Watch this! We The People will prevail:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...540/vp/39087645#39087645

I hope this demonstration gets some attention. The ADL should be shamed loudly and publicly. Good on Rabbis for Human Rights-North America for standing up for human rights and the U.S. Constitution. I visited their website, and there seems to be a lot of good stuff going on over there:

http://www.rhr-na.org/

You know, I am having a hard time with some double-standards here, so maybe someone can help me out of my apparent ignorance. I fully believe in freedom of religion, though I am an atheist. I support the First Amendment to the Constitution in full.

Doesn't Jones have the right to burn the book? I mean, this is America. It may be a stupid thing to do, and deliberately offensive. But the reaction of many in the Muslim world is way the fuck over the top

So he represents Muslim haters. So what? It's a book. He's not sacrificing a child on an altar.

Muslims clerics called for Salman Rushdie's death because he wrote a book. Then there were riots over a Danish cartoon depiction of Mohammed. Now we've got people saying that this act is a war on Islam and that the whole Western world will suffer as a consequence.

Can we all just get a grip here??

The Wahabi sect Saudis routinely execute people for religious offenses, yet we continue trading with them (and, for that matter, they with us.)

Bahai's in Iran are considered heretics are also imprisoned and sometimes executed. For heresy.

This is some fucking Stone Age shit. And I just don't get it.

Do Muslims in Islamic countries exhibit sensitivity to Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism? Seriously, I'd like to know. I know that Christian missionaries in Malaysia can be imprisoned and executed if they are found to be teaching their faith.

Do any other non-secular governments execute people over religious offenses? Do any other countries have armed bands of pious thugs walking the streets harassing men and women who might be getting a little to close to each other?

I don't have any problem with Islam than I do with any other religion. Too me, it's all loony, but feel free, this is America. I certainly don't take offense at the idea of a mosque/cultural center at ground zero. Not a problem. I think the tea partiers who protested it are clearly stupid, racist, and islamophobic.

But am I the only liberal who thinks that if burning a book is an act of war, then something has gone very, very wrong? I always thought that dropping a bomb was an act of war. What am I missing? (And please, saying that the Koran is a sacred text and should be respected...that just doesn't hold water, not above someone's Constitutional right to burn one. Or a bible. Or a flag.)

I'd like a serious response. I'm not a hater. I feel like a very bad liberal here.

Re Soul Rebel @3:

I fully believe in freedom of religion, though I am an atheist

Ditto.

Doesn't Jones have the right to burn the book?

Clearly book burning, however infantile, is a means of expression that can raise First Amendment concerns. However, that does not mean that governments do not have a right to adopt content neutral laws that may come into conflict with actions as a means of expression.

In this case, the City of Gainesville passed an ordinance that bans the public burning of paper, cardboard, etc. The ordinance is designed to protect public safety--fire prevention. The mere fact that "Pastor" Terry Jones wishes to convey his hate-filled message in such an infantile fashion does not trump the city's right to protect public safety by enforcing its content-neutral ordinance.

So he represents Muslim haters. So what? It's a book. He's not sacrificing a child on an altar.

"Where they burn books, at the end they also burn people."- Heinrich Heine

Heine's ominous warning came more than a century before the infamous May 10, 1933 Nazi book burning where Joseph Goebbels told the Berlin student book burners, "The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end."

It was the beginning of the end for millions who would be gassed and then shoved into the death camp ovens over the next twelve years.

Muslims clerics called for Salman Rushdie's death because he wrote a book.

I think you missed the core message of this piece. Yes, there are radical Muslims whose hatred is as stupid as that offered by "Pastor" Terry Jones. But you can't extend that stupidity to all Muslims anymore than you can extend Jones' stupidity to all Christians.

History is filled with instances of religious-based atrocities, but it has also provided us with some remarkably humanistic individuals of faith, e.g.,Gandhi, Martin Luther King

This is not, or should not, be a battle between religions. It is a matter of love conquering hate.

This is not a matter of depriving a messianic "Pastor" from expressing his First Amendment rights, but a matter of good people expressing their First Amendment rights in response to the hate brought on by the right-wing race-baitors.

Ernest -

I did understand the core message of the piece. Love is better than hate. I'm glad people are generally feeling that this pastor's actions are stupid and hurtful...and if he's in violation of the law, that's an entirely different story.

My point is (and the article I linked was my example, though I think it's just one of many) that any reaction to a burning of a Koran as being a "hanging offense" is way overblown. I get the sense that there is quite a sizeable portion of the worldwide Muslim population that thinks indeed that it is such an offense as to be punishable by death of the individual, and worse, as a cause to take up arms against a nation.

I think there are many legitimate reasons, centered on self-defense and sovereignty, that Muslim peoples and nations would want to take up arms against their oppressors. I'm saying that burning a book - whichever book it might be - isn't one of them.

Also, to counter Heine's quote - I do think we are living in a day and age where burning of a book probably won't lead to burning people...least of all in America, and I do make that based on the reaction to the potential book burning itself. As I said, I'm glad people are speaking out against it as a pretty stupid thiing to do. But that's not my point. My point, once again, is what I am perceiving as a strong worldwide Muslim overreaction.

And I may be a victim of Western media in this. So that's what I would like to be clarified, if someone knows.

Since Muslims had nothing to do w/ 9/11, wouldn't it make more sense to burn the Bible and the Torah/Talmud?

Even a cursory look into the facts cleary implicates Mossad and Al-CIA-duh.

Of course the real perpetraitors don't give a shit about those holy books they claim to believe in.

Sometimes burning books is just stupid, as when done as a PR stunt. Other times it is truly a crime against humanity as when the Library at Alexandria was torched or the Conquistadors roasted the majority of text in ancient Central and South America. Just think of all the precious hard won knowledge our species forfeited. Sickening.

Soul Rebel

With you 100%. It's not the pastor's desire to toss paper into a bonfire that's offensive. It's the desire of others to exploit the event for cynical purposes that's offensive.

Need more folks like you to tell everyone to get a grip.

The only people who think Quran burning will set off a worldwide Muslim reaction are Americans. The rest of the world thinks we're assholes who blow up buildings with people in them in our own cities.

if you are of a mind to get out in the streets about something this weekend may I suggest the huge 9/11 Truth march/rally in New York or the somewhat more scaled back one in DC where I will be.

Truth is EVERYTHING. All else is distraction and diversion.

@ Soul Rebel,

Liberals don't have a problem with the Koran burner because of some kind of convoluted straw-man exercise in relative extremism and the First Amendment. We have a problem with the Koran burner because he foments hate.

Just because he has a right to do so doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against it.

The focus on this non-issue by the media and politicians has given Terry Jones millions in free publicity and made him a folk hero, the only man willing to stand up to them turrible Muslim heathens. No matter what happens, Jones wins. If he burns the Korans and the fanatics kill a bunch of people, he's "proved" that Islam is a dangerous cult; if he has to back down, he'll say that the government can't protect America's freedoms from them Muslim terrorists. Worse, the involvement by election year politicians and the government sends a message that somehow, this Koran-burning is something America is doing rather than some insignificant backwoods preacher. It just so happens that in this election year, there is a significant Muslim vote in several swing districts, so all of the politicians including Sarah Palin have issued statements urging Jones not to burn those Korans.

But even that doesn't explain the truly stupid public statement by General Petraeus who, apparently without consulting with anyone, publicly admitted that he couldn't even protect his own troops from amateur bomb-toting religious fanatics. McChrystal never said anything half as idiotic. If Petraeus didn't get approval from Obama before making that public statement, he ought to be fired. He's put the troops in danger, not Jones.

With everything that's happened, Canning's post really doesn't add to the free publicity for Jones, but this is really just tabloid stuff that doesn't belong here.

camusrebel @9 wrote

Truth is EVERYTHING. All else is distraction and diversion.

Agreed. But that is quite different from saying that the only truth we need be concerned with is the truth about what actually took place on 9/11.

The crimes of Empire did not begin on 09/11/2001. The need to address the dangers of the process of dehumanization did not begin on 09/11/2001.

I know it often comes as a shock to many of my well-meaning friends in the self-described "Truther" movement, but there are other "truths" that are worthy of discussion.

Paul McCarthy @11 wrote:

With everything that's happened, Canning's post really doesn't add to the free publicity for Jones, but this is really just tabloid stuff that doesn't belong here.

If that is so, Paul, then perhaps Thomas Jefferson merely uttered "tabloid stuff" when he wrote:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Are you people so blind as to the dangers of right-wing propagated racism? Do you really believe that reporting on the actions and words of "people of good conscience" in response to the hate-speech propagated by the so-called "Tea Party" and a whack right-wing preacher is the stuff of tabloids?

Or, is it your point about coverage of the threatened Quran burning that we should all just close our eyes and pretend it isn't happening?

Still nothing to address what I see as part of the problem. If burning a book is going to cause what i see as a psychotic reaction among fanatics, there needs to be some admittance that this is highly troublesome to the AMERICAN democratic right to burn the book. Believe that I am about as liberal as they come, yet this all does not sit well with me.

Also, Billy @10

I support the protest of the burning. Your comment misses my intent. My concern is any fundamentalist reaction to such a burning. No act such as this should trigger a clarion call to war.

Allow me to take a very quick shot at replying with a "serious answer" to Soul Rebel @ 3.

Let me be clear. Anybody freaking out about the burning or planned burning of Qurans --- with either violent demonstrations or sensationalistic, panicked, frightened coverage --- be they Muslims or American media, are idiots and jackasses. That, even as some Muslims living in countries where American "Freedom of Speech" is not understood (where they don't appreciate that our Government has no actual legal right to bar anyone from such an action) and therefore see such an act by a group of jackasses in FL as something actually condoned by the U.S. government. Even then, of course, any violent response by anyone means they too are jackasses, no matter how poor their understanding of our Constitution.

With that caveat in place then, there is a difference between an act of protest (say, burning an American Flag) and an act of hate (say, burning a Koran, or someone in effigy, etc.)

I believe it's my responsibility as part of enjoying the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution to defend anybody's right to do any of the above --- act of either protest or hate --- whether I find it abhorrent or not.

In tandem, I also find it my responsibility, as part of that same Constitutional guarantee of free speech, to publicly condemn those who would abuse that right for purposes of expressing hatred (versus protest).

I am not --- nor has Ernie, or anybody else in either this thread or the previous one on this matter to my knowledge --- called for government authorities to keep the burning from happening. (Though, since I was off the grid last week, I'm unclear on what came of Ernie's previously-reported local law against burnings of any and all paper in Gainesville and, as I noted back in that thread, I'd decry such a law if it was specifically meant as an abridgment of free speech.)

In summary then: The burners are Constitutionally welcome to burn if they wish whether out of protest or hatred. We are responsible for defending that freedom, as I see it. Similarly, we are responsible for publicly condemning the act, in this case, as an act of hate, rather than of simple protest. That burning Qurans might further endanger Americans abroad is but another point to made in support of such condemnation, not a legitimate reason to outlaw it, panic about it, or bend to extremist threats by those who would attempt to use our very own (theoretically) inviolable rights as a way to hold us hostage for them.

Hope that helps.

Ernie my good man, yes the "crimes of Empire" can be traced back to the Mexican American war in 1848. That is a well known fact recorded in the history books.

What we are working for is the day when the neocon and Zionist treachery behind 9/11 is equally well known and also clearly described for posterity in the history books.

"The need to address the dangers of the process of dehumanization" WTF? More lawerly gobbley-gook? I'm talking about hanging people. I'm talking about demolishing our current paradigm in one fell swoop.

Are there other truths worthy of discussion? Yes but none AS worthy. I think there is truth to Atlantis, Reincarnation and UFO's....all VERY worthy of discussion.

But to prattle on about first amendments and Goebbels and rabbis for human rights without first making it abundantly clear that Mossad had more to do with 9/11 than any Muslim seems disingenuous.

Re Soul Rebel @15 & 16 & Billy @10.

We seem to be searching for ways to disagree with respect to that upon which we actually agree.

1. I think all three of us agree that the Quran burning is a reckless, childish and despicable provocation that, itself, is the product of the process of dehumanization.

2. I think we can all agree that violence and threats of violence are simply unacceptable, whether it comes from wing-nuts, such as the guy who, