This July 4 comment is adapted from my book What's So Great About America. For more information on that or my other books, go to dineshdsouza.com
America is today the most loved society in the world--and the most hated. At a time when we are constantly lectured about our nation's flaws, it is useful to be reminded of the other side of the story. This July 4 weekend, it's worth thinking about what this country does right. The forgotten truth is that America
is still the most attractive society in the world, and its appeal is felt even by the children of the America-haters.
Whatever the flaws of American policy and American culture, let's remember that immigrants from every continent continue to brave dislocation and hardship to come to America
. Why do they do it? The conventional wisdom is that immigrants come to
for one reason: to make money. This notion is conveyed in the "rags to riches" literature on immigrants, and it is reinforced by 's critics, who like to think of America
as buying the affection of outsiders through the promise of making them filthy rich. But this Horatio Alger narrative is woefully incomplete; indeed, it misses the real attraction of Ameica
to immigrants, and to people around the world.
There is enough truth in the conventional account to give it a surface plausibility. Certainly America offers a degree of mobility and opportunity unavailable elsewhere, not even in
Europe . Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose ancestry is Iranian and who grew up in
, have started a company like eBay. Only in America
could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a shaper of the technology industry and a billionaire to boot.
In addition to providing unprecedented social mobility and opportunity, America
gives a better life to the ordinary guy than does any other country. Let's be honest: rich people live well everywhere. In fact if you are very rich, my advice to you is not to live in America
. The reason is that in most countries, but not in the United States
, money buys you the pleasure of aristocracy-the pleasure of being a superior human being. Americans, however, share a social ethic that is deeply egalitarian. Americans believe that no matter how much money Bill Gates has, he is not better than they are.
America's greatness is that it has extended the benefits of affluence, traditionally available to the very few, to a large segment in society. America is a country where "poor" people have television sets and microwave ovens, where maids drive rather nice cars, where plumbers take their families on vacation to
Europe . Recently I asked an acquaintance in Mumbai why he has been trying so hard to relocate to America
. He replied, "I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat."
The typical immigrant, who is used to the dilapidated infrastructure, mind-numbing inefficiency, and multi-layered corruption of developing countries, arrives in America to discover, to his wonder and delight, that everything works: the roads are clean and paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone, you can even buy things from the store and then take them back. The American supermarket is a thing to behold: endless aisles of every imaginable product, many different types of cereal, fifty flavors of ice cream. The place is full of numerous unappreciated inventions: quilted toilet paper, fabric softener, cordless phones, disposable diapers, and roll-on luggage.
So, yes, in material terms America
offers the newcomer a better life. Still, the material allure of
does not capture the deepest source of its appeal. Recently I asked myself how my life would have been different if I had not come to America
. I was raised in a middle-class family in India
. I didn't have luxuries, but I didn't lack necessities. Materially, my life is better in the United States
, but it is not a fundamental difference. My life has changed far more dramatically in other ways.
Had I remained in India
, I would probably live my entire existence within a modest radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical caste, religious and socioeconomic background. I would face relentless pressure to become an engineer, like my father; a doctor, like a couple of my uncles; or a computer programmer. My socialization would have been almost entirely within my ethnic community. I would have a whole set of opinions on religion and politics and society that could be predicted in advance. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.
By coming to America
, I have seen my life break free of these traditional confines. At
Dartmouth
College, I became interested in literature, and switched my major to the humanities. Soon I developed a fascination with politics, and resolved to become a writer, which is something you can make a living doing in America, and which is not easy to do in India
. I married a woman of English, Scotch-Irish, French, and German ancestry. Eventually I found myself working in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. I cannot imagine any other country allowing a non-citizen to work in its inner citadel of government.
In most of the world, even today, your identity and your fate are largely handed to you. This is not to say that you have no choice, but it is choice within given parameters. In America
, by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life. What to be, where to live, whom to love, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice-these are all decisions that, in America
, we make for ourselves. Here we are the architects of our own destiny.
Some critics, both in
and abroad, have noted that this freedom to shape one's own life is not an unmixed blessing. Freedom can be used well or badly. Some Americans do indeed make mistakes with freedom, as the country's high divorce and illegitimacy rates suggest. These are unfortunate social trends, but we should remember that while freedom allows vice its scope, it also gives greater luster to virtue. It is no great achievement for an Indian couple to keep its marriage together, because the social stigma against divorce is prohibitive. By contrast, American couples who stay married deserve greater credit because they have chosen the good when the good is not the only practical option.
Those who have tasted the exhilaration of freedom-which entails responsibility for one's own choices and one's own life-can hardly imagine living in any other system. The core American idea is the "pursuit of happiness," which means that happiness is not a guarantee, but that
you have a chance to find it for yourself. No wonder that so many young people throughout the world are magnetically attracted to what
America represents: they find irresistible the prospect of being in the driver's seat of their lives. So, too, the immigrant discovers that America
permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 11)
76. If there was ever any doubt before this piece of garbage clearly shows that dimwit is a typical head up his ass repulsican.
Geoff Barker at 11:00AM on Jul 4th 2008
77. Well Dinesh... not bad. I mean, I admire the effort. But somehow I can't really buy into it... the glaringly obvious and quite painful grammatical and spelling mistakes do ruin it for me. Don't get me wrong, America's pretty damn okay. I'd rather be in the Carribean or something, soaking up the sun with a pina colada in hand, but America's alright.
But wait... what's this? I just remembered that Dinesh bashes freedom itself in this blog all the time. I mean, he talks about how great it is that Americans have all of these freedoms, and yet the only time he talks about love is when speaking of arranged marriage. Well what about the freedom to love someone of your own sex? What about the freedom to believe in the Democratic party? What about the freedom to believe that America needs improvement? What about the freedom to be an atheist? Or a Muslim?
Americans know that under the Constitution they have the right to be any of those things, and that nothing DD says can change that. But it would be nice if for once he would stop being a hypocrite and realize that his way isn't the only good way.
And if DD posts more blogs like this, then maybe I'll retract that.
But please, proof read next time, k?
Taylor at 12:26PM on Jul 4th 2008
78. JSL, good post. The context, the fact, is that Christianity provided fertile soil in which God fearing men rooted already maturing ideas and institutions -- now having room to take firm root and grow like mad. Again, I think much of the deist attack on Christianity lost it's vigor in the face of the French Revolution, the atrocities of which just possibly sobered a few 200 proof reason swallowers.
Anyway, in regard to one of your comments, perhaps even Paine would have fought the ACLU:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”
Jesse at 12:40PM on Jul 4th 2008
79. Taylor, I agree on the proof reading thing.
However, you also say:
::But wait... what's this? I just remembered that Dinesh bashes freedom itself in this blog all the time. I mean, he talks about how great it is that Americans have all of these freedoms, and yet the only time he talks about love is when speaking of arranged marriage. Well what about the freedom to love someone of your own sex? What about the freedom to believe in the Democratic party? What about the freedom to believe that America needs improvement? What about the freedom to be an atheist? Or a Muslim?
Americans know that under the Constitution they have the right to be any of those things, and that nothing DD says can change that. But it would be nice if for once he would stop being a hypocrite and realize that his way isn't the only good way.
Honestly, the only way any of what you say makes any sense at all, at least to me, is if Dinesh wants to crush those things with the heavy hand of government. Do you find any hint of that on his blog?
Jesse at 1:07PM on Jul 4th 2008
80.
Until the founding of the United States of America, all governments, ancient and modern, were managed by the politics of religion. Politics, from the Greek word polis (city, citystate), are the forces which influence the method of governance of nations and other divisions of society. Religion was the most dominant political factor in all nations and governed societies from prehistory until 1791, when the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States were ratified. In the United States, secular, constitutional law has replaced religion as the primary influence in the regulation of society. That is what makes our country unique. That is why we can consider ourselves special.
The first amendment to the Constitution ensures that our government is secular in nature, and sanctions no religion or religious political influence; therefore, it guarantees each of us freedom of religious worship, freedom from religious worship, and the privileges that are implied as benefits of those freedoms. The most venerable scripture that exists in this nation is the Constitution of the United States. It assures us that we will be governed by secular law, and it separates religion from law, by law. All other texts, no matter how greatly revered, or by whom, are politically subordinate to it. This is in accordance with the deliberate intentions of the founders of this nation.
Leaders such as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin were disciples of the seventeenth century Enlightenment, who understood, and had been governed by, the politics of religion. With the concurrance of most religious leaders and the populace, they purposely decided to eliminate religious political influence from the governance of the nation--not religion, just the politics of religion. They saved the privilege of privately practicing any religion or no religion, but ended the publicly sanctioned political privilege and influence of any religion. That was their intent, and that is how the document they produced has usually been interpreted by the federal court system.
There are many in this country who want to restore the constitutionally forbidden, unethical political privilege of their religion, de facto, if not de jure. Their motivation is the mandate of their unique supernatural beliefs to impose the ethics of those beliefs on all the people of this nation. Their method of operation is to elect, or influence the appointment of, those who share and support their beliefs, to any and all government positions.
Experience tells me that few of those who argue the pros and cons of religious political influence are knowledgable of the history of religious advocacy in America. The leaders of the puritans, who immigrated in the 1630's in an effort to escape nationalized religion, imposed their own mandatory religion in their colony. They expelled Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for preaching that God endowed all people with a conscience which he expected them to use, and therefore it was sinful and against the wishes of God to impose any form of worship on anyone. I learned that as a schoolboy, and I have not forgotten it. In many colonies, one could not vote or own property if one was not a member of that colony's officially sanctioned religion, and almost all colonies officially discriminated against or persecuted members of unfavored religions or no religion.
The Congregationalists (successors of the puritans), Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, traveling fundamentalists (evangelists), deists, and less obviously, for obvious reasons, the Catholics, Jews, Muslims, those of no religion, and others, contributed over the years to what had become a debate about whether or not to allow religious political privilege in America. The result of the debate was, "No!" The founders, with the approval of the great majority of the clergy and citizenry, wishing to produce a document that would provide a maximum of personal freedom, decided that to preserve each person's right to believe any religion or no religion, this religious country should and must have an enlightened, secular form of government. Those, today, who wish to believe and to declare that the United States is a Christian nation, or was founded as a Christian nation, are very wrong--either misled, revisionist, ignorant of the real history of this nation, or too biased by their religious dogma to consider rational facts. Those who advocate the return of religious expression to government and governmental institutions and facilities are espousing the expression of their religion. Freedom of and from religion is not possible unless every division of government is entirely secular.
When our nation was young we were warned of the insidious nature of the ecclesiastics (paraphrasing a founder); for over four hundred years, since the first Europeans arrived, the political privileges that religions assume have been problematic. These days we may think they only involve a few minor privileges, examples of which are sanctioned public school prayer; invocations at public high school football games and graduation ceremonies, and at all kinds of government functions and sessions; the ill-conceived insertion of the words, "In God We Trust" on our coins and bills, and, "under God" in the Pledge; displays of the decalogue and creches on government property; governmentally recognized religious holidays; proselytizing military and prison chaplains; and ostentatious public pronouncements of faith by political leaders. The first amendment to the Constitution reserves privileges for those who believe and practice any religion, as well as those who believe and practice none. The Constitution does not sanction any of the former to assume public privileges over one another, or over the latter, and vice versa.
The real concern should not be about what many consider to be minor disputes. The attempts by some fundamentalist and conservative supernaturalists to restore unethical religious political privileges, if successful, could severely restrict our scientific, academic, personal, and religious freedoms. They are idealogues who, when speaking of religious freedom, mean only their particular religion. This threat is real, serious, and unrecognized by the population in general. Many of our elected officials have allowed their religious bias to cloud their understanding of our Constitution, the greatest political document ever written, the guarantor of our liberties. Unhappy with the judicial system they have labeled "activist", which, in clearly upholding the intent of the Constitution, has generally refused to limit our personal freedoms, they are now promoting state and federal constitutional amendments that will do just that.
The document is known as the Constitution because its primary purpose was to firmly establish, or constitute, the body, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and empowerment of the national and state governments and individual citizens. The objective of the constitutional convention was to produce a body that, would "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...".
Union, Justice, Tranquility, common defence, general welfare, Blessings of Liberty--ten words encompassing the basic social privileges the founders hoped to secure for themselves, their fellow Americans, and all succeeding generations of Americans by struggling to constitute a governing body that could ensure the deliverance of those privileges. Those people active in the constitutional convention were aware that the Constitution contained no other language referencing social issues (other than enslavement), and most of them were content to think they had created the constitutional body and process that would secure universal social privileges. It soon became clear that the general public didn't concur, and that the Constitution would not be accepted as complete without the inclusion of specific human rights, privileges, and freedoms.
Twelve amendments to the Constitution were quickly submitted, and the ten that secured personal freedoms were ratified. This "Bill Of Rights" was included to ensure that the government would, without doubt, allow universal social privileges, and that Americans would enjoy maximum freedom of activity without undue political restrictions or governmental interference. There has never been a constitutional amendment that would restrict the rights, privileges, or freedoms of any ordinary U. S. resident, except Amendment XVIII, which prohibited alcohol and was soon repealed. It should be noted that the Constitution does not specifically ban ordinary citizens or other residents from conducting any personal activity (including murder or any other common capital crime) except slavery (Amendment XIII). By the time Amendment XIII became law, most religions had abandoned their historical acceptance of slavery. It should be perfectly clear that social issues involving religious political influence, which require restrictions on personal liberty, are inappropriate subjects for inclusion as constitutional amendments. They are issues that the legislature and the courts should decide. That was the intent of the founders.
Robert E. Plonsky
Natural Puppy at 1:36PM on Jul 4th 2008
81. JSL, well said. Excellent comment.
"Non-Christian" does not equal "anti-religion."
Allow me to point out that atheist also does not mean "anti-religion". It means "without religion". Without taking a poll, I would guess that most atheists would like to simply keep the govt and church as separate entities the way it was intended. Incidentally, this makes them conservatives lol. Not too many atheists want to abolish religion(Hays aside) and accept that there would be some measure of overlap between the personal life and political policies of people in govt. On the topic of teaching about a god as a creator in schools, how can you do that when every individual has a different concept of who or what the creator is?
a born atheist at 1:38PM on Jul 4th 2008
82. a born atheist:
I am willing to agree with your definition of atheist, but then you'll have to separate yourself from today's most outspoken atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.), who all want to abolish religion. These individuals recognize that an individual's political and vocational life cannot be purely independent of their personal life. An individual's deepest held beliefs (whether religious or not), will influence how they interact with the world around them. Thus, the only way to avoid the "evils of religion" is to cleanse society of religion altogether.
Regarding the issue of "creationism" in public schools, it is not difficult to overcome the issue you mention above. We both know that the existence of conflicting concepts of God does not logically dismiss the existence of God altogether. If this were true, we'd have to conclude that conflicting accounts of a crime mean there was no crime at all. This, of course, is absurd. Although "creationism" is a view held by many Christians, the view itself does not demand the Christian concept of God. It simply demands a supernatural being of some sort, something capable of creating the natural world. Since the scientific evidence available to us today supports this view, it would be appropriate to, at a minimum, teach the view as a scientifically-supported theory (not to mention a widely-held one). Given what we know about the universe, anything less would be intellectually dishonest.
Troy at 4:01PM on Jul 4th 2008
83. a born atheist:
I am willing to agree with your definition of atheist, but then you'll have to separate yourself from today's most outspoken atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.), who all want to abolish religion. These individuals recognize that an individual's political and vocational life cannot be purely independent of their personal life. An individual's deepest held beliefs (whether religious or not), will influence how they interact with the world around them. Thus, the only way to avoid the "evils of religion" is to cleanse society of religion altogether.
Regarding the issue of "creationism" in public schools, it is not difficult to overcome the issue you mention above. We both know that the existence of conflicting concepts of God does not logically dismiss the existence of God altogether. If this were true, we'd have to conclude that conflicting accounts of a crime mean there was no crime at all. This, of course, is absurd. Although "creationism" is a view held by many Christians, the view itself does not demand the Christian concept of God. It simply demands a supernatural being of some sort, something capable of creating the natural world. Since the scientific evidence available to us today supports this view, it would be appropriate to, at a minimum, teach the view as a scientifically-supported theory (not to mention a widely-held one). Given what we know about the universe, anything less would be intellectually dishonest.
Troy at 4:26PM on Jul 4th 2008
84. Happy 4th of July! Jesse Helms is dead! The best 4th ever! If his family gives the corpse an enema they can bury what's left in a matchbox.
Brandy Spears at 4:27PM on Jul 4th 2008
85. 3. Happy 4th of July! Jesse Helms is dead! The best 4th ever! If his family gives the corpse an enema they can bury what's left in a matchbox.
Brandy Spears at 4:27PM on Jul 4th 2008
xxx
I lived in Raleigh when he was elected. As we said then, Jesse Helms was Rosemary's baby. A bandmate of mine was his TV camera operator on his editorial hate show on Channel 5 in Raleigh. I have a little more complete picture of this miscreant than is usually leaked to the newspapers.
Clif Kuplen at 5:39PM on Jul 4th 2008
86. Obama tried to hide his 3 week stay in Pakinstan from the public..
While he was a college student. That's why he didn't want his passport
information to get out.. Wonder what other surprizes can be found by looking at his passport..
Wonder what Obama learned while staying with these People..
It all sounds very innocent, "a college trip to Pakistan".
Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of
Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen
operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets.
One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was
Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).
Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time
and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by
their embassy for official business.
There would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim
faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:
To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every "True Believer".
For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.
In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.
Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with
someone's family in 1981.
Now lets get into something else here..
WHAT OBAMA DOESN'T WANT VOTERS TO KNOW ABOUT HIS UNCLE
WRIGHT..
http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/03/20/rev-wright-got-his-masters-degree-in-islam-in-west-africa/
Wrights Own Words..
Most of our members do not know that my Master’s Degree from the
University of Chicago’s Divinity School was in the area of Islam in
West Africa during the 19th Century — when the trans-Atlantic Slav
Trade was at its zenith. Islam has as many manifestations as
Christianity and Judaism.
Rev Wright teacher of Islam was a DR Fazlur Rahman..
Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam on a trip to Libya to visit the dictator Moammar Khadafy.
In Wright, it was reported, Obama "had found both a spiritual mentor and a role model.
Ten years after first stepping foot in Wright's church, in October 1995 Obama accompanied Wright to Farrakhan's "Million Man March."
Once the election was underway, Barack Hussein Obama was very careful
to promote himself as a Christian and the keystone of his Christian
identity was Trinity Church, a Church shaped around a former Muslim
whose Divinity School Masters Degree was on Islam and who used the
Church to preach hatred for America and support for terrorism. That
man of course is Jeremiah Wright.
With the revelations that Jeremiah Wright is a former Muslim and
received his Masters degree from the University of Chicago’s
Divinity School on Islam in Africa– Obama’s affiliation with
Wright’s Trinity Church takes on a whole new meaning.
When Obama attended Wright’s Trinity Church, was he really
attending a Church or a Mosque that Wright had built with a Christian
facade over it.
Wright has admitted to incorporating ideas from Black Muslims into
Trinity. He himself is a former Muslim who promotes an Islam centered
view of America and Israel as demon states. There are Synagogues that
are actually Churches dedicated to targeting Jews. Muslims have been
covertly imitating some of this. There is a Jews for Allah and
Muslims have been trained to lead religious discussions with
Christians by equating Christianity with Islam , proclaiming that
they too believe in Jesus. If there are Messianic Christian
synagogues, why not a Prophetic Christian mosque?
Either way, conspiracy theories aside, the Church that Obama was
attending had more in common with a Mosque than with a conventional
Church. It was led by a former Muslim whose specialty was and is
Islam. A former Muslim who hates America and Israel and who preaches
ideas that are basically Black Muslim ideas. So Obama’s claim that
Trinity Church normalizes him as a Christian goes out the window,
because Trinity Church is no mainstream Christian Church. It’s as
close as anyone can come to attending a Mosque without actually
attending a Mosque.
Consider Obama’s “I’m not a Muslim” defense reverted back to
square one. Or is that Mosque one.
Also Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that
defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the
right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official
charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s
Declaration of Independence.
copy of manifesto.... Guess Obama didn't see this one either...
...http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/TUCChamasColumn072207.jpg
There’s a common and often repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).
This is how Obama learned to lie so well..
http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm
Methods used by them..
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking.
Outwitting: (Obama is a master at this )
Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.
Role playing as the victim: ( notice how Obama plays a victim in his speeches)
When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'….. Defence by offence.
Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:
Go on public record as (a) 'condemning' the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences . (behind the doors of his church along with Louis Farrahkan and Rev Wright this takes place)
Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.
(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)
However, a direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favor of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!
Diversion, deflection and "tu quoque”:
Questions relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator… No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign policy’s support for Israel” as the 'root causes' of terrorism.
Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.
Diversionary “tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back on their interlocutor.
Tactical denial: ( notice how Obama does this)
Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms.
here is how taqiyya is used in america..
Exploiting cognitive dissonance:
Islamic spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences as they resort to double talk, 'clichés and platitudes' concerning Islam.
The Islamic 'defence' script:
Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”.
There’s a common and often repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).
Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:
The study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”
This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or “unpacked.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9730604_ITM
Go back and review al of Obama's rallies and debates, and you
waitness a highly skilled taqiyya-tactican in each and every one...
http://bp1.blogger.com/_gO3ai_bAh-s/R93MDtVAJTI/AAAAAAAAAOE/UprkqEWVBRA/s1600-h/obama_wright.jpg
WAKE UP PEOPLE...
Jim at 6:01PM on Jul 4th 2008
87. I have to distance myself from them as much as you have to distance yourself from Phelps. You may think that science supports creationism, but I and many others do not. That said, if it were mentioned in schools as a possibility and as a generic creator(s) I would not have that much of an objection.
a born atheist at 6:07PM on Jul 4th 2008
88. The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”
This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or “unpacked.
Jim at 6:01PM on Jul 4th 2008
-------------------------
Oh, wake up! We atheists have been parsing all politicians statements forever! You think this taquia is unique to islamists? American politicians have been practicing it for years. Why do you think so many of us go for Obama? Not that he never uses it, but that he uses it far less and in the pursuit of better causes. He's clearly the more honest of the two candidates.
Godless Heathen Brian at 6:14PM on Jul 4th 2008
89. Jim - If you are going to embrace the work of others, please attribute, don't plagiarize. Thank you.
Natural Puppy at 6:39PM on Jul 4th 2008
90. WAKE UP PEOPLE...
Jim at 6:01PM on Jul 4th 2008
xxx
we are wide awake and voting for barack hussein obama.
The party opposing barack hussein obama is 28% of the registered voters. Other voters prefer barack hussein obama to john w. mcbush.
John mcbush has 54 terrorist associated lobbyists in his campaign. He has favored subcontracting our port security to foreign islamic nations.
Hussein is just a middle name. He doesn't want foreign terrorists influencing american government.
Mcsames campaign managers make their money from foreign terrorists.
Do you think you'll change a single vote with that silliness? We know where Barack Hussein Obama stands on issues of economy, gas prices, foreign policy and national security. He wins, republican paranoia loses as do the foreign communist and islamic banking partners of the republicans.
We've grown tired of republicans wrapping themselves in the flag while burning the constitution.
who's sane in 08?
Clif Kuplen at 6:39PM on Jul 4th 2008