Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - 9 Lectures on Academic Freedom

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

9 Lectures on Academic Freedom
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:51 am Post subject:

Quote:

So you are denying that Campus Watch tries to make paid informants out of students?

So What? What is said in class is fair game.

Quote:

Are you denying that Campus Watch publishes personal details online about academics they target, who then receive death threats?

Emails? Phone numbers? This is public from the uni site anyways. Maybe these little leftists wimps should grow a spine.

Quote:

Or is that kind of behaviour your idea of 'criticism' and 'free thought'? Some idea you have about Academic freedom then.

Sorry, does campus watch threaten them? Or, are you stupid?

Tell you what, go to a leftist internet site and post something like "I believe Israel has a right to exist" and then claim you are Jewish. Wait for the hate. Oh, so much hate. Better yet, go to a "meeting" about Israel, express a middle of the road position and then say you are Jewish.

If you think that these little pus.sy leftists are the ones who get death threats, you are unhinged from reality. Un.hing.ed.

Quote:

No doubt you are one more mindless American Crazy who swallowed the BS about Saddam's WMD.

No doubt. Except,

1) I'm Canadian
2) I marched against the war and opposed it from day 1

Now, who taught you to "think" like that? Maybe, this is why the best employment you can find is babysitting lower middle class korean kids for 24k year?

Thanks for playing, Eurotrash.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:08 am Post subject:

cerulean808 wrote:

Roo

Quote:

Chomsky = Khmer Rouge apologist.

So it is no suprsise that cerulean808 who has no problem with apartheid , ethnic cleanising and war crimes when they are done by Israel's enemies is a fan.

You're a proven liar, posting State Department releases claiming Saddam has WMD, Saddam is holding back humanitarian supplies etc...

But what else can be expected from an American Crazy?

Quote:

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

� Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

� Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Photo 1: click here or on image for enlargement and caption

� Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

� Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

� Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

Loser.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject:

Roo:

Quote:

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

I think Roos got a crush on me! Laughing

He keeps following me round threads trying to get my attention with impertinent and outlandish posts.

theflake:

Quote:

So What? What is said in class is fair game.

Ok, so you think trying to make paid informants out of students is how an organisation or individuals wanting to engage in public debate behave. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Sorry, does campus watch threaten them?

Yes, as I have already pointed out after Campus Watch posts their details these professors receive hate messages and death threats to them and their families.

Quote:

If you think that these little pus.sy leftists are the ones who get death threats, you are unhinged from reality.

So now you're denying they received death threats?

Quote:

Tell you what, go to a leftist internet site and post something like "I believe Israel has a right to exist" and then claim you are Jewish. Wait for the hate.

This is about academic institutions not public internet discussion forums.

Quote:

1) I'm Canadian
2) I marched against the war and opposed it from day 1...Thanks for playing, Eurotrash.

You should move south, you would feel more at home.

Funny how its impossible to find anyone who will admit they supported the war or believed the WMD BS these days, and yet at the time anyone who opposed it was vilified as an appeaser and a fool.

So you want everyone to believe you were out there on the streets standing shoulder to shoulder with all those lefties in solidarity?

You hold Campus Watch in high regard. Lets take a look at its ring leader, Daniel Pipes:

Quote:

...Middle East Quarterly, the house organ of the Middle East Forum, the neo-conservative think tank directed by Daniel Pipes. Pipes has a long record of attempting to incite Americans against Arabs and Muslims. In 1990 he wrote:

'Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene. All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most'.

One recent project of the Middle East Forum is Campus-Watch, a website designed to police dissent on university campuses. Its aim was to 'monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement, and ignorance.'
(Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2003, page 7 of English edition)

Brown-skinned peoples? Strange Foods? Different standards of hygiene?

But don't call Pipes a racist!

Quote:

Daniel Pipes was one of those reviewers who favorably received From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab�Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, a book which was so egregiously wrong that even the Zionist historian Yehoshua Porath had this to say about it:

"I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters's highly tendentious use�or neglect�of the available source material. ... Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists ... would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.
("Mrs. Peters's Palestine", New York Review of Books, January 16, 1986).

It's not surprising that thepeel finds an organisation run by a creature like Daniel Pipes appealing, because he is an ignorant, racist bigot.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject:

I think academic freedom is a great idea! Although there needs to be more perspective.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject:

Quote:

This sentence has over the years attracted considerable attention. My goal in this article (available at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/198) was to characterize the thinking of Western Europeans, not give my own views. In retrospect, I should either have put the words �brown-skinned peoples� and �strange foods� in quotation marks or made it clearer that I was explaining European attitudes rather than my own. By way of example of those attitudes, here are some quotations from top French politicians from that era.

http://www.danielpipes.org/cair.php

Anyway lets take a lot at what he he did say:

Quote:

Daniel Pipes' scholarship merits our respect

Who is Daniel Pipes? Daniel Pipes is among the nation's preeminent scholars of Islam and the Middle East; the author of 12 books in the field; a former professor at Harvard, the University of Chicago, and the U.S. Naval War College; and a prize-winning columnist for the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post. Dr. Pipes' distinction in his field led President Bush to appoint him to the United States Institute of Peace, an organization devoted to promoting "peaceful resolutions of international conflicts."

Dr. Pipes became prominent after Sept. 11, 2001, by dint of his prescient warnings about the threat militant Islam poses to the United States. Years before Sept. 11, Dr. Pipes warned that radical Muslims had declared war on the United States: "Unnoticed by most Westerners," he wrote in 1995, "war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States." He identified the threat as Islamism, a militant interpretation of Islam working to submit secular society to Muslim laws and principles. The Boston Globe, among many others, heralded Dr. Pipes' foresight: "If Pipes' admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11."

Dr. Pipes, along with Yale Diplomat in Residence Charles Hill, is speaking at Yale today. Hosted by the Middle East Forum at Yale, Dr. Pipes and Hill will address current issues in the Middle East ranging from the War on Terror to the War in Iraq. More distinguished scholars addressing more important issues would be difficult to come by. A scholar who perceived the dangers of radical Islam and cautioned America about the prospect of an attack on its citizens merits both our attention and our respect. We were not listening before Sept. 11. We should know better now.

Yet Dr. Pipes' arrival on campus will be greeted with defamatory charges that have become a hallmark of his opponents: charges of Islamophobia, racism and bigotry. Dr. Pipes' opponents intend to stigmatize him with hateful, if hackneyed, criticisms, thereby shutting down a debate before it begins. They do so because it is a debate they will surely lose. "Racist!" and "Islamophobe!" are stinging and peremptory allegations that make substantive discourse nearly impossible. These charges, however, are false.

Dr. Pipes has devoted his professional life to the study of Islam and the Arab world. He carefully distinguishes between radical Islam, "the problem" in his words, and moderate Islam, "the solution." He has repeatedly voiced his belief that "Islam is not the problem. Terrorism is not the problem. It's a terroristic version of Islam that's the problem." These are hardly the sentiments of a determined and devoted opponent of Islam. Yet groups that seek to defame Dr. Pipes, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and activist groups on this campus, have smeared him as "a prolific author of anti-Islamic screeds" and as "avidly anti-Muslim." When his critics attack Dr. Pipes for attacking Islam, is it because they draw no such distinction between the problem and the solution? If so, it is not Dr. Pipes who is guilty of defaming Islam. It is his opponents.

How, then, do Dr. Pipes' opponents dress his beliefs in an ignominious cloak of Islamophobia? Simple. Dr. Pipes' opponents routinely pick through his writings, and brandish out-of-context tidbits with an endless stream of name-calling. Take, for example, Dr. Pipes' 1990 statement that Europeans "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene." Dr. Pipes' opponents won't tell you that "brown-skinned peoples," "strange foods," and "different standards of hygiene" were his descriptions of current European conceptions of Muslims, not his own. They also won't relay Pipes' next sentence: "the movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."

Dr. Pipes is undoubtedly a supporter of a strong American defense and aggressive antiterrorism measures. The controversial nature of Dr. Pipes' scholarship, however, does not make him a racist, a bigot, a Muslim-hater, or an Islamophobe. His scholarship, his words and his actions belie these claims. The use of epithets in a hateful attempt to hinder genuine discourse reflects on the purveyors of the epithets, not on Dr. Pipes. Please look past the tired rhetoric and come hear Dr. Pipes for yourself today at 3:30 p.m. in LC 102. Those who believe his opponents' slanderous claim that he is "the premier Muslim basher" may be surprised to hear what he has to say.

Eliana Johnson is a sophomore in Saybrook College. She is the president of Middle East Forum at Yale.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/9045?badlink=1

Currlean is a supporter of John Pilger. Pilger is a bigot. For real.

Quote:

The Guardian carries a letter from John Pilger depicting Egypt as a wronged party in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. There's a time and a place for everything, and Pilger's eccentric historical interpretations are not the subject of this post. But one of the statements within the letter makes a curious juxtaposition with a story elsewhere in the same edition of the paper. Pilger writes:

According to [Jonathan] Freedland, the present Israeli regime is merely "a clumsy prizefighter driven to fury by a fly buzzing around its ears". His description of the entire Palestinian resistance as buzzing flies would be shocking if it did not accurately reflect Israeli racism, itself a virulent form of anti-semitism.
You read that last clause right: Pilger is making an accusation not only of Israeli racism - a standard trope of the extreme Left - but also of Israeli anti-semitism. It's not a misprint: it's a libel he fully intends.

The reasoning behind Pilger's bizarre accusation is pure sophistry. It is common on the extreme Left, and it runs like this. Israelis complain about the prejudiced character of parts of the popular culture of the Arab world (for example, a television drama assuming the truth of the notorious Tsarist forgery the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; Palestinian textbooks retailing venerable anti-Jewish libels). They are, according to the anti-Israel campaigners, being disingenuous however in levelling accusations of anti-semitism, because the Arabs themselves are a semitic people. How then could it possibly be true to describe the Palestinian Authority and other Arab groups as guilty of anti-semitism, when they are themselves semites? (This is presented as a rhetorical question and conversation-stopper, but it's generally followed, as in Pilger's letter, by accusations of Israeli racism, colonialism and manifold other sins of commission and omission.)

I'm no fan of Pilger's, but I think this calumny is the most egregious remark I've come across even from that source. What's wrong with it is that it reduces the suffering of the Jewish people - most obviously the attempt in the last century to kill every Jew in Europe, but a Judaeophobia that has lasted literally millennia - by means of semantic trickery. It is a historical accident that the term 'anti-semitism' exists at all, let alone is the common term for anti-Jewish prejudice. The term was coined only in the second half of the nineteenth century by a German anti-Jewish polemicist, Wilhelm Marr. Marr argued that western civilisation had been infiltrated by a pernicious Jewish influence, and he established his own Anti-Semitic League in 1871 to further his anti-Jewish demagoguery.

Ironically Marr, an extremist Jew-baiter, thereby invented a term that became standard as a label for anti-Jewish prejudice. Yet it's an intellectually idle and vacuous word as well as a euphemism. There is, after all, no such phenomenon as 'Semitism' to which one can be opposed. The destructive effect of the very term anti-Semitism can be discerned in Pilger's casual insults. If 'anti-semitism' doesn't mean prejudice specifically against Jews, then we have no immediately recognised term for that particular prejudice. Because the language we use about politics is crucial to the clarity of our thinking about a subject (I don't entirely endorse Orwell's views on language and politics, but I do this one), this softening of the specificity of anti-Jewish prejudice serves to anaesthetise our moral defences. It's a process that marked the history of the so-called German Democratic Republic, a prison-state that not only refused to accept any historical guilt for the Holocaust but was also a relentless source of anti-Jewish propaganda and anti-Israel agitation

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/john_pilger_def.html

Unlike Pipes nothing about Pilgers letter was taken out of context.

Here is the original letter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2003/oct/10/guardianletters

Currlean808

Quote:

I think Roos got a crush on me! He keeps following me round threads trying to get my attention with impertinent and outlandish posts.

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:19 am Post subject:

cerulean wrote:

Quote:

In the wake of the Finkelstein firing there was an interesting article on how he would have been ok in an Israeli University, but in the corporatised American system, "controversial" intellectuals are seen as a "liability" to University managers and so removed as soon as practically possible.

This observation coming from a poster who makes thepeel and czarjorge frothing-at-the-mouth fascists by comparison.

