August 30, 2007
Massachusetts: New Home for the Green/Islamofascist/Racist Party
My good friend blogging at Solomonia has picked up on a new development in the politics of that state, especially in Boston where the Greens, Islamofascists and anti-semites have banded together in their anti-american and anti-israel hatred:
First, understand that the Green Party (Green-Rainbow here in Massachusetts) view on Sudan is perfectly in sync with the Arab League/Islamist viewpoint:And Naturally, the ACLU finds themselves in accord with this cabal:We reject the racist mischaracterization of the situation in Darfur as "genocide" being perpetrated by “Arabs.” Only the government of the United States has labeled the conflict in Darfur as "genocide". Governments of other countries - as well as international bodies such as the UN, African Union and Arab League - have not. The false allegations against Sudan by U.S. leaders such as George Bush and Colin Powell are the same as their false allegations of WMD's in Iraq 4 years ago: an incitement and pretext for US aggression......We oppose the imposition of sanctions on the Sudanese government, particularly since U.S. sanctions since 1997 have selectively aided rebel groups who have exacerbated Sudan’s civil war. We oppose campaigns to divest from Sudan.
We oppose any military intervention in Sudan by Washington or any other foreign power. We note that African Union troops have been used as proxies for U.S. military operations in several countries in Africa, most recently for the US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia...
...The United States should normalize relations with Sudan. Washington's hypocritical and false accusations against Sudan should be dropped. All sanctions against Sudan should be removed.
Translation: It's all an Imperialist plot.
[As an aside, in this they are joined by ACLU of Massachusetts employee Nancy Murray who also opposes divestment from Sudan, apparently as some sort of Zionist plot [correction: This particular email refers to divestment from Iran.]This is a lengthy but fantastic read, I URGE you to go and finish the whole thing. Solomonia has done a terrific job of pulling all this together.
Posted by GM Roper at August 30, 2007 02:50 PM | TrackBack
G.M., if I read one more idiotic claim by the left, I think I will go crazy. We could have one post that says that liberals and leftists are just plain nuts and reference via a link every new idea from them to that post.
Posted by Woody at August 30, 2007 04:31 PM
They are loathe to call it genocide for one reason. This encapsulates it perfectly:
"The genocide convention, adopted by the UN in 1948, calls on signatories to "prevent" and "punish" genocide. If governments accept events in Darfur amount to genocide they would be obliged to intervene." - Rory Carroll, The Guardian
No one else wants to get their hands dirty. This is not a matter of semantics. Genocide is what it is. It's strictly political.
Posted by Oyster at August 31, 2007 05:14 AM
Need to switch those sentences around so they make more sense.
No one else wants to get their hands dirty. This is not a matter of semantics. It's strictly political. Genocide is what it is.
Posted by Oyster at August 31, 2007 05:16 AM
Wow! Woody you used quite the Kosian tactic. The ACLU is not against Darfur In fact they use the situation in Darfur to highlight why the Real ID legistlation is problematic.
Just becuse you say hateful things about group x doesn't mean that your employer hates group x. This is what we call hasty generalization. Therefore Nancy Murray's email which was neither from her ACLU email, or expressed as her official position within the ACLU is wholly her opinion and not the opinion of the ACLU. Furthermore no where on the ACLU's website do they espouse this belief.
Next time engage the brain before you engage the fingers.
Posted by psyberwolfe at August 31, 2007 07:33 PM
Psyberwolfe. Taking your comment into consideration, I emailed the author of the piece referenced above. In part what he wrote back was:
In fact, a friend did a story about the ACLU and called them trying to get a statement about why they weren't involved. They ended up hanging up on him. In fact, I believe he wrote about it on FrontpageMag (by Hillel Stavis).
When he was working on something else, he called them about Nancy Murray (the ACLU employee). The conversation went something like this: HS: "Are you going to take any action with one of your employees who has been showing up and disrupting Jewish events?" ACLU phone girl: "We aren't responsible for what our employees do in their free time." HS: "Well, if she were burning crosses on peoples' front lawns in her free time, would you take responsibility then?" ACLU: silence She does show up at various left wing panels and events as an ACLU representative.
The ACLU is complicit in the furtherance of racism and anything else they don't want to "represent" because it goes against their own PC. You need to read more at Stop the ACLU before you even begin to think that they are on the up and up.
Oh, and I wrote the article, not Woody!
Posted by GM Roper at September 1, 2007 05:54 PM
OK GM so you are participating in Kosian tactics! Sorry Woody.
So when did hearsay become a form of logical discussion? Untill you call and record said conversation I would say be careful of hearsay.
Next the argument you made was still hasty generalization, and the hearsay phone conversation fails to convince me that the ACLU as an organization is saying that the events in Darfur are a "racist mischaracterization."
Posted by psyberwolfe at September 1, 2007 07:35 PM
psyberwolfe, first, this is a blog, not a court of law. I have no reason to doubt the word of a friend of mine, just as you are free to reject it. Howver, your argument is that it isn't substantiated it must therefore be considered inaccurate (or until at least I call and record it.) If you want to find out, call Mass ACLU yourself, I have no reason to doubt Martin who got the info from the person who did make the call.
But in addition to that, your argument is somewhat absurd on it's face, it's the form of Ad Ignorantium
an appeal to ignorance fallacy taking the form of: there is no (or insufficient) evidence establishing that x is true. Therefore: x is false.
If you wish to find out, please do so, but don't say I have to because I choose to accept the word of a friend. Oh, and one more point while I'm at it, the ACLU bit is only a very small part of the post, what say you about the rest as opposed to setting up a straw man?
Posted by GM Roper at September 3, 2007 03:29 PM
