jihad. It's a tiny piece of civilization in the midst of barbarism. For that reason alone, even if we don't get into the endless list of historical justifications of Israel's existence.

I maintain that Israel will go down in history as one of the great accomplishments of humanity.

719. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242814 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Duly noted Corylus. :-). Still, you don't watch alot of Black Adder as a kid without picking up one or two things.

720. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242796 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Okay, playtimes over BS. Please go back to your sandbox, and maybe sometime later the actual adults will throw you a few toys now and then.

Elli, dinnae worry about it. We occasionally get this type.

721. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242788 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 1:11 pm

You know, back when I was at Oxford, we had types like BS wandering around the place. Every Sunday brunch we used to round up six or seven of her type, make 'em bend over and use them as toast rack.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

722. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242785 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Peace, I did say that was my impression and that was why it was helpful to get the impression from the other side. Matter of fact, when I'm hanging out on my right-wing chatboards, I've often defended the Old Left.

723. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242779 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:59 pm

With respect, Peace, you can - and I did - search the website of NOW and not find a single reference to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, nor a link to her defence fund.

There's a great acronym that I like to invoke when discussing the farce that modern 'feminist' organizations have become, namely F.E.T.E.

(Fuck 'Em. The End.)

724. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242775 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Right-wingers seem more sure of their ideas, and less guilty about the past actions of their societies

...

This is one reason why discussions like this are useful, because they give you a perspective on how others see the world. From where I'm sitting, it looks like the exact opposite. The left seem more full of self-righteous arrogance than I care to remember, and I haven't heard many lefties owning up to the horrors of Communism, nor what the National Socialist Workers Party got up to in my fatherland.

725. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242767 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Steve life's too damn short to get hung up on arguments on a chatboard.

I still would like to know one thing that's puzzling me: why is it that the main opposition to Islam seems to come from the right? As Mark Steyn observed, I'm a 'social conservative', more or less. When the Mullahs take over, I'll grow my beard out, get a couple of wives, and keep my head down. It's the gays and the feminists who'll have a rougher time of it.



(n.b.: Steve, I don't mean you specifically in this instance, just as a general observation)

726. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242757 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:20 pm

And this doesn't make you understand that there's alot worse than Mormons out there?

As the great Dorothy Parker observed: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

727. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242752 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Amen, Steve. At least when I'm rowing with you, we both know there's an intelligence at the other end.

728. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242750 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:16 pm

BS, this defence is - where, exactly?

Girly, you think you have seen religious nutcases? Try taking a stroll into one of our London Mosques, and see what ha.... Actually, please, please do!

729. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242737 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm

al, Sciros, Steve & others: Am I jumping to gun here, or is it pointless to talk to this thing?

EDIT: Sciros, nice :-)

730. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242734 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Brandy, if Mitt Romney understands that, then good for him.

Steve, as I understand it this site isn't maintained by Professor Dawkins, and he only occasionally shows up here. The discussions here no more reflect on him than the discussions on JihadWatch reflect Robert Spencer or Hugh FitzGerald.

731. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242724 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 11:45 am

Maybe it is just me, but I expect people to be skillful enough in their use of language to avoid such annotations of text

*even more dryly* You don't seriously think that I bring my full powers of english to bear on a frickin' chat board, now do you?

Anyway, BS, overhere is stuck in the mental box of thinking that anyone who might possibly be anti-Obama is automatically a Bush-lover and a Sam Harris hater. There is, not to put too fine a point on it, zero evidence for this

Of course, Certain People's mental capacity is so limited that it can't reason beyond: "These people DISAGREE WITH MEEEEE!!!! That must mean they're EVIL, like, like, like the evilest person I can think of, like BUSH!"

For the record, since write-ins are being discussed, I confess I'm quite partial to Fred Thompson, if for no other reason than his fanbase has come up with one of the all time greatest nine-word campaign slogans:

Protect the Borders.
Kill the Terrorists
Punch the Hippies.

732. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242670 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 10:44 am

I do because its discriminatory. As much as possible, recognising that there have been good reasons for them in the past, we should try to remove discriminatory practices.

Peace, this isn't about you. It's about them. You're not in the position of being surrounded by enemies, all of whom want you dead. They have good reason to discriminate against Arab Muslims, and those are that the intentions of those Arab Muslims are explicitly genocidal.

Noone would deny the Kurds a state of their own. So why not the Jews?

733. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242649 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

Not really. I have no problem with the formation of organisations that seek to protect minority interests, such as (in principle) The Muslim Council of Great Britian. These organisations will be necessary as long as society insists on grouping and discriminating against different types of people. But I would have a problem if they tried to create a Muslim state in Bradford or elsewhere.

The MCB is the group that when bananas when Undercover Mosque showed what was going on - not about what was shown, but about that anyone would draw it to Infidel attention. So I wouldn't bet on them not trying for that.

As regards the Jews - these 'pressure groups' all count on the surrounding populace being a rarely civilized nation, like the ones we have, after insane bloodshed, managed to develop. It also means hoping that such a society will not undergo degeneration, the way that the Land of Poets and Philosophers did.

If either of those defaults, then the only answer is your own state and army and ability to fight. That's the ultimate form of defence.

Israel can have a modern immigration policy like any other democratic country

It is my contention that those damn immigration policies are driving our societies to destruction. I'm sure al will argue against that, but its unarguable what that would mean in the case of Israel. And the reason is the false assumption here:

That's not ever going to help each group tolerate and accept each other.

The assumption is that, somehow, you can get on with Islam. You can't. The idea is that long term coexistance with large numbers of Muslims is possible. It isn't - not now, and never in history has it been possible.

Islam divides the world into believer, who is to rule, and kaffir, who is to be ruled. The word kaffir is arguably the worst in the human language; it represents total dehumanization. You can do no right by Islam. Don't even try.

734. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242644 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

Peace my snide response was to your one-line dismissals of points earlier. It's nice to see you expanding your replies somewhat here.

All I was getting at is that any citizen afforded equal rights in a democracy is fully involved in the political process. Therefore they do not need to join a sub-group carved out of the populace and demand self-determination.

That's nice - in theory. In practice, however, the principle of self-determination is one of the only ways in which religious and racial minorities can defend themselves. This applies also to the Berbers and the Kurds, I might add, who have suffered so terribly under the Arab supremacism of Islam, but it especially applies to the Jews who have learned, bitterly, that they cannot - in final analysis - rely on the protection of various states when push comes to shove, as it does. The State of Israel is the concretized form of the statement 'Never Again!'. It means that, after two thousand plus years, the next gang that tries to murder the Jews won't find it so easy.

It really is that simple.

And that answer's this:

Do you think, for example, that Israel should continue to regard itself as a 'Jewish state'?

Perhaps 'a state for Jews', is a better term. However, that the Jews maintain a majority and can practice, yes, ethnic exclusivity in this tiny corner of the world, is essential. You keep hearing about the 'right of return' to be extended to all Palestinians as part of these bogus 'peace processes'. That is nothing more than a demand that the state can be flooded with so many Muslim arabs that the Jihad can succeed that way.

On that note, these damn 'peace processes' are completely bogus. They are of no value whatsoever. The point isn't this or that chunk of land, it's that the Muslims will never, ever permit an Infidel state to exist right in the centre of the dar al-Islam. You will not have peace, but you might have darura (al, pull me up if I get this definition wrong) which is the situation where the Muslim world realizes that, though of course Jihad is eternal, at this current moment waging it against Israel, will result in defeat if not annihilation.

----

EDIT: I really shouldn't, but...

I spent a lot of time and energy being DEAD WRONG about Israel

He was. I can confirm it. ;-)

No hard feelings, eh, al?

735. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242596 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 6:26 am

Okay, Peace seems to be incapable of studying an argument in any kind of depth.

You don't think Muslims think like that?

No, the way the Ummah thinks is not in terms of protection, but of domination - to press the Jihad - the Stuggle - until all humanity is choked underneath the Shariah, or destroyed.

736. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242581 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 5:59 am

However, until Israel publically declare their own nuclear weapons that they shouldn't have, they can shut the fuck up about Iran's capability.

Peace, Israel: Tiny, flourishing democracy surrounded by a sea of enemies.

Iran:a theocratic dictatorship run by messianic fanatics.

Israel's nukes: a deterrent against the repeated attempts by the Muslim nations to finish Hitler's job.

Iran's nukes: the means to finish Hitler's job.

See the minor difference here?

737. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242580 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 5:56 am

*goes looking and groans* al, you said it. Aiyaiyaiyai...

Just when you think you've heard it all...

738. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242573 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 5:41 am

to put it in further perspective: iraq in 1991 was by far the most militarised arabic nation, with a huge army and relatively advanced weaponry. look how long it lasted.

True as far as it goes. What this all misses is how nukes are the ultimate equalizer.

Also, there is a real difference between Nazism and Communism and resurgent Islam. Both the Nazi and the communists tried to impose a new vision of society, from the top down. Islam, on the other hand, has long since transformed these societies, providing an effectively unending stream of Jihadists. Then there are the problems of demographic conquest. To give one example, The Economist has suggested that by 2015 - yes, seven years from now, just seven years, 40% of the Russian army will be Muslim.

Either Putin will use traditional Russian methods to deal with that particular problem, or we end up with an Islamic Russia. Wonderful.

739. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242548 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 3:36 am

Well, my point was that, if we end up with a nuclear war in the Middle East (Iran vs. Israel), that would be the catalyst that would allow the Christian Right to actually gain power. This election won't be it. Sure, Palin might want creationism taught - what, exactly, could she do except make an absolute fool of herself and the Christian right in the process? They've tried, time and again, to push ID and creationism through, and they've always gotten slaughtered.

Vis a viz the forum, I don't post there much, and when I do I'm usually rowing with the Christian fundies. I see no problem with either Spencer or FitzGerald; they strike me as intelligent and courageous men.

740. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242543 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 3:26 am

the threat of jihad is an overblown trumpet for bigotted twonks that are often every bit as bad as the muppets who call it in the first place.

Oh really? According to a survey done by lickspittle Islam apologist John Esposito, something like 186 million Muslims support the 9/11 attacks. And a further 300 million 'kinda' support them.

So even leaving out the programs of legal, demographic, and Da'wa campaigns in the West, if these maniacs get their way in their own countries (and given that they have a greater number of supperters than the fascists and communists combined, why not?) we'll be facing the equivalent of not just one, but multiple Nazi Germanies, from Morocco to Indonesia. How do you like that prospect?

Oh, and they'll be armed with nuclear weapons.

741. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242540 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 3:16 am

Okay, now can you find something written that is actually inaccurate? Something that won't stand up to evidence?

742. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242537 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

And how about just reading, oh I don't know, the articles Bonzai? Such as the ones by the atheist Hugh FitzGerald, who writes very clearly about the threat of Jihad?

I don't judge Richard Dawkins by some of what goes wandering onto these boards.

743. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242533 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 3:02 am

Bonzai, the board of JihadWatch are, respectively, a Christian, an atheist, and a jew - and they all walked into a bar one day and (fill in punchline here). Have you ever read JihadWatch out of interest? I defy you to find me one statement backing the idea that they want a theocracy up.

I'm not endorsing anyone. I said, and I quote, that "most elections are like being a man on a raft, forced to choose between drinking seawater or his own urine." You can call that an endorsement if you like.

I said I thought that McCain was the more believable on the one issue that to me trumps all others: Iran's nuclear ambitions. If we get that one wrong, all the other arguments will be irrelevant.

744. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242530 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

*dryly* Bonzai, I am not running for office. Nor would it ever occur to me to believe that the achievements of mankind are thanks to me, nor that the future ones will be. There is a very real difference between unflinching admiration of what our civilization has achieved - and thinking that the civilization will only get good if you have your way.

Obama's in the second category.

745. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242527 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 2:34 am

Steve, I wasn't talking about his religious conviction - which appear to be obvious huxterism - but statements like this:

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

And so on. He's messianic, and that's not a good thing in any respect. I remember when Nelson Mandela was released from Robben Island and when he was elected. I can tell you flat out that I saw nothing like the kind of fervour and hysterical enthusiasm over this total nonentity. I defy anyone to tell me what the devil he stands for, except 'chope',

746. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242522 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 4, 2008 at 1:55 am

reckoner, exactly. I have yet to see how voting for someone who thinks he's the Messiah is rational.

747. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242383 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Question, Brandy: Which side of the poltical spectrum has been howling its head off about those evil evil Rethuglicans and their nasty nasty unnecessary wars with poor innocent Muslims who've never done anything to anybody?

748. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242376 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Shoot, sorry chewdbarber, I was rubbing my eyes, and I accidentally hit the mouse and accidentally flagged your post as offensive.

Brandy, his watch, his business. Period. In the same way that, yes, if Iran is allowed to get nukes, it'll be completely legitimate to have Bush hung, drawn and quarterd alongside whichever idiot follows him who also allowed it.

749. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242368 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 3, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Kick 'em while they're down, ah say.

Brandy, the attack on the American quarters in Saudi Arabia. The first WTC attack. The attack on American embassies in Africa. The USS cole.

Nope, nothing.

Say what you will about Bush, he at least settled the Taliban's hash in the only way possible. Mind you, that was nowhere near as definitive as necessary, but it was a hell of alot better than the fiasco that preceded him on this issue.

Missiles and bombs are only good as part of a warm up before you send the troops in. Bill's damn stunt in the Sudan was just to distract away from his pants issues. Ditto Afganistan: if he had been serious, he'd have sent in the troops. And bin Laden recognised that for what it was - decadence.

750. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242356 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 3, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Bill Clinton reminded the McBush atheists last week that it was the Democrats that stood up against fascism this century.

... This I gotta hear. This would be the Clinton who bombed that damn factory in the Sudan to distract from Monica, pissing off the Sudanese so much that they didn't hand over bin Laden then? This is the same guy who's head of the FBI could only say, on 9/11, "Gee, I hope it's not something to do with those guys in the flight schools in the midwest". The one who played doormat to each escalated terrorist attack?

Give. me. a. break.

And also drop this ridiculous 'McBush' nonsense. I don't like bush, I think the Wilsonian nonsense of nation building in Iraq is criminally misguided, I think he doesn't get it about so many aspects of Islam that it's staggering.

But who let this happen? Who never, ever made the argument that would have stopped the Iraqi nation-building project? Who was unwilling to face up to what Islam is, and what that means?