Listen, if you want to get and keep my attention, try a novel approach in your next post: plays devil's advocate. But let me do it for you. Imagine this: what would be the chances of any American professor on the Far Right who speaks and writes and showboats the way Finkelstein evidently does even being hired by a major American university these days? When you can explore that question in earnest, get back to me.

Last edited by stevemcgarrett on Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:23 am Post subject:

Big Bird chirped:

Quote:

It is the case that much more dissent (with regard to discussion of the occupation) is allowed in Israel than the US. But Israel has had its own problems

Instead of comparing dissent between these two democratic states, why not make more apt comparisons with your beloved Islamic states like a good apologist?

And ya know, my fine feathered friend, for someone who fervently claims to be in favor of free speech on campus, it's quite telling that you have never addressed one of the most pernicious, ongoing tactics of leftwing professors to stifle serious discussion and debate, namely, their required course reading lists. Venture into any campus bookstore and search the shelves for courses taught in the humanities and almost invariably those offered by the Far Left will exclude any works which don't neatly conform to their own ideological agenda. And by chance if you should come across a dissenting voice, you can be fairly well assured it will be some tract that is easy to rip apart. It is disingenuous for professors on the Far Left to defend the manner in which they direct class discussions while compiling lists of required readings that do little more than reconfirm the Party line.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:34 am Post subject:

steve mccarthy, the freedom loving torturer, ranted:

Quote:

This observation coming from a poster who makes thepeel and czarjorge frothing-at-the-mouth fascists by comparison.

You're a joke, Steve.

Steve sends private messages making personal attacks against individuals and their loved ones if they don't share his extremist political views.

Then homophobic vitriol pours forth from his sewer mouth against Moderators because they won't censor individuals who challenge his extremist political views.

No wonder he loves Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch.

Steve needs medication.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:50 am Post subject:

And while on the topic of individuals in need of psychiatric treatment:

Roo:

Quote:

Anyway lets take a lot at what he he did say:

We know what he said, and it was racist nonsense about 'brown skinned peoples'.

You can try spin it any way you like, that racist apologist Eliana Johnson:

Quote:

President Bush to appoint him to the United States Institute of Peace, an organization devoted to promoting "peaceful resolutions of international conflicts."

She didn't mention that in 2004 Pipes was temporarily appointed by George W. Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, but as of January 17, 2005, Bush had "failed to take any action to renominate�"

Hmmm, I wonder why?

Why doesn't she mention Pipes huge praise for the monumental intellectual fraud "From Time Immemorial" by pro Israeli and American Crazie, Ms Swanson?

Daniel Pipes is another crazie who lies and bullies and tries to shut down debate. No wonder Roo and Steve McCarthy can't get enough of the guy.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:12 am Post subject:

Quote:

cerulean808"]And while on the topic of individuals in need of psychiatric treatment:

Why you gonna talking about Pilger?

Quote:

Anyway lets take a lot at what he he did say:

Quote:

We know what he said, and it was racist nonsense about 'brown skinned peoples'.

You can try spin it any way you like, that racist apologist Eliana Johnson:

You can spin it any want like that bigot John Pilger.

Quote:

President Bush to appoint him to the United States Institute of Peace, an organization devoted to promoting "peaceful resolutions of international conflicts."

Quote:

If you want you can go to what those who opposed him staying on . It was cause he is one sided - not cause he is racist.

cause Pipes is one sided not cause he is racist.

Quote:

Why doesn't she mention Pipes huge praise for the monumental intellectual fraud "From Time Immemorial" by pro Israeli and American Crazie, Ms Swanson?

One sided book that is all.

Quote:

Daniel Pipes is another crazie who lies and bullies and tries to shut down debate. No wonder Roo and Steve McCarthy can't get enough of the guy

No that is what you try to do with misinformation.

Here is the what was really said:

Quote:

How, then, do Dr. Pipes' opponents dress his beliefs in an ignominious cloak of Islamophobia? Simple. Dr. Pipes' opponents routinely pick through his writings, and brandish out-of-context tidbits with an endless stream of name-calling. Take, for example, Dr. Pipes' 1990 statement that Europeans "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene."[b] Dr. Pipes' opponents won't tell you that "brown-skinned peoples," "strange foods," and "different standards of hygiene" were his descriptions of current European conceptions of Muslims, not his own. They also won't relay Pipes' next sentence: "the movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."

On the other hand Pilger is a bigot - for real.

Unlike cerulean808 use quotes out of context need not be used to make the case.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:59 am Post subject:

cerulean spewed out:

Quote:

You're a joke, Steve.

TRANSLATION: I can't mount a cogent answer, so I'll resort to condemnation.

Steve sends private messages making personal attacks against individuals and their loved ones if they don't share his extremist political views.

TRANSLATION: I can't answer your question so I'll make like Hillary and conjure up a smear campaign of my own.

Then homophobic vitriol pours forth from his sewer mouth against Moderators because they won't censor individuals who challenge his extremist political views.

TRANSLATION: I'm butt buddies with one of the MODS, so I'll use that to my advantage.

No wonder he loves Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch.

Cerulean: I don't even know who Daniel Pipes is.

Steve needs medication.[/quote}

TRANSLATION: I need to project my own fears and shortcomings.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject:

Roo:

Quote:

Here is the what was really said:

Quote:
How, then, do Dr. Pipes' opponents dress his beliefs in an ignominious cloak of Islamophobia? Simple. Dr. Pipes' opponents routinely pick through his writings, and brandish out-of-context tidbits with an endless stream of name-calling. Take, for example, Dr. Pipes' 1990 statement that Europeans "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene."[b] Dr. Pipes' opponents won't tell you that "brown-skinned peoples," "strange foods," and "different standards of hygiene" were his descriptions of current European conceptions of Muslims, not his own. They also won't relay Pipes' next sentence: "the movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."

Another lie. Here is what Pipes said:

Quote:

Responding to Immigration

Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene.* Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides; in all likelihood, the Rushdie affair was merely a prelude to further troubles; already it has spawned a Muslim political party in Great Britain. Put differently, Iranian zealots threaten more within the gates of Vienna than outside them.

Then the racist bigot tries to back out of it by adding a *footnote later saying he should have put quote marks around the phrase to clarify it: "My goal in it was to characterize the thinking of Western Europeans, not give my own views.

As can be seen from the paragraph and the article itself he's lying and back peddling furiously.

stevemccarthy

Quote:

cerulean spewed out:...

More crazy nonsense from an American extremist.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject:

="cerulean808"]Roo:

Quote:

Here is the what was really said:

Quote:
How, then, do Dr. Pipes' opponents dress his beliefs in an ignominious cloak of Islamophobia? Simple. Dr. Pipes' opponents routinely pick through his writings, and brandish out-of-context tidbits with an endless stream of name-calling. Take, for example, Dr. Pipes' 1990 statement that Europeans "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene." Dr. Pipes' opponents won't tell you that "brown-skinned peoples," "strange foods," and "different standards of hygiene" were his descriptions of current European conceptions of Muslims, not his own. They also won't relay Pipes' next sentence: "the movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."

Another lie. Here is what Pipes said:

Quote:

cerulean spewed out:...

More crazy nonsense from an American extremist.[/quote]

Quote:

[b]Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. [b]If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies

If that were his intentiion they how do you explain the quote in bold.

You can't the bigot is Pilger and I got his whole quote to prove it. The only liar he is you.

Pilger is a vile bigot and an apologist for any enemy of the US.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:13 am Post subject:

cerulean upchucked:

Quote:

More crazy nonsense from an American extremist.

You don't reflect before you post here, do you? Instead, you're like Linda Blair on crack.

Tell me, how is it that my views are extremist? If you'd deigned to read even a smattering of them from a few threads, you'd know I'm not an ideologue.

Or is it that your views are so far to port side that you can't see the starboard side of boat, Hugo?

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

If that were his intentiion they how do you explain the quote in bold.

A long hysterical "the barbarians are at the gates!!!" rant followed by a "but I still think they're ok ( if they do exactly as they are told )"

Reminds me of antigay types who rant about homosexuality destroying Western civilization but then claim "I have friends who are gay so I'm not a homophobe."

And in Pipes case he tries to flick it on to the "Europeans". Which particular ones I wonder? The anti immigrant Islamophobes who occupy his end of the political spectrum.

Ok its official. Right wing white guys like Roo, Steve McCarthy et al LOVE ,to quote Pipes,"brownskinned peoples with different standards of hygiene", so don't call them racist! Rolling Eyes

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe