babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Tarek Fatah's anti-Muslims views

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Tarek Fatah's anti-Muslims views
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 01 January 2007 09:21 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(Muslim Canadian) Congress founder Tarek Fatah said that politics aside, Muslims should come together and pray for the soldiers and their families.

"The Muslim community has to come to terms with the fact that we are Canadians and our troops are there. And whether we agree with their deployment over there or not is a separate issue than one of grieving for the fallen soldiers," Mr. Fatah said after the service.

"It's not a political decision to do this," he said. "But simply to show solidarity and empathy to the families of the dead soldiers."


http://tinyurl.com/yatp6t

Mr. Fatah chose to single out Muslims to "come together and pray for the soldiers and their families".

But again he apparently has been airing his anti-Muslim and anti-Jews bigotry for a while now, applauded by his right wing ilk in the media.

Irshad Manji writes about Tarek's comment on her book 'the Trouble with Islam":

quote:
Mr. Fatah recently came clean to me in a TV studio. After the cameras stopped rolling, but in front of the host and crew, he bellowed, "This book was written by the Jews for the Jews!" It's painful to hear such words fly from the mouth of a self-declared Muslim reformer -- an individual who has said that too many Muslims wallow in conspiracy theories. http://muslim-refusenik.com/news/globe-dec2-03.html

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 01 January 2007 09:47 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand the objection- of course Muslims should pray for Canadian soldiers, who are after all fighting on behalf of peaceful Muslims in Afghanistan. The point is, Islamic extremism is as much a threat to true Islam as it is to the rest of the world. I'm not supporting Tarek Fatah "across the board" - I haven't been following him that closely, but it's hard for me to understand how supporting Canadian troops who are fighting to prevent a Taliban re-occupation of Afghanistan, with the support of the majority of the Afghan people, can be considered being "anti-Muslim."
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 09:51 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
...The point is, Islamic extremism is as much a threat to true Islam as it is to the rest of the world....

I'd say US imperialism was, is, and will be for a long time to come, more of a threat to the world than "Islamic extremism".


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 01 January 2007 10:07 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I agree Boom Boom. But notice, that doesn't mean Islamic extremism therefore is not a threat and does not need to be combatted.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 11:03 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I agree Boom Boom. But notice, that doesn't mean Islamic extremism therefore is not a threat and does not need to be combatted.

US imperialism is by far the larger threat, so let's concentrate on that, shall we?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 01 January 2007 11:06 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I haven't been following him that closely, but it's hard for me to understand how supporting Canadian troops who are fighting to prevent a Taliban re-occupation of Afghanistan, with the support of the majority of the Afghan people, can be considered being "anti-Muslim." -Brett Mann

Nobody criticized supporting or not supporting troops, Brett. What is at issue, is that Tarek Fatah is saying "We are Canadians and our troops are there." Do the troops belog to Muslim Canadians exclusively ? How come Tarek Fatah did not call upon Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Wicca .. Canadians to pray for the fallen troops and their families?

Because Tarek Fatah never ceased to point the finger and say, 'You see, Muslims are bad. Only Tarek Fatah and his 12 individuals MCC are good Canadians'.

Your disclaimer is to the point, Brett: You haven't been following him closely.

Tarek Fatah's Modus Operandi: You do not do what I think you should do I go to the press and show how bad you are. He raged against leftists, against unions, of course against Muslims and whoever do not toe the line drawn by him, the hero of the right wing, and islamophobes.

No wonder the Toronto Sun, the Globe & Mail, the Vancouver Province, The Ottawa Citizen, Dhimmiwatch and so on slober over his products.

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 January 2007 11:12 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
US imperialism is by far the larger threat, so let's concentrate on that, shall we?

Some would say that Canada is under the control of US imperialism and yet I have a relatively free life in Canada and can do as I please. If I lived under an Islamic fundamentalist regime is there any doubt that I would be tortured and stoned to death within hours?

Why should i regard US imperialim as a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism when living under the former i can live while living under the latter I would die!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 01 January 2007 11:12 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree Boom Boom. But notice, that doesn't mean Islamic extremism therefore is not a threat and does not need to be combatted. -Brett Mann

Could you please explain, Brett, where you got this idea that Islamic extremism is not a threat ? Who said it ? What is its relevance to the topic ?

I hope you are not putting words in people's mouths.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 January 2007 11:15 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why should i regard US imperialim as a greater threat than Islamic fundamentalism when living under the former i can live while living under the latter I would die!
Translation: I'm nice and safe and happy here in Canada. Why should I give a shit about anybody in the rest of the world?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is US imperialism such a threat?

Consider that since September 11, 2001, the US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, is making ominous threats against Iran and North Korea, and, acting as unofficial World Police, has expanded the global reach of its military base system, and increased the level of its military spending to the point that it now spends about as much on the military as all other nations of the world combined. Bush: "You're either with us, or against us".

The US is dedicated to keeping the third world poor because it is viewed as a source of cheap labor and raw materials. Third World economies such as in Latin America are forcibly re-structured to meet the needs of the United States rather than their own needs.

Then there's Oil.

From: Will Iraq's Oil Blessing Become a Curse?: (a small excerpt from a longer article)

Criticisms have also been levelled against the World Bank, where former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz is in charge. Wolfowitz has been accused of pushing a US agenda after opening a World Bank office in Baghdad.

The US is working towards planetary domination of oil, capital, and labour. I'd say that is the largest threat facing the planet today.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 January 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Translation:

We don't have to choose between US imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism. If those were the only two choices I think we'd all commit mass suicide. It's like arguing over what is worse arsenic or strychnine.

I prefer liberal democratic social democracy as exists in most of Western Europe and for the most part in Canada.

I'd like to know who on babble thinks that they personally would be happier and better off living under Taliban rule in Afghanistan than they would living in the United States right now?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 01:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
...I prefer liberal democratic social democracy as exists in most of Western Europe and for the most part in Canada...

We're fully complicit in US imperialism - that's the problem. And, we're so tied into the US economy it'd be near impossible to wean ourselves off the US teat. What we need to support, alternatively, is the global struggle for a humane, egalitarian, democratic, and sustainable society. In other words, socialism, which of course raises all kinds of hackles across the border.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 January 2007 01:30 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
We don't have to choose between US imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism....

I'd like to know who on babble thinks that they personally would be happier and better off living under Taliban rule in Afghanistan than they would living in the United States right now?


You answered your own question before you even asked it!

But the question you should be answering is whether imperialism (led by, but not limited to, the USA) or Islamic fundamentalism poses a greater threat to the people of the world today. That's world - you remember, all those coloured bits on the map outside of North America?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 01 January 2007 01:39 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M.Spector, even the false dichotomy of islamic fundamentalism versus american pseudocapitalism is western-centric. The great civilizations of Russia, China, India, Japan and Latin America don't quite fit into that dichotomy, and will largely go on regardless, with some tinkering.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 January 2007 02:13 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know why you're addressing that to me. It's Stockholm that's posing the dichotomy, if you read the thread.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 02:48 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iggy on the New US Imperialism

"This new imperialism...is humanitarian in theory but imperial in practice; it creates ‘subsovereignty,’ in which states possess independence in theory but not in fact. The reason the Americans are in Afghanistan, or the Balkans, after all, is to maintain imperial order in zones essential to the interest of the United States. They are there to maintain order against a barbarian threat." As "the West’s last military state" and its last "remaining empire," the United States has a responsibility for "imperial structuring and ordering" in "analogy to Rome....We have now awakened to the barbarians....Retribution has been visited on the barbarians, and more will follow" ("The Challenges of American Imperial Power," Naval War College Review, Spring 2003).

edited to provide a link to the complete text of Iggy's speech.

edited to add: could we continue this discussion of US imperialism here?

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2007 02:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it was fine before now it is not.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2007 02:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Link.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 January 2007 03:14 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Boom Boom's Iggy speech:

quote:
Neither democracy nor anything like the rule of law can be established in Afghanistan without a sustained, determined exercise of American imperial power. There is no chance at all that Iraq will emerge from forty years of authoritarianism to democracy and the rule of law without American imperial power.

I wonder what he really thinks?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 January 2007 03:26 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a speech from 2003, and I'd hope he's changed his position.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 01 January 2007 04:16 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
"The reason the Americans are in Afghanistan, or the Balkans, after all, is to maintain imperial order in zones essential to the interest of the United States."

Agreed. But that is not why Canada and Nato are there with a UN mandate. And I don't think one has to be terribly prescient to see that the appetite for empire in America is fading, and likely to fade even faster.

And no Sidra, that was no veiled comment. I was responding directly to Boom Boom's assertion that the US poses a greater threat than Islamic extremism. I was just pointing out that this doesn't mean we don't have to deal with Islamic extremism, or that it's only an American problem.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 01 January 2007 06:17 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

How come Tarek Fatah did not call upon Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Wicca .. Canadians to pray for the fallen troops and their families?

Because Tarek Fatah never ceased to point the finger and say, 'You see, Muslims are bad. Only Tarek Fatah and his 12 individuals MCC are good Canadians'.

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]



I have a lot of issues with Tarek and his absolutism, but I just don't buy your cant.

Perhaps he only addressed his question to Muslims because, as a Muslim, he felt he had no particular right to tell "Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Wicca .. Canadians" what they ought to pray for.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 01 January 2007 07:06 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And no Sidra, that was no veiled comment. I was responding directly to Boom Boom's assertion that the US poses a greater threat than Islamic extremism. I was just pointing out that this doesn't mean we don't have to deal with Islamic extremism, or that it's only an American problem. -Brett Mann

Brett,

Sorry but you are wrong. You made your comment about Islamist extremism before Boom Boom wrote anything in this thread.

Now, if you care to answer my question What is the relevance of mentioning Islamic extremism, that would be nice. If not, it would be fair to question your motive in taking such tengent out of the blue. Does the mere mention of Muslim invoke extremism and danger to you ?


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 01 January 2007 07:18 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have a lot of issues with Tarek and his absolutism, but I just don't buy your cant.

Perhaps he only addressed his question to Muslims because, as a Muslim, he felt he had no particular right to tell "Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Wicca .. Canadians" what they ought to pray for. Malcolm French, APR


If you had read the link I have provided, if you had read the MCC
"mission", you would have realized that the fundamental claim of Tarek (and the MCC) is that they are Canadian first, before being Muslim. As such they would have called upon their fellow Canadians for prayers, rather than indulging in pigeon-holing Canadians into "ethnics and religions". (Tarek Fatah has written rather profusely against "ethnicity and religions").

Alas you could not see the pigon-holing and apparently bought into Tarek's contradictions, incongruities, stunts and improvisation of "issues" for the sole ultimate self-serving purpose of having his name in the right wing media. Election season is soon coming, by the way. And what is more popular with right wing media on which Tarek Fatah seems to count and with a huge chunck of the electorate than bashing Muslims ?

I think that playing the native informer is shameful opportunism and I am sorry that you could not see it, Malcolm.

And do you know what is Tarek Fatah's hobby or preoccupation these days ? Any negative news or event in the world -literally in the world- that puts Muslims down, be sure that Tarek Fatah has propagated it. Do you happen to be on his e-mail list ? Me neither. But I do receive the "jewels" he never fails to find.

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 January 2007 08:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:


I have a lot of issues with Tarek and his absolutism, but I just don't buy your cant.

Perhaps he only addressed his question to Muslims because, as a Muslim, he felt he had no particular right to tell "Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Wicca .. Canadians" what they ought to pray for.


That isn't the point. What Tarek is saying is all well and fine. The problem is he is a no good opportunist skunk, without a single principled bone in his body.

He is simply lying. He doesn't even know what a principle is.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 02 January 2007 12:40 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Man o man, the state propaganda spin goes round and round.

quote:
of course Muslims should pray for Canadian soldiers, who are after all fighting on behalf of peaceful Muslims in Afghanistan.

It’s fine for Moslems and anyone else to pray for the Canadian troops. But the fact is they are not there fighting on behalf of peaceful Moslems in Afghanistan, as seen by the huge toll of civilian lives there, but, as shown on similar threads here, on behalf of the imperialistic aims of the Bush Administration and all the horrors and messes it has created. They want that pipeline. They have been fighting for it for a long time. They created the Taliban and Al Qaeda to stop the Russians from having it. They will do anything to get it.

quote:
it's hard for me to understand how supporting Canadian troops who are fighting to prevent a Taliban re-occupation of Afghanistan, with the support of the majority of the Afghan people, can be considered being "anti-Muslim."

First, we don’t know what the majority of the Afghan people support, since there is no democratic mechanism or accurate media tracking system to get that information.

Second, the new fraudulent “elected” regime there is made up largely of Taliban-Lites and sleazy murdering drug lords who cut their own deals with the US military to be allowed to hold office, I’m not sure just how anybody can consider this a serious improvement in governance for the people.

quote:
I'd say US imperialism was, is, and will be for a long time to come, more of a threat to the world than "Islamic extremism".

Thank you BoomX2 for this. It’s very true, especially since US imperialism is exactly what helped organize, train and fund Islamic extremism in the first place, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda (as well as Saddam Hussein). All this mess would not be here today if it wasn’t for the imperialistic designs of the US government/Corporate America power cliques and their foreign policy.

Taliban, Al Qaeda Created by US to Challenge Russians

US Aided, Empowered Taliban in 80s and 90s

US Helped Taliban Slaughter Opponents

US lets Pakistan Dictatorship fund Taliban, despite War


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 02 January 2007 04:56 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Sidra, I don't know what you're going on about. The comment you made to me was clearly in response to my response to Boom Boom. What are you saying? Do you disagree that Islamic extremism is a threat to traditional Islam? If you had read some of my comments on previous threads, you would be aware of my deep respect for Islam.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 02 January 2007 05:29 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Steppenwolf, you're wrong on several accounts. The international community in Aghanistan under a UN mandate is indeed fighting to free Afghans from the Taliban. The majority of Afghans do support this mission as reflected in recent Asia Times and ABC/BBC polls throughout the country. Additionally, other than the insurgents, no Afghan individual or organization is calling for the immediate withdrawal of ISAF forces. As your Wikipedia reference indicates, the pipeline project is in serious doubt now. Please note that I've agreed with Boom Boom on the greater threat posed by US imperialism. Where we disagree, I think, is on how best to combat this threat and help establish a rule of internatinal law. I see our intervention in Afghanistan as a step towards the goal of international rule of law.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2007 06:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just finished Misha Glenny's "The Balkans, Glenny makes a point of saying "the Great Powers" now known as "the International Community." He is right to do so.

The Great Powers were making up altruistic excuses, and having conferences dictating to the people of the world what was best for the lesser powers, long before those same powers invented the League of Nations and the UN. Quit being a sucker.

And again you are misrepresenting the survey. The survey shows that most Afghans think the country is going down the toilet, and "support" has dropped precipitously by 26% in two years. And that is if one accords a survey conducted in a war zone by agents of the occupying power that must -- by dint of military realities -- exclude people who represent the armed opposition any credibility whatsoever.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 02 January 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
"The reason the Americans are in Afghanistan, or the Balkans, after all, is to maintain imperial order in zones essential to the interest of the United States."

Agreed. But that is not why Canada and Nato are there with a UN mandate.


Why do you persist in peddling your stupid myths?

Canada didn't have a UN mandate when we joined the USA in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. You pretend to agree that the US invasion of Afghanistan was imperialist in nature and intent, yet you conveniently ignore the fact that Canada went along with it. So did all of NATO, at the US's urging.

Only later did the US twist enough arms to get the Security Council to retroactively "endorse" the US/NATO mission, without having any real control over it.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 January 2007 10:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canada is in Afghanistan today to:

* defend our national interests;
* ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and
* help Afghanistan rebuild.


In that order.

Now what could be imperialist about that?

Source.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 02 January 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I see our intervention in Afghanistan as a step towards the goal of international rule of law. -Brett Mann

If international rule of law were the real goal, Canadian forces would have started their mission in Washington and Tel Aviv. After all what is more dangerous to the international rule of law, the aforementioned power who flount it routinely or a gang of armed individuals in a remote, isolated area of the globe who do not have the means to even cover their own territory, much less to threaten other nations ?

Please quit this


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 January 2007 12:08 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

If international rule of law were the real goal, Canadian forces would have started their mission in Washington and Tel Aviv. After all what is more dangerous to the international rule of law, the aforementioned power who flount it routinely or a gang of armed individuals in a remote, isolated area of the globe who do not have the means to even cover their own territory, much less to threaten other nations ?



If international law was the goal then our forces would never have left Canada until all abuses to our native population had been rectified, war on homelessness cancelled and continual lies and anti-democracy actions by both the Liberals and COnservatives had been eradicated.

From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2007 12:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now you are talking.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2007 12:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds good to me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 02 January 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
"If international rule of law were the real goal, Canadian forces would have started their mission in Washington and Tel Aviv."

You don't think this is confusing the issue just a bit? Want to go after the US for war crimes? Great, where do I sign up? But you're still going to have to combat international terrorism, the US aside. And you're still going to have to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan or deliver Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. As I have explained, Canada's contribution to defeating international terrorism and the Taliban will strengthen Canada's independence in foreign policy rather than the reverse. Canadian foreign policy development which is grounded in isolationism contradicts Canada's posture for the past two centuries or so. It simply isn't going to fly. No party will endorse it, and the majority of Canadians will never support it. We need to ground our thinking in a bit more realism, I think, if we want these discussions to be productive..

Go after Washington and Tel Aviv? Great. How? Through the UN? The same UN that sanctions the current mission in Afghanistan?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 02 January 2007 01:15 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

If international law was the goal then our forces would never have left Canada until all abuses to our native population had been rectified, war on homelessness cancelled and continual lies and anti-democracy actions by both the Liberals and COnservatives had been eradicated.

Not to mention the continual attempt at the cultural genocide of Aboriginal people.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2007 01:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well Canada has certainly made steps towards righting some of those wrongs. At least it allows them citizenship free from direct occupation and apartheid enforced through martial law.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 January 2007 01:29 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, well Canada has certainly made steps towards righting some of those wrongs. [ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Yes great steps. Native Canadians standard of living has increased exponentially over the time of the Libs and Cons in power.

Suicide rates are down, literacy is up. Health care is up. Drinking water is drinkable.

Housing on reserve is amazing.

In fact the aboriginals have it better today then they ever did.

Bull shit. The way we -- all Canadians -- from our government down treat our aboriginal brothers and sisters is disgusting. to even suggest that things are getting better is a lie.

Every day acts of racism are committed against the aboriginal people. Housing is the pits. their is no safe drinking water on the majority of reserves.

Housing is in such a mess that it should be torn down and condemned.

So Cueball you are incorrect Canada has paid lip service but made no steps in this direction at all.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know what I am saying.

As far as I know the Canadian government is not actively pursuing a policy of bulldozing Native Canadian housing, even though the housing programs are a mess, or excluding Native Canadians from getting building permits etc., etc.

There is a wee bit of a difference, in this, than there is in the behaviour of some other governments.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2007 01:43 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's quite a scandal that respected media outlets such as the Globe treat Tarek as if he's a legitimate spokesperson for Muslim opinion. It's one thing to recognize dissenting, minority opinion groups within a community but particularly since the split in the MCC this summer Tarek and his group speak for no more than about 30 people and Tarek has increasingly devoted himself to becoming the darling of neo-conserveratives .

I'm not surprised to see the National Post constantly quoting Tarek as if he represents someone but generally one has expected to show a bit more integrity.

Tarek has become the new Irshad Manji.

It might be an idea for the progressive Muslims Tarek claims to speak to write to the Globe (and the Star) complaining about the media's anointment of Tarek as their spokesperson. One expects to hear denunciations of Tarek from the imams and CIC so the media's probably inclined to dismiss that but if progressives complain as well assignment and op-ed editors may start to take notice.

[replacing "it would be good" with "it might be an idea" in light of subsequent posts]

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is a goof.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2007 01:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It would be good if the progressive Muslims Tarek claims to speak for started writing to the Globe (and the Star) complaining about the media's anointment of Tarek as their spokesperson. One expects to hear denunciations of Tarek from the imams and CIC so the media's probably inclined to dismiss that but if progressives complain as well assignment and op-ed editors may start to take notice.

Why do you suppose they aren't doing so already? I'm not saying I disagree with your analysis (although I haven't found him, in my brief exchanges with him on babble, to be quite the pariah he is made out to be on these weekly "Tarek Sucks" threads) but isn't this kind of presumptuous?

With that statement aren't you presuming:
a) you know how the majority of "progressive Muslims" feel about Tarek and about the issues he speaks about, and
b) that you know what action progressive Muslims should take in regard to how they react to a member of their community making public statements on their behalf?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 January 2007 02:35 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

With that statement aren't you presuming:
a) you know how the majority of "progressive Muslims" feel about Tarek and about the issues he speaks about, and

I know a few progressive Muslims and all of them are displeased with how Tarek portrays himself and is portrayed in the media.

quote:

b) that you know what action progressive Muslims should take in regard to how they react to a member of their community making public statements on their behalf?

Advice is cheap. I don't know what anyone "should" do, least of all myself All any of us can ever do is say what we think (or hope) we'd do if we were in a particular situation.

And you're right, I don't know for a fact that no progressive Muslims have contacted the Globe to complain that Tarek does not speak for them. For all I know they've been inundated in the past with complaints that they have neither published nor heeded. And, for all I know, they've already received letters about the most recent article that they just haven't published yet.

I don't think there's anything wrong, though, for progressives to give advice to other progressives. We should not be so insular as to each be in our own silo, terrified to comment or advise fellow progressives in other communities for fear of being seen as presumptuous. However, I agree that advice and comment has to be done in a respectful and humble manner and I apologize for not being sufficient in this respect with my comments.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 January 2007 02:44 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I don't think there's anything wrong, though, for progressives to give advice to other progressives.


This is a really important point, and I must agree wholeheartedly with aka Mycroft.

While sensitivity is important, so is directness and honesty.

For example, if some would-be progressive Muslims/Jews/Christians/LGBT are following what I consider to be a reactionary, regressive, self-destructive path, I will not hesitate to express my opinion to them. And I will not feel compelled to pledge allegiance to Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Timothy Findley first.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2007 02:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh dear. I wasn't criticizing you for the way you stated what you did. I guess what I was doing was kind of taking on the defense of Fatah a bit (he could use a bit of an advocate in these threads!) and wondering whether perhaps one of the reasons that "progressive Muslims" aren't out in full force condemning Fatah might be because they don't actually condemn him?

Now, I'm not saying that's definitely so. What do I know about the progressive Muslim community and the general sentiments within? I guess I'm just saying that it might be possible that progressive Muslims might agree with Fatah on many of the issues he speaks publicly about and that could be a reason why there isn't the kind of public condemnation of him and his views that you might wish from progressive Muslim communities?

(I also take your point that it's possible that all sorts of those types of letters are being sent but not published by the papers in question.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2007 05:47 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It's quite a scandal that respected media outlets such as the Globe treat Tarek as if he's a legitimate spokesperson for Muslim opinion. It's one thing to recognize dissenting, minority opinion groups within a community but particularly since the split in the MCC this summer Tarek and his group speak for no more than about 30 people
[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

It seems to me that Tarek is to the muslim institutional community what the ACJC is to the Jewish Community.

Both represent a portion of a community but at least on babble one is not representative of the community the MCC while the ACJC is given hero like status in their fight with the CJC.

It seems to me that both the MCC and the ACJC are exactly the same thing. a minority group trying to get their views made public.

The only difference is that many do not like Tarek.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 03 January 2007 08:59 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems to me that Tarek is to the muslim institutional community what the ACJC is to the Jewish Community.

Both represent a portion of a community but at least on babble one is not representative of the community the MCC while the ACJC is given hero like status in their fight with the CJC.

It seems to me that both the MCC and the ACJC are exactly the same thing. a minority group trying to get their views made public.

The only difference is that many do not like Tarek. johnpauljones


This only your speculation, johnpauljones. If you are basing your analysis on some knowledge of the Muslim community, its conservative, its progressive and its non-politicized components, please elaborate.

The comparison you made -MCC v. "Muslim institutional community" and ACJC v. CJC- is a false one.

The MCC does not represent anyone other than between 12 and 20 people in the group. The number fluctuates due to the fact that people are recruited, join for awhile, smell the rot of Tarek's autocratic ways, manipulation, selfishness and leave. Your view differs from Tarek's? You must be an apologist for Hizbullah, for terrorists, for Mullahs, for Iran's president or whoever is the right wing media's target of the week.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidra i personally think that Tarek is nothing more than an opportunist who seeks out the camera and microphone regardless of the issue only so that he can get his picture in the paper.

That being said I base my opinion on close to 20 plus years working with Muslem friends and colleagues on issues ranging from Human Rights complaints and battles to working with ethno-cultural organizations to better the lives of teh developmentally delayed to also yes friends in the community who cross the spectrum of both geography and religious observance.

quote:
you wrote that:
The comparison you made -MCC v. "Muslim institutional community" and ACJC v. CJC- is a false one.

The MCC does not represent anyone other than between 12 and 20 people in the group.


Sounds exactly like the ACJC except that they are a group of closer to 100 but still a minority group in the Jewish Community .

ETA section of post removed because of misunderstanding in post

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2007 09:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, I think he was basing that speculation on your description of the group, sidra. The way you describe that group and its relationship to the Muslim communities is the way that johnpauljones sees the ACJC in the Jewish communities.

And jpj, I think you also misunderstood sidra - he made that last statement as his impression of how Tarek Fatah will pigeon-hole you if you disagree with him or the MCC on the issues they raise. He wasn't saying that you support those things.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 03 January 2007 09:13 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When have I ever been an apologist for the right wing lunacy? johnpauljones

You misunderstood what I wrote, jpj.

quote:
Your view differs from Tarek's? You must be an apologist for Hizbullah, for terrorists, for Mullahs, for Iran's president or whoever is the right wing media's target of the week. sidra

I tried to describe Tarek's Modus Operandi: "If you do not agree with me, you must be an apologist for ..."

I did not mean YOU, jpj.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2007 09:15 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidra I see the error of my ways. I thought you meant me with your remarks.

thanks for clarifying

ETA Section of my post deleted because of confusion

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
bhagat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7012

posted 03 January 2007 01:15 PM      Profile for bhagat        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

No wonder the Toronto Sun, the Globe & Mail, the Vancouver Province, The Ottawa Citizen, Dhimmiwatch and so on slober over his products.
[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

Does the fact that the Toronto Star too published Fatah's work today salvage his reputation?

If not, where would you want Fatah to publish his writing in Canada?

I am at times bewildered at the invective thrown at Tarek Fatah on this forum. I have read many threads in the last year where Sidra and Cueball have slandered Fatah without a shred of evidence.

Obviously they have a personal axe to grind and they seem to sound as if they are of the Muslim faith. But are the rest of the people on this forum comfortable with this one-sided attack on Fatah, which reminds me of the hate against Ujjal Dosanjh when he stood up to Khalistani Sikh extremists in my community in BC.

I read his column today and it reflected his prncipled position that Bush and the Islamists are flip sides of the same coin. Why is this position so upsetting? It beats me. I have seen him on TV countless times and I cannot once recall not agreeing with him and finding my family nodding.

Can't those who disagree with Fatah, express themselves with some grace, rather than hate?

Bhagat


From: Mississauga | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 03 January 2007 02:20 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But are the rest of the people on this forum comfortable with this one-sided attack on Fatah, which reminds me of the hate against Ujjal Dosanjh when he stood up to Khalistani Sikh extremists in my community in BC. -Bhagat

Which confirms the point I made above in the thread: If your view differs from Tarek Fatah's then you are apologist for extremists, terrorists, Mullah and what have you.

You surely attended and graduated from Tarek fatah's "school of thought", Bhagat.

What does sidra and Cueball's muslimness or non-muslimness have to do with any topic here ?

By the way, in his article, Tarek Fatah (rightly) questioned the silence of Canadian politicians. Has he asked his friend and fellow Liberal Bob Rae the reason the latter kept silent ?

Finally, Tarek Fatah used to visit, discuss and debate here. But apparently that was in his progressive days..

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2007 02:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not comfortable about it. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where the line is between legitimate disagreement and libel, and all these 3-minute-Tarek-hate threads are really getting on my nerves. I haven't read them through closely enough yet to decide, though.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 03 January 2007 03:37 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

Finally, Tarek Fatah used to visit, discuss and debate here. But apparently that was in his progressive days..

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


Gosh, I really can't imagine why he doesn't do THAT anymore. Clearly, it's because he's not as progressive as you.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Drinkmore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7371

posted 03 January 2007 03:44 PM      Profile for Drinkmore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:

Gosh, I really can't imagine why he doesn't do THAT anymore. Clearly, it's because he's not as progressive as you.


I think George Bush would get a better welcome.


From: the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2007 04:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
George Bush does not pretend to be a leftist.

quote:
Originally posted by bhagat:

Obviously they have a personal axe to grind and they seem to sound as if they are of the Muslim faith. But are the rest of the people on this forum comfortable with this one-sided attack on Fatah, which reminds me of the hate against Ujjal Dosanjh when he stood up to Khalistani Sikh extremists in my community in BC.



Of course! Anyone who whispers any defence of Islam must be Muslim. How Typical. Only someone with their own petty nationalist baggage could possibly believe this.

Clearly, you haven't read what I have written here closely, as I always talk about Islam ex-partie.

It is truly a joy to be called a Muslim because I find the time to defend Islam from neo-conservative ignorance on one day, and then be lambasted the next as communist pro-Serb nationalist the next by Jeff House, because dare question the pro NATO narrative in the Balkans. A lovely contradiction, because the chief victims of Serb nationalist were Muslims, both Bosnian and Albanian.

But what are a few obvious contradictions when one is engaging in the smear?

Actually, I am of British-Jewish and Quaker extraction, not that this matters. Freedmans and Abrahams, a direct decendent of the family of James Fox and Magaret Fell, the founder of the Quaker church. Another ancestor of mine was burned at the stake by Henry the VIII (or so it is said) for refusing to convert to Protestant cause, but that is all ancient history. The Jews of my family settled in Nova Scotia after the scrap with Hitler.

So much to say that my family is no stranger to religious persecution. I find the whole thing tedious, especially the internecine fighting between the Muslims, Christians and Jews, as anyone with even half a brain can see they are the same religion.

As for Fatah, unfortunately I am among those who tried to work with him, which is impossible because he is a complete asshat.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 04 January 2007 12:01 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The international community in Aghanistan under a UN mandate is indeed fighting to free Afghans from the Taliban.

Check your facts. First, when the US invasion took place, there was no UN sanction or mandate. That came later, only after the US government pushed the security council into supporting it.

Canada has never had a UN mandate to join up with the US-led slaughter there. Remember, this whole fiasco was sold to us as supposedly a peace-keeping mission by the Liberal regime. Just like everything else the Liberals ever said, that was a lie.
The Conservatives have since expanded that mission, which has nothing to do with peace keeping and has never had a mandate from anyone, including Parliament.

Second, as the US government sources and independent research that I posted show, “freeing” the Afghanistan people isn’t what this whole shindig is about.

quote:
The majority of Afghans do support this mission as reflected in recent Asia Times and ABC/BBC polls throughout the country.

Wrong again. That poll showed most people are very concerned and the country is getting worse, as the promises held out by the invading forces have largely not come to pass.

I don’t even bother referring to that poll, regardless of what it says, because the findings are so questionable—polls conducted by “embedded” reporters working under close military scrutiny is not a credible way to conduct anything.

quote:
Additionally, other than the insurgents, no Afghan individual or organization is calling for the immediate withdrawal of ISAF forces.

From what I have read, many sources, including some within the new puppet regime itself, want to see a timeline for a pull-out and a concrete plan with resources to begin a reconstruction process. So far, the US/NATO have provided neither.

quote:
As your Wikipedia reference indicates, the pipeline project is in serious doubt now.

Ture, and as it also referred to it has been in doubt more or less consistently, since every imperialistic adventure to get it going, first from the UK, then Russia and since the 1990s from the US, has ended in failure or at least bogged down like it is today. That’s doesn’t mean they are no longer trying, since they clearly are.

quote:
Where we disagree, I think, is on how best to combat this threat and help establish a rule of internatinal law. I see our intervention in Afghanistan as a step towards the goal of international rule of law.

Where we disagree is, first, the threat itself. The fact is, as the sources I listed before show, Islamic cult extremism has been fueled by the US in order to advance its imperialistic agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia. Even today, powerful elements within and tied to the US-backed dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are continuing to fund the Taliban, and the US government lets it go because they are in cahoots with major US capitalist interests, including, in some cases, the Bush family.

So obviously shooting at Afghan citizens hoping they are Taliban doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Rather, challenging US imperialist power and the government’s foreign policy (and wholesale corruption) is clearly the solution.

Second, is on international law. The world power that most often and blatantly flaunts international law is the US government/corporate America. Simply knuckling under to a US imperialistic venture, which you agree is the basis for the whole Afghanistan fiasco, that violates international law does nothing to promote international law, but rather US government law imposed on everyone else.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 04 January 2007 01:12 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

It seems to me that Tarek is to the muslim institutional community what the ACJC is to the Jewish Community.

Both represent a portion of a community but at least on babble one is not representative of the community the MCC while the ACJC is given hero like status in their fight with the CJC.

I also think the ACJC reflects a view of a larger portion of the Jewish community than Tarek does of the Muslim community.

Indeed, perhaps the real analogy you're looking for is comparing the MCC with the CJC. Both put forward contesable claims of democracy and both represent fewer people than they claim.

It seems to me that both the MCC and the ACJC are exactly the same thing. a minority group trying to get their views made public.

The only difference is that many do not like Tarek.


The difference, and it's a major one, is Tarek is overrepresented in the media as a voice of Muslim Canadians while the ACJC is severely underrepresented in a media that portrays the Jewish community as monolithic.

Perhaps the analogy you are really looking for is between the Canadian Jewish Congress and the MCC? Both put forward contestable claims about being democratic, both claim to represent a broader section of public opinion in their communities than they, in fact, do, and both claim to be progressive when the facts might suggest otherwise.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
bhagat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7012

posted 04 January 2007 09:48 AM      Profile for bhagat        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
Gosh, I really can't imagine why he (Tarek Fatah) doesn't do THAT anymore. Clearly, it's because he's not as progressive as you.

Well said!

I have been surfing Islamist blogs and found the attacks on Fatah on babble to mere child's play. The Islamists have undoubtedly targetted Fatah as their number one enemy in Canada and they are going after him.

Here is one blog attacking Fatah. The invective speaks about the writer than Fatah. Here too, Fatah's critcs hide behind pseudonyms. This one calls himself Dr. Maxtor.

"Well T-Fat, commemorating your second straight year as the top pro-regressive idiot( in fact the top 3 this year) and in the spirit of the new year, let me just say: maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you didn't have an intellect rivalled only by the Village Idiot's stupider brother, if your weren't so grossly fat that you have to put your belt on with a boomerang, or if you didn't have a face like a boiled Octopus. To put it mildly, you are an egregiously subliterate oaf and a debauched, gossip-mongering cesspool of putrid effluvium. Try not to be on the list next year, creep. Who am I kidding, you'll probably snag all ten spots o repugnant, nose-picking glob of grease."


The Islamist Blog attacking Progressive Muslims

quote:


From: Mississauga | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 January 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, the non-sensical term "Islamist" once more rears it's ugly head. Also, pray tell: How exactly is Babble associated with the linked blog? I'm looking forward to a contortion or two.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 January 2007 11:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bhagat:
[QB][/QB]

I see you and Fatah are on the same page, make out that all your enemies must be friends. Of course this is exactly what makes Fatah detestable, don't'chew'know?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 04 January 2007 02:22 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have been surfing Islamist blogs and found the attacks on Fatah on babble to mere child's play. The Islamists have undoubtedly targetted Fatah as their number one enemy in Canada and they are going after him. -Bhagat


The link you provided talks about "Top 10 Pro-regressive Moslim Idiots of 2006". (I do not agree that Tarek Fatah or any other listed there is idiot).

Through what 'thought process' did that become 'number one enemy', Bhagat ? Did you have any consideration for your own credibility when you spun this one ?


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 04 January 2007 02:58 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gosh, I really can't imagine why he doesn't do THAT anymore. Clearly, it's because he's not as progressive as you. -Pookie

I do not understand your comment, or rather I understood it but since I may be misinterpreting your statement, I prefer to ask you first what did you mean.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 04:23 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "Muslim Canadian Congress" seems to attract the like minded, like (Conservative) retired Major General General Lewis MacKenzie, who travelled from Ottawa to attend the "Muslim" prayer. Here, in the picture the MCC's interfaith whatever her role, Raheel Raza, with Lewis MacKenzie.

http://tinyurl.com/wxwxk

And what better brand of Muslims can appeal to conservatives and neocons than the MCC ?

One wonders from what corner will pop up the next Stephen Harper nominee as advisor on Afghanistan affairs. Keep tuned.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 January 2007 06:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I rather think that Lewis Mckenzie is an honest man, whatever the general direction of his views.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 06:31 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I rather think that Lewis Mckenzie is an honest man, whatever the general direction of his views. -Cueball

Not that general, the direction of his views. Actually they are precise. In the 1997 federal election he was the CPC candidate for Parry-Sound Muskoka.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 January 2007 06:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes but he actively defended NDP candidate and Kosovo Vet Rollie Kieth for being scroned by the right wing press for his views about the Kosovo crisis, and he himself has often made statements which undermine the generally accepted NATO/neo-liberal narrative of the Bosnian war,

So whatever the general tenor of his views, he doesn't seem to pad them for the purposes of political expedience, like some people. He seems like an honest guy.

Meaning he calls it the way he sees it.... now Fatah on the hand...

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 08:01 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Honesty and calling a spade a spade, I agree.

If you know about his conflict whith (now Liberal Senator) General Dallaire (re: Rwanda massacre I believe), please shed some light. I am a bit in the dark.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 January 2007 08:23 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bhagat:
Here is one blog attacking Fatah. The invective speaks about the writer than Fatah. Here too, Fatah's critcs hide behind pseudonyms. This one calls himself Dr. Maxtor.

Dr. Maxtor's site is filled with anti-Jewish hatemongering, masquerading as satire, as I have already pointed out on a previous occasion. The particular page you linked to contains more of his rabid anti-Jewish commentary. He also links to neo-Nazi sites.

Please do not link to this offensive site on babble.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 06 January 2007 07:45 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here is one blog attacking Fatah. The invective speaks about the writer than Fatah. Here too, Fatah's critcs hide behind pseudonyms -Bhagat

Can you, Bhagat, give me your word that Tarek Fatah never uses pseudonyms in this or any other forum ?

By the way, any reason you opted to disable your "Personal Messsage" feature ?

Edited to add: And if you strongly believe he never does, prepare to fall off your chair !

[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 10 January 2007 03:03 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Thought I'd keep this thread going and point that Fatah has just panned "Little Mosque on the Prairie", putting him in the company of Margaret Wente, Rondi Adamson and others who want to make Canadians afraid of each other.

From Canadian Press:

quote:

At least one prominent Muslim raised concerns.

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Toronto-based Muslim Canadian Congress, said he had "reservations about the depiction of Muslims as essentially a people whose lives revolve around a mosque."

"This is patently untrue," he said, adding that he fears the show will only serve to "pigeonhole Muslims as not more than a group that prays and preaches."



From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 10 January 2007 04:46 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am surprised that Mr. Tarek Fatah/the Muslim Canadian Congress has not churned out a press release oor two protesting.. that He was not consulted when planning and implementing such project, that his advice (and picture of course) were not sought after.

Not surprised by his comments either: The sitcom "little mosque on the prairies" wishes to convey the message that mosque attending people should not be feared as "fundies", "terrorits" or apologists for terrorism, a message that does not seem to sit well with his agenda.

quote:
[I]n the company of Margaret Wente, Rondi Adamson and others who want to make Canadians afraid of each other -=+=-

I cannot agree more.

[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 17 January 2007 07:22 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
This thread will never die.

Tarek Fatah is still knocking Little Mosque in the news. From the Christian Science Monitor:

quote:

Not every Muslim is a fan, of course.

Tarek Fatah, spokesman for the progressive, Toronto-based Muslim Canadian Congress, says he thought the jokes fell flat.

"It was a tremendous lost opportunity," he says. "I can imagine non-Muslims watching this and saying, 'my God, these people are bizarre.'"



Which leads to the question, what show was he watching?

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 17 January 2007 08:57 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amongst the show's goals is to attempt to dispel people's fear of Muslims and Mosques, which is in diametrical opposition to Mr. Fatah's tendancies.
He thrives on demonizing Mosques and fanning fear of "islamists" (read people who attend mosques).

Mr. Fatah, to whom the msm rushes anytime the word "Muslim" comes up, was not consulted prior to putting the show together, his approval, I mean "view" was not solicited.

No wonder the show does not appeal to Mr. Fatah.

Speaking of Mr. Fatah, his 'Muslim Canadian Congress' came to the defence of Wajid Khan.

Now, critics of Wajid Khan simply said that the latter is not qualified to be the PM's advisor on the Middle East. But here is how the MCC weaved an accusation of "bigotry"

quote:
MCC expresses concern about
Islamist attacks on Wajid Khan


.."To suggest that Wajid Khan's Pakistani ancestry disqualifies him from representing the Canadian government in the Middle East, demonstrates the hidden Islamist agenda that seeks to demean and trivialize non-Islamist Muslims as not authentic Muslims," said Salma Siddiqui, Senior VP of the MCC in a statement issued today.


The MCC compares trips abroad that MPs take to Wajid Khan's position as advisor to the government of Canada. A big difference, but the MCC, apparently determined to make a case of "Islamist bigotry" chose to spin and weave.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ConcernedCanadian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12706

posted 23 January 2007 04:00 AM      Profile for ConcernedCanadian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is Islamic extremism?
Who (whether it is a country or an influential group) holds Islamic extremist views?
When did Muslims extremism develop and why?
What kind of a threat extremist Muslims pose to the western world?
If a society holds extremist views, does that warrant an attack against them?

From: Ancaster, ON | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 23 January 2007 05:57 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ConcernedCanadian:
If a society holds extremist views, does that warrant an attack against them?

Yes!

So, who's joining me in an attack across the Peace Bridge?


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca