John Doe Manifesto-- Malkin

[Pure]

This is a response, I think written by Michelle Malkin, to a law suit by several imams (muslim clerics) who were taken off an airliner after some passengers stated they felt threated by certain odd activites (where the imams sat, their way of praying, etc.)

Those sued, besides the airline officials, and those employees on the flight, include "John Doe's" , i.e. some of the passengers (presumably those who complained.)

MM's recent column on 'john doe' manifesto
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007220.htm

MM's original column
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007190.htm

[original column begins]
My column this week also covers the new John Doe movement and lays down the

John Doe manifesto

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Pass it on.
[end original column]

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hope the airline does not give in, and takes on the imams and (probably) the ACLU who will be supporting them. It was not discrimination; it was a response to a perceived threat.

Personally, I think the imams deliberately got themselves kicked off in order to create an incident.

 

[cantdog]

Whatever.

 

[Vermilion]

Anyone else getting shades of McCarthyism though...?

 

[rgraham666]

Anyone else getting shades of McCarthyism though...?

Oh yes. Shrugs. But some people need their hate.

So sad.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Anyone else getting shades of McCarthyism though...?

What do you mean by McCarthyism? If I see somebody in my neighbor's back yard prying open a window, I will call the cops and report suspicious activity. That's not paranoia. Believing there are people who want to blow up public places in America and kill as many people as possible isn't paranoia either, because it has been proven to be true. Watchful citizens have thwarted a couple of plots already, and maybe more that aren't being made public.

There are mosques near where I live. I'm not going to go and burn them down, or desecrate them or do anything else of that sort. I don't hate anybody who means no harm. But, there are people who want to kill me because I am an American, and I do hate those people.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The dilemma is that most of those who want to commit mass murder against our societies are Islamic, but most Muslims do not want to commit mass murders against our societies.

A broader question is, do Muslims who emigrate to western countries wish to assimilate and become part of our societies, or do they want to remain separate, and possibly make their religion and culture dominant in the lands to which they have moved? What will their children want?

Related to the last, anyone can become "an American," because the identity consists of adopting a secular creed. But is it possible to become "French" or "German" if one does not belong to those ethnic groups? I don't know that this has been answered satisfactorily.


Edited to add: I can understand why Pure is so excited about this "manifesto." It is a chilling evocation of the fascist themes in Capra's 1941 film, "Meet John Doe." I almost wonder if it's not some kind of a ruse, and am surprised that a sophisticated player like Malkin has opened herself up for a potential trap like the one Pure hopes to close on the unwary right here.

 

[Vermilion]

What do you mean by McCarthyism? If I see somebody in my neighbor's back yard prying open a window, I will call the cops and report suspicious activity. That's not paranoia. Believing there are people who want to blow up public places in America and kill as many people as possible isn't paranoia either, because it has been proven to be true. Watchful citizens have thwarted a couple of plots already, and maybe more that aren't being made public.

There are mosques near where I live. I'm not going to go and burn them down, or desecrate them or do anything else of that sort. I don't hate anybody who means no harm. But, there are people who want to kill me because I am an American, and I do hate those people.

I mean McCarthyism in the 'report anyone you don't like with very little or no proof' sense. Sure, if you see someone jimmying open a window then you *know* they're up to no good. What makes me nervous is a series of radio adverts I've heard recently over here that encourages people to dob in absolutely anyone they suspect of anything. I can't remember the wording exactly but something along the lines of:
"How do I know if someone is just on the phone or plotting suspicious activities?"
"Just dob them in and we'll decide if they're guilty"

And I find that terrifying.
It smacks of witch trials and 1930s/40s Russia and Germany, not to mention 1950s America, as I already said.

I am not usually political, I don't have any practicised arguments to spout, nor am I even entirely sure how else we can keep track of the people who *do* mean us harm. I have no solutions, all I know is that the thought of civilians policing each other is one of the scariest elements of the 'terror' era we seem to be living in.
x
V

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am not usually political, I don't have any practicised arguments to spout, nor am I even entirely sure how else we can keep track of the people who *do* mean us harm. I have no solutions, all I know is that the thought of civilians policing each other is one of the scariest elements of the 'terror' era we seem to be living in.
x
V

Context is everything. Obviously if strange bomb-like aromas (whatever those are ) start emanating from the apartment next door, and through the walls you hear recordings of Hitler speeches and your neighbor shouting "Seig Heil," it would be reasonable to notify the authorities. On the other hand, if your neighbor is an Pakistani immigrant who gives no indication that he is doing anything but trying to live the good life and be a contributing member of our society, and you fail to accord him a presumption of honesty and good will just because he is a Paki, this is antithetical to the principles of a free and civil society.

Obviously the danger of explicit "manifestos" of this nature is that they generate behavior contrary to that model, and provide cover for those whose motives are not pure.

The actions of those Muslims who instigated that incident in Minneapolis were ourtrageous, at the time and since. I don't know what their intention was, but on its face it appears to have been designed to generate exactly this kind of reaction, for purposes that may have nothing to do with terrorism, but are certainly not benign.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Since GWB was elected, this country has sunk into something we haven't seen since the 1950's. Above McCarthyism was mentioned. I think it's a little more serious than it was then.

The basis of McCarthyism was fear. The russians were watching us. The russians had submarines off our coasts. The russians could send bomber over our cities at any moment. The russians has "moles" planted all over our country ready to destroy us from within (odd how many "moles" there were in Hollywood though ). Was any of it true? No.

The fact that we had spies all over the USSR, we actually had bomber capable of overflying the USSR, our submarines were off their coast and so on never occured to anyone. Those that did realize these things saw it as "a good thing."

Fortunately, the McCarthy era ended with the Senator exposed. America settled back into normalcy. Then came 9/11. And President McCarthy and his cronies instigated the "Patriot Act" which, of course, has nothing to do with patriotism at all. Next came finger pointing at Iraq and Saddam, then war, then Abu Grabe, then Gitmo and on and on.

I can remember well the words chosen by President George McCarthy. When he talked about the Iraqis or Al Quida, the word he used was "Muslem" or "Islamists". My thoughts at that point were, we will have a war and this man doesn't understand that one-third of the world followed Islam. Then the word came out that Marshal George "Matt Dillon" McCarthy really was going to Iraq to "clean up the town and make it safe for democracy and the American way."

My thoughts: Do these people really want the American way? Do they understand the responsibilities of Democracy after 1000 years of tribal warfare? Was Saddam really that much worse than the other leaders in that region?

The words come to mind, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." That's what I hear from General George Armstrong McCarthy. He truely believes those words, as long as it's someone else who does the fighting, of course.

I have to wonder how much deeper he has to drag us before the Generalissimo is overthrown.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

An interesting coincidence: What is "suspicious"

Right after finalizing my previous post here I went out on the jog that I had been simultaneously whining about to Vermillion on the blurt thread. I was actually thinking about this thread when I saw something unusual. A teenage African American male was running at a fast pace through the yards in a middle class residential neighborhood, population 2/3rds white and 1/3 minority. He was dressed flamboyantly but casually, in red pants and baggie black and gold jersey. He emerged from between two houses on the north side of the quiet street, crossed it in front of me, and continued south between two houses on that side of the street. As he ran he was exchanging messages with someone using the "walkie-talkie" mode of a cell phone, with the "beep" between messages.

The yards he was cutting through were just two houses in from a medium-size north-south street. One block south in the direction he was running is a large urban high school that is mostly minority, most of whom are from middle or working class families, but a portion of whom are from underclass backgrounds. This took place more than an hour after the end of the lunch period, when it is not unusual to see lots of teenagers on the streets nearby, often behaving in youthful high-spirited ways. At this hour the students were in school, however.

I thought this was suspicious, and asked myself if I would think so if the teenager was white and appeared to be a member of the bourgeoisie, as I myself am. I'm almost certain I would have thought so, because I've known a lot of bad apples who fit that description. There is the slightest bit of question in my mind though.

With this thread in mind, I thought I would not go out of my way to report this event, but if in the next few minutes or so I saw a cop car in this quiet residential neighborhood that would also be unusual, and the two events could plausibly be viewed as not a coincidence.

Am I a racist to have been suspicious?

There may or may not be more to this story, but I will let that question stand alone for bit before I say.

 

[Vermilion]

Right after finalizing my previous post here I went out on the jog that I had been simultaneously whining about to Vermillion on the blurt thread. I was actually thinking about this thread when I saw something unusual. A teenage African American male was running at a fast pace through the yards in a middle class residential neighborhood, population 2/3rds white and 1/3 minority. He was dressed flamboyantly but casually, in red pants and baggie black and gold jersey. He emerged from between two houses on the north side of the quiet street, crossed it in front of me, and continued south between two houses on that side of the street. As he ran he was exchanging messages with someone using the "walkie-talkie" mode of a cell phone, with the "beep" between messages.

The yards he was cutting through were just two houses in from a medium-size north-south street. One block south in the direction he was running is a large urban high school that is mostly minority, most of whom are from middle or working class families, but a portion of whom are from underclass backgrounds. This took place more than an hour after the end of the lunch period, when it is not unusual to see lots of teenagers on the streets nearby, often behaving in youthful high-spirited ways. At this hour the students were in school, however.

I thought this was suspicious, and asked myself if I would think so if the teenager was white and appeared to be a member of the bourgeoisie, as I myself am. I'm almost certain I would have thought so, because I've known a lot of bad apples who fit that description. There is the slightest bit of question in my mind though.

With this thread in mind, I thought I would not go out of my way to report this event, but if in the next few minutes or so I saw a cop car in this quiet residential neighborhood that would also be unusual, and the two events could plausibly be viewed as not a coincidence.

Am I a racist to have been suspicious?

There may or may not be more to this story, but I will let that question stand alone for bit before I say.

a) well done for going on the run. Good girl.
b) I would have thought the same as you and I can say, unequivocally, that I would have felt the same if I had seen a white boy acting that way. I base it not on race, but on clothing, so possibly class, though I've met some middle class kids who would fit into the 'Chav' culture that makes me nervous. I think the very fact that you questioned yourself means that you, whilst having some preconceptions, cannot be considered truly racist... Anyway, it takes more than one thought to make a racist, sexist or anything-ist.

ETA: please excuse if this sound grabled. My brain has gone to mush and I can't form coherent thought atm. x V

 

[Boxlicker101]

Since GWB was elected, this country has sunk into something we haven't seen since the 1950's. Above McCarthyism was mentioned. I think it's a little more serious than it was then.

The basis of McCarthyism was fear. The russians were watching us. The russians had submarines off our coasts. The russians could send bomber over our cities at any moment. The russians has "moles" planted all over our country ready to destroy us from within (odd how many "moles" there were in Hollywood though ). Was any of it true? No.

The fact that we had spies all over the USSR, we actually had bomber capable of overflying the USSR, our submarines were off their coast and so on never occured to anyone. Those that did realize these things saw it as "a good thing."

Fortunately, the McCarthy era ended with the Senator exposed. America settled back into normalcy. Then came 9/11. And President McCarthy and his cronies instigated the "Patriot Act" which, of course, has nothing to do with patriotism at all. Next came finger pointing at Iraq and Saddam, then war, then Abu Grabe, then Gitmo and on and on.

I can remember well the words chosen by President George McCarthy. When he talked about the Iraqis or Al Quida, the word he used was "Muslem" or "Islamists". My thoughts at that point were, we will have a war and this man doesn't understand that one-third of the world followed Islam. Then the word came out that Marshal George "Matt Dillon" McCarthy really was going to Iraq to "clean up the town and make it safe for democracy and the American way."

My thoughts: Do these people really want the American way? Do they understand the responsibilities of Democracy after 1000 years of tribal warfare? Was Saddam really that much worse than the other leaders in that region?

The words come to mind, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." That's what I hear from General George Armstrong McCarthy. He truely believes those words, as long as it's someone else who does the fighting, of course.

I have to wonder how much deeper he has to drag us before the Generalissimo is overthrown.

McCarthyism was not paranoia. The threat of the Soviet Union was very real. This was shown by Stalin's partnership with Hitler, and their colmbined invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet annexation of part of that country, and by their invasion of Finland and their annexation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It was further shown during and after the latter stages of WW2 when their armies overran and occupied most of eastern and central Europe and installed puppet governments in those nations. It was also shown by their efforts to take over Berlin and by the invasion by their puppet, North Korea, of South Korea, and by their suppression of revolts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The USSR did have spies in the US, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and American spies were there too. The USSR had planes capable of dropping bombs, including nuclear ones, thanks to the Rosenbergs, and we could do the same to them. They did have submarines that plied the waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, in international waters, just as we had subs near their coastlines.

There was an active Communist Party in the US, especially Hollywood, and there still is. Now, it is pretty ineffective but, at one time, they were capable of planting anti-American messages and pro-Soviet or pro-pacifist messages in their movies, and this was watched. I hope you don't doubt the power of clever advertising.

I don't deny that McCarthy went too far, and did trample on certain rights, but his targets were very real, and they were a bigger menae than he or his ideas were. I, for one, am very happy for the actions of those who are now contempuously called "Cold Warriors". If it hadn't been for them, I would now be lifing in the California Soviet Socialist Republic, and standing in line for allotments of food or clothing.

You have skipped a lot of history, by the way, such as the Arab attacks on Israel, the Iranian imprisonment of the American embassy staff, in flagrant violation of all international laws, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam and the subsequent liberation by American-led forces and the repeated attacks on America by Islamic terrorists. George Bush and others describe them as "Islamist terrorists", because that describes their motivation. If they were Christian terrorists blowing up hospitals or clinics, they might be described as "Evangelical terrorists".

 

[Pure]

background

NOTE: The incidents that sparked Ms. Malkin were widely reported; see

{leading up to the lawsuit}
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/13/imam.suit/index.html

{on the removal}
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/index.html
======

These are the urls for Ms. Malkin's columns, including the original:

A recent column on 'john doe' manifesto
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007220.htm

original column
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007190.htm
=====

Ms Malkin obviously modeled her piece on the John Doe talk and movement portrayed in the movie, "Meet John Doe", where JD is played by Gary Cooper. I've quote a bit, below.

In the movie a native born fascist fellow (Norton) attempts to USE John Doe, and enlist the John Doe club members to support his fascist movement. John Doe was originally a media creation, but the character is assumed by Gary Cooper, who plays it straight.

*But John Doe finds out the skullduggery and refuses to go along.* He intends to rescue or preserve the clubs from any such use. It would appear Capra wanted a kind of affirmation of the common man, but was sensitive to how such sentiments can be enlisted by fascistic politicians.

A key "John Doe" speech from www.filmsite.org. The critic writes the intro and commentary in {{XX}}. I've italicized the speech itself.

{{When a heckling voice from the rival newspaper (in the audience) accuses him of being an imposter, police haul the agitator away to quell the disturbance. The beginning of the speech is delivered in a straightforward, amateurish and honest style. [The scene is quickly cross-cut from backstage onlookers, to individuals in the audience, to a gloating Norton listening to the broadcast in his home (and witnessing his servant-help enthusiastically gathered around a radio in the kitchen), back to Doe, and to the clock on the studio's wall as time passes.] }}


Well, people like the governor and that fellow there can stop worrying. I'm not going to talk about them. I'm gonna talk about us - the average guys, the John Does. If anybody should ask you what the average John Doe is like, you couldn't tell him because he's a million and one things. He's Mr. Big and Mr. Small, he's simple and he's wise, he's inherently honest but he's got a streak of larceny in his heart. He seldom walks up to a public telephone without shovin' his finger into the slot to see if somebody left a nickel there...
He describes the universality of John Does through time and history:


He's the man the ads are written for. He's the fella everybody sells things to. He's Joe Doakes, the world's greatest stooge and the world's greatest strength. Yes sir, yes sir, we're a great family, the John Does. We are the meek who are supposed to inherit the earth. You'll find us everywhere. We raise the crops, we dig the mines, work the factories, keep the books, fly the planes and drive the buses, and when the cop yells, 'Stand back there you,' he means us - the John Does.

We've existed since time began. We built the pyramids. We saw Christ crucified, pulled the oars for Roman emperors, sailed the boats for Columbus, retreated from Moscow with Napoleon, and froze with Washington at Valley Forge. Yes sir, we've been in there dodging left hooks since before History began to walk. In our struggle for freedom, we've hit the canvas many a time, but we always bounced back because we're the people - and we're tough. (Applause)

{{Then as he becomes more earnest and effective as his own feelings come to the forefront (and he simultaneously reacts to Ann's words), he appeals for all the John Does ("the little punks") in the world to get up on their feet and pull together as a team. He speaks of his faith in the essential goodness of the common man and promotes brotherly love with one's neighbor (the guy next door, one's teammate)}}:


They've started a lot of talk about free people goin' soft, that we can't take it. That's a lot of hooey! A free people can beat the world at anything, from war to tiddlywinks, if we all pull in the same direction.
(Applause)

I know a lot of you are saying, 'What can I do? I'm just a little punk. I don't count. Well, you're dead wrong. The little punks have always counted because in the long run, the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.
(Applause)

But we've all got to get in there and pitch. We can't win the old ball game unless we have teamwork. And that's where every John Doe comes in. It's up to him to get together with his teammate, and your teammate, my friends, is the guy next door to ya. Your neighbor - he's a terribly important guy, that guy next door. You're gonna need him and he's gonna need you, so look him up. If he's sick, call on him. If he's hungry, feed him. If he's out of a job, find him one.

To most of you, your neighbor is a stranger, a guy with a barkin' dog and a high fence around him. Now you can't be a stranger to any guy that's on your own team. So tear down the fence that separates you. Tear down the fence and you'll tear down a lot of hates and prejudices. Tear down all the fences in the country and you'll really have teamwork.
(Applause)

I know a lot of you are saying to yourselves: 'He's askin' for a miracle to happen. He's expecting people to change all of a sudden.' Well, you're wrong. It's no miracle. It's no miracle because I see it happen once every year and so do you at Christmastime. There's something swell about the spirit of Christmas, to see what it does to people, all kinds of people. Now why can't that spirit, that same warm Christmas spirit last the whole year round?

Gosh, if it ever did, if each and every John Doe would make that spirit last 365 days out of the year - we'd develop such a strength, we'd create such a tidal wave of good will that no human force could stand against it. Yes sir, my friends, the meek can only inherit the earth when the John Does start loving their neighbors. You'd better start right now. Don't wait till the game is called on account of darkness. Wake up, John Doe, you're the hope of the world.

 

[Liar]

If it hadn't been for them, I would now be lifing in the California Soviet Socialist Republic, and standing in line for allotments of food or clothing..

Yah, rite. I live in a country that at that time (and even now) had ten times more communists per capita than your Hollywood conspiracy spook ever had. Among legislators, artistas, lawyers, professors, media, you name it.

And oh yes baby, that's what I do every day, queue. Get real.

 

[Liar]

Pure, the problem with that manifesto is that it's oh, so easy to use those words to build fences instead of tearing them down.

In every line I read of it, I see a slightly more dark skinned John Doe who just can't get a fucking break.

Maybe somebody need to write the Ahmed Mohammed manifesto too? Then we can all dig our heels in a little bit more. Splendid.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Right after finalizing my previous post here I went out on the jog that I had been simultaneously whining about to Vermillion on the blurt thread. I was actually thinking about this thread when I saw something unusual. A teenage African American male was running at a fast pace through the yards in a middle class residential neighborhood, population 2/3rds white and 1/3 minority . . .

. . . Am I a racist to have been suspicious?

It doesn't look like anyone else is going to play along, so here is Part Two of the story:

. . . Continuing on my jog, a block and a half away, I did indeed see a cop car. He was slowing just before a stop sign, and I waved to indicate I had something to say. I expected him to roll down the window, but instead he pulled over, turned off the car, and unfastened his seat belt. WTF? thought I. He got out, and when I tried to speak told me to hang on for a minute. He checked in on the walkie talkie, and walked over to the house on the other side of the street. By this time a citizen in pajamas had come out of one of the houses, and almost immediately two more cop cars were were coming down the street.

The other cops got out, and one of them asked the citizen if he was the one who called. He was. He told me he saw two African American youths acting suspiciously, around the house the first cop had gone to check out, and called. Apparently they did break in, but for some reason they took off on bicycles. One of them was caught, and was in the back of one of the cop cars. I asked the citizen what the other looked like. He told me: Dressed in red pants with a black shirt.

I was eager to continue my jog, so told the cops what I saw and started running. Right around the corner sitting on a lawn was a black duffel bag with stereo jack cords hanging out. I went back to tell the cops.

And, that is the end of the story. It was an unusual event. There is a modest amount of crime in this area, not a high amount. I jog four times a week in the area and in my several years here have never seen anything similar.

 

[Pure]

paranoia

runs deep, in the US, it's a national trait dating back to the Salem Days; it ran through the South for decades before the civil war (will the slaves rebel and kill us) and then for slightly different reasons after the civil war, when equality of black persons were threatened

as to box's tired rant
McCarthyism was not paranoia. The threat of the Soviet Union was very real. This was shown by Stalin's partnership with Hitler, and their colmbined invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet annexation of part of that country, and by their invasion of Finland and their annexation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It was further shown during and after the latter stages of WW2 when their armies overran and occupied most of eastern and central Europe and installed puppet governments in those nations. It was also shown by their efforts to take over Berlin and by the invasion by their puppet, North Korea, of South Korea, and by their suppression of revolts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

paranoia suggests vast over reaction and distortion. we know with hindsight that in the 1950s the Soviets had much to worry about and taking W. Europe wasn't on the agenda (nor the US).

the key thing about this paranoia is to oversimplify a complicated situtationa and create "THE ENEMY." you can see in it box's allegation that n korea was a soviet pawn. no evidence.

in the Vietnam times, they said N. Vietnam was a Soviet pawn. Or was it Chinese.


---

Now, as Liar says, the Muslim and Arab worlds (not the same) are homogenized. There's talk of "Islamofascism", as suggested in Malkin's document; Sharia everywhere; violent insurgencies.

In truth the Muslims and Arabs are divided. The Saudis HATE al qaeda. The IRanians ofter hate the Iraqis who are (minority) sunnis.

GWB and his handlers trade on people' fears; they were sold that 9-11 had something to do with Iraq. Now they're sold that iraqi insurgents are most al qaeda or led by them.

i posted MM's manifesto for comment. i am not on the right. i don't think that Islamic folks control W. Europe or have huge lobbies influencing Washington. the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France.

The Far Right, since Hitler's time, always have the theme of EMERGENCY and THEY'RE ALREADY IN CONTROL. Panicked populace are not good at deciphering what's going on, esp. when the right wing leaders play up fears, have photo ops in front of 9-11 etc. I offer Box as evidence.

 

[Boxlicker101]

runs deep, in the US, it's a national trait dating back to the Salem Days; it ran through the South for decades before the civil war (will the slaves rebel and kill us) and then for slightly different reasons after the civil war, when equality of black persons were threatened

as to box's tired rant
McCarthyism was not paranoia. The threat of the Soviet Union was very real. This was shown by Stalin's partnership with Hitler, and their colmbined invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet annexation of part of that country, and by their invasion of Finland and their annexation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It was further shown during and after the latter stages of WW2 when their armies overran and occupied most of eastern and central Europe and installed puppet governments in those nations. It was also shown by their efforts to take over Berlin and by the invasion by their puppet, North Korea, of South Korea, and by their suppression of revolts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

paranoia suggests vast over reaction and distortion. we know with hindsight that in the 1950s the Soviets had much to worry about and taking W. Europe wasn't on the agenda (nor the US).

the key thing about this paranoia is to oversimplify a complicated situtationa and create "THE ENEMY." you can see in it box's allegation that n korea was a soviet pawn. no evidence.

in the Vietnam times, they said N. Vietnam was a Soviet pawn. Or was it Chinese.


---

Now, as Liar says, the Muslim and Arab worlds (not the same) are homogenized. There's talk of "Islamofascism", as suggested in Malkin's document; Sharia everywhere; violent insurgencies.

In truth the Muslims and Arabs are divided. The Saudis HATE al qaeda. The IRanians ofter hate the Iraqis who are (minority) sunnis.

GWB and his handlers trade on people' fears; they were sold that 9-11 had something to do with Iraq. Now they're sold that iraqi insurgents are most al qaeda or led by them.

i posted MM's manifesto for comment. i am not on the right. i don't think that Islamic folks control W. Europe or have huge lobbies influencing Washington. the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France.

The Far Right, since Hitler's time, always have the theme of EMERGENCY and THEY'RE ALREADY IN CONTROL. Panicked populace are not good at deciphering what's going on, esp. when the right wing leaders play up fears, have photo ops in front of 9-11 etc. I offer Box as evidence.

"Paranoia" is usually defined something like: an irrational or illogical fear. Without defending the Ante-bellum slave holders, or any other slave-holders, here are the reasons why their fear of slave rebellions were not paranoia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion

Being afraid to leave the house for fear that everybody was conspiring against me would be paranoia. Warning children against speaking to strangers or petting strange dogs would not be paranoia, because there are very real dangers.

The Soviets did have much to worry about in the Fifties, but their successes in the two previous decades would indicate they still had ambitions. It was not paranoia that led to the US forming and joining defense alliances, such as NATO and SEATO; it was a very real reaction to a very real threat. There were some excesses, but it's better to be over-cautious than not cautions enough. Most persons have no wish to abduct little children, but some do, and it's best to be somewhat suspicious of everybody.

Out of curiosity, how do you know what the Soviets had in mind in the Fifties? From what they did, we know they were out to hold and solidify their earlier conquests, and there is no reason to believe they would not have tried to expand on them if they had perceived the West to be vulnerable, which we weren't. We also know they were fomenting and financing revolutions all over the world, such as in Cuba and Nicaragua.

I said that North Korea was a Soviet pawn because the peace treaty that ended WW2 in the Pacific left them in charge of the northern part of the peninsula.

I'm puzzled about something. You indicate that Islamists are not interested in spreading Sharia law, but then you have this sentence: the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France. Which is it? Are they attempting to enforce Sharia or not?

I agree that Islamists are not a unified force. However, the various groups mainly have similar aims, and all of them are inimical to the West. Earlier, you said there was no "international organization" operating in Iraq. What about Al Qaeda? They are certainly international and I think there is no doubt they are operating there, even though just one of many factions.

You said the far right are the fearmongers. I think it you look around, you will see that it is the left that is contending all sorts of things. What are the politics of the groups that are claiming the US is getting ready to invaDE Iran and is out for world domination? For as long as I can remember, these same kinds of people were warning about the US goal to invade Russia and rule the world.

Edited to add: Here is the dictioinary definition of "paranoia"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia

 

[Pure]

Pure said, //Now, as Liar says, the Muslim and Arab worlds (not the same) are homogenized. There's talk of "Islamofascism", as suggested in Malkin's document; Sharia everywhere; violent insurgencies.

In truth the Muslims and Arabs are divided. The Saudis HATE al qaeda. The IRanians often hate the Iraqis who are (minority) sunnis//

box said,
I'm puzzled about something. You indicate that Islamists are not interested in spreading Sharia law, but then you have this sentence: the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France. Which is it? Are they attempting to enforce Sharia or not?

I agree that Islamists are not a unified force. However, the various groups mainly have similar aims, and all of them are inimical to the West. Earlier, you said there was no "international organization" operating in Iraq. What about Al Qaeda? They are certainly international and I think there is no doubt they are operating there, even though just one of many factions.

box, there is no unified "islamist" enemy, any more than there was a unified "communist" menace.

i alluded to an attempt by some traditional Canadian islamic groups to establish 'sharia law,' on a voluntary basis for family matters. some islamic persons in France have reacted to a ban on the head covering.

lets look at your central piece of paranoia:

You indicate that Islamists are not interested in spreading Sharia law, but then you have this sentence: [Pure's words:]//the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France.//

[Box:]Which is it? Are they attempting to enforce Sharia or not?

Box: I agree that Islamists are not a unified force. However, the various groups mainly have similar aims, and all of them are inimical to the West.

the issue is "similar aims"; Box talks about "they" [Islamists]. the aims may be a threat in certain locales. BUT it's a mistake to add them together as "a threat to THE WEST". Canada dealt with its proposal.

this distortion and myth is a holdover from the 50s and Hitlers time.
in the 50s, it was thought that all "commies" were working to establish a single power over the earth. the truth was that the Soviet communists wanted communism there, and the Chinese communists wanted that system in China. Castro, who wanted communism in Cuba, *freaked* them, since he was supposedly the point man for the advancing red hoardes, headquarted in the Kremlin.

"al qaeda" is, these days, portrayed as the "head" of the worldwide monster threatening the West. yet we know preety clearly that NOT MUCH in Iraqi governing circles, before 2001 had anything to do with al qaeda .

this weird thinking that glomms everything together to make "THE ENEMY" is truly amazing. it's like saying: various bank robbers are trying to rob their local banks. so there is a SIMILAR AIM, inimical to the Western Banks. HENCE THE BANK ROBBERS, AS A COLLECTIVE CONSPIRACY --are trying to destroy all our Western BANKS, and must be addressed with a NATIONAL plan and effort.

Malkin's piece is a variant of the old "Red under every bed" message of the Right Wing speeches of the 50s. AHMED, down the hall in YOUR BUILDING is busy making a bomb, so that--as part of the WORLD ISLAMIST movement. Similarly, Ahmed on the seat neat to you in the airliner.

Further as in the 50s, the right suggest the government is supine, due to Democratic softness or betrayal. Malkin suggests that lawmakers have been bought or are cowardly; they're "soft on terrorism" just as the '50s dems were "soft on communism."

===
[shortened, 12:33 am EDT]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pure said, //Now, as Liar says, the Muslim and Arab worlds (not the same) are homogenized. There's talk of "Islamofascism", as suggested in Malkin's document; Sharia everywhere; violent insurgencies.

In truth the Muslims and Arabs are divided. The Saudis HATE al qaeda. The IRanians often hate the Iraqis who are (minority) sunnis//

box said,
I'm puzzled about something. You indicate that Islamists are not interested in spreading Sharia law, but then you have this sentence: the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France. Which is it? Are they attempting to enforce Sharia or not?

I agree that Islamists are not a unified force. However, the various groups mainly have similar aims, and all of them are inimical to the West. Earlier, you said there was no "international organization" operating in Iraq. What about Al Qaeda? They are certainly international and I think there is no doubt they are operating there, even though just one of many factions.

box, there is no unified "islamist" enemy, any more than there was a unified "communist" menace.

i alluded to an attempt by some traditional Canadian islamic groups to establish 'sharia law,' on a voluntary basis for family matters. some islamic persons in France have reacted to a ban on the head covering.

lets look at your central piece of paranoia:

You indicate that Islamists are not interested in spreading Sharia law, but then you have this sentence: [Pure's words:]//the last attempt to extend Sharia in Canada failed, and will fail in France.//

[Box:]Which is it? Are they attempting to enforce Sharia or not?

I agree that Islamists are not a unified force. However, the various groups mainly have similar aims, and all of them are inimical to the West.

the issue is "similar aims"; you talk about "they" [Islamists]. the aims may be a threat in certain locales. BUT it's a mistake to add them together as "a threat to THE WEST". Canada dealt with its proposal.

this distortion and myth is a holdover from the 50s and Hitlers time.
in the 50s, it was thought that all "commies" were working to establish a single power over the earth. the truth was that the Soviet communists wanted communism there, and the Chinese communists wanted that system in China. so the paranoid right would draw maps with Russia, the Soviet Uniion, and all of China in red: there was an alleged "RED TIDE." Castro, who wanted communism in Cuba, *freaked* them, since he was supposedly the point man for the advancing red hoardes, headquarted in the Kremlin.

"al qaeda" is now potrayed as the "head" of the worldwide monster threatening the West. BUT NOT MUCH in Iraqi, before 2001 had anything to do with al qaeda [Saddam hated fundamentalists], but that didn't stop GWB from linking Saddam, an inconvenient person for another reason, with al qaeda.

this weird thinking that glomms everything together to make "THE ENEMY" is truly amazing. it's like saying: various bank robbers are trying to rob their local banks. so there is a SIMILAR AIM, inimical to the Western Banks.

THE BANK ROBBER CONSPIRACY is trying to destroy all our Western BANKS, and must be addressed with a NATIONAL plan and effort.

Malkin's piece is a variant of the old "Red under every bed" side of the Right Wing speeches of the 50s. AHMED, down the hall in YOUR BUILDING is busy making a bomb, so that--as part of the WORLD ISLAMIST movement, he can make a strike for their evil end. Similarly, Ahmed on the seat neat to you in the airliner. (All Ahmeds are pawns of the Center of Evil, and take orders from Osama and Zarqawi.)

Further as in the 50s, the right suggest the government is supine, due to Democratic softness or betrayal. Malkin suggests that lawmakers have been bought or are cowardly; they're "soft on terrorism" just as the '50s dems were "soft on communism."

Further we know that far right explain Europe's NON participation in Iraq by saying "ISLAMISTS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN CONTROL THERE."

this is what i call panicked, emergency thinking; it advances certain goals. in the US it helps the Cheney Republicans stay in power and give billion dollar contracts, no bid, to their buddies. box, like ami is in the thrall of it, the only difference being that ami is certifiable whereas box is just your old 50s Dulles/JE Hoover Republican (as was the family in which I was raised).
===

PS. Box, in your efforts to say "you too," to the left, you get quite ridiculous. the issue of war with Iran is a live one, NOT caused by left 'paranoia.' the "left" have also scared people by saying, "a US citizen can be arrested and held without charges and access to a lawyer, indefinitely; sometimes beyond the reach of US courts."

Guess what, box. It's true.

A couple of things I want to point out first: Hitler was from the thirties and forties, not the fifties. It has always been my understanding that the Iraqis are mostly Shia, although Saddam was a Sunni. When you say "The Saudis" what do you mean? I'm sure you are aware the majority of the 9-11 bombers were Saudis. You also refer to the differences between Red China and the USSR. They were quite unified in the firties; the schism happened later.

I refer to Islamists or Islamofascists. I'm aware they're not all alike, and I said as much, but I am also aware they have similar aims and more similarities than differences. All of the terrorists and extremists are enemies of the people of the US, and would kill either of us if they had a chance.

Certain Muslim groups have made attempts to establish Sharia law in areas that are mainly Muslim. You mentioned the one in Canada, and they have also tried to do so in France and England.

You said earlier there is no international force operating in Iraq. So I asked about Al Qaeda, which is an international force that operates in Iraq. You merely answered there was no unified enemy, which I already agreed there were many enemies. However, Al Qaeda is probably the largest part, at least in Iraq.

Bank robbers are not out to destroy bands; they are just reying to take money from them. The FBI regards them pretty much the same. They know the Smith Gang is different from the Jones Gang, but they try to arrest the members of both gangs.

This is hardly a "Red under every bed" scare, which was never really suggested anyhow. This is more like "Keep your eyes open for criminal activity", which is not a bad idea. As I see it, it is no more than a neighborhood watch on a large scale. I don't worry about terrorism in the suburbon area where I live, but if I were to be driving across one of the big bridges in the Bay Area, and I saw a truck stop, and some people get out and get into a car and drive away, I would call 911. If I were going to be riding BART under the bay in the summer, and I saw somebody bundled up in a heavy coat, I would talk to security. You may not be willing to admit it but there really are people, mostly Muslims, who want to kill as many Americans as they can, and I think it's a good idea to watch out for them. I also realize you can't look at somebody and tell what that person's religion is, but I would watch for anybody doing suspicious things such as I have described.

 

[Pure]

All of the terrorists and extremists are enemies of the people of the US, and would kill either of us if they had a chance.

this is the fallacy i mentioned: like saying, in the 50s all communists wanted to overthrow the American government.

if "all of the terrorists and extremists" are enemies of the US,

how do you explain the friendship of the early Taliban in Afghanistan, for the US-- i believe some came to the US and were feted by some Bushies and oil boys.

would you say a Basque terrorist has it in for the US?

how about a Chechen ones?


--
dear box, most activists in the world have better things to do than than all work together in concert to kill you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

All of the terrorists and extremists are enemies of the people of the US, and would kill either of us if they had a chance.

this is the fallacy i mentioned: like saying, in the 50s all communists wanted to overthrow the American government.

if "all of the terrorists and extremists" are enemies of the US,

how do you explain the friendship of the early Taliban in Afghanistan, for the US-- i believe some came to the US and were feted by some Bushies and oil boys.

would you say a Basque terrorist has it in for the US?

how about a Chechen ones?


--
dear box, most activists in the world have better things to do than than all work together in concert to kill you.

You are well aware I am referring to Muslim terrorists, with no mention of Basque separatists. The Chechen terrorists, being Muslim, would probably fit into that general category, although most of them have other, more immediate objectives. I understand quite a few of them were members of the Taliban. Some Americans were too, for that matter.

I think it is safe to say that Muslim terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can, and do it in a spectacular fashion. That was the reason for 9-11, in case you have forgotten. I also would say it is safe to say that in the fifties, the governments of China and the USSR wanted to overthrow the US government. That was certainly their stated intention. The home-grown Communists may have had slightly different agendas.

I am using verbs in the present tense, because I am referring to now. 25 years ago, the US was allied with the Taliban because of the common enemy, the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. As I have said many times, sometimes in the real world, one must form alliances with some unsavory characters if there is a common enemy. I am puzzled about your reference to "Bushies" though. Is this a reference to George Bush, VP under Reagan? It was in the eighties, after all.

I am not such an egomaniac to believe that terrorists are particularly desirous of ganging up on me. However, They would kill me if they had a chance, just as they would kill almost any American, including those who are taking their side on this forum.

 

[Vermilion]

This is hardly a "Red under every bed" scare, which was never really suggested anyhow. This is more like "Keep your eyes open for criminal activity", which is not a bad idea. As I see it, it is no more than a neighborhood watch on a large scale. I don't worry about terrorism in the suburbon area where I live, but if I were to be driving across one of the big bridges in the Bay Area, and I saw a truck stop, and some people get out and get into a car and drive away, I would call 911. If I were going to be riding BART under the bay in the summer, and I saw somebody bundled up in a heavy coat, I would talk to security. You may not be willing to admit it but there really are people, mostly Muslims, who want to kill as many Americans as they can, and I think it's a good idea to watch out for them. I also realize you can't look at somebody and tell what that person's religion is, but I would watch for anybody doing suspicious things such as I have described.

This is the paragraph that interests me. You're saying that we should keep our eyes open for criminal activity and report it if we see it, but then mention that there are Muslims who are out to kill us.

How this appears to me is that if you saw a *Muslim* bundled up in a heavy coat you would say something to the authorities, but not necessarily if you saw a white person doing the same.

Surely if an activity is suspicious then it is suspicious no matter the colour or race of person involved? This is what bugs me. Yes, as a society, we should keep an eye out for possible threats, just as we would on a smaller scale. What I disagree with is that we should keep a *closer* eye on certain persons due to their race or religion.

Bear in mind that it's not just Muslims and Islamists etc that are out to kill Americans - Americans are out to kill Americans too: messed up kids with guns and nutjobs with sniper rifles. Why generalise - someone with a grudge is someone with a grudge, no matter their colour or beliefs.

x
V

 

[Liar]

I think it is safe to say that Muslim terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can, and do it in a spectacular fashion. That was the reason for 9-11, in case you have forgotten. I also would say it is safe to say that in the fifties, the governments of China and the USSR wanted to overthrow the US government. That was certainly their stated intention. The home-grown Communists may have had slightly different agendas.

It was also the stated intention of Wile E Coyote to catch the Roadrunner. And for The Brain (and to some extent Pinky) to rule the world. That doesn't mean there was ever any realistic threat that it would really happen.

Besides, it's been said that the reason for 9-11 was not to kill infidel Americans. Bin ladin and Al Q couldn't care less about Americans specifically. He wanted to piss off America, to create an enemy that would unify extremists all through the Arab world. Not that that turned out exactly as planned either. From the looks of it, Iraq specifically, it's a terrorist-eat-terrorist world out there right now, with a random stab at the US for good measures.

I am not such an egomaniac to believe that terrorists are particularly desirous of ganging up on me. However, They would kill me if they had a chance, just as they would kill almost any American, including those who are taking their side on this forum.

Um. Who is taking the side of terrorists on this forum?

I'm taking the side of all those people whose lives have been messed up because they are now guilty until proven innocent, the victims of Malkin's John Doe sputter. it contains many fine examples of when civil courage or government initiative stopped real terrorists. What it doesn't include is the countless of instances of civil courage and government initiative that stomped down on innocent people with the wrong name and the wrong religion at the wrong time.

Your right to safety does not include the right to fuck somebody up, because they look like a bad guy. That's why we need a countering manifesto here.

In fact there is one. This is from a Swedish newspaper in April 2006:


----------

I am Mohammed Yusuf.

I had my business shut down, my accounts siezed and my assets frozen for five years whithout as much as an explanation, no less a formal charge. I couldn't pay the rent or feed my children. Organisations, friends and relatives who tried to help me out financially or legally were either harassed or suffered similar fates to mine. My crime? Working with an arab money transferring service. Sending money to Somali families was apprantly the same as funding terrorism. After the embargo on the company as well as my person was lifted after half a decade, I was left with nothing but the clothes I wear. No compensation, no apology. Nothing. And still no explanation.

I am Mohammed Yusuf, not Abu al-Zarqawi. I have nothing more to do with terrorists than you do.

If it had been you, would you bow your head and accept it? Would you say "that's the price to pay to live in a free nation"?

Then why do you expect me to?

I am Mohammed Yusuf. I will not rest until I have found out why this happened. And if there is no why, there is a who.

---------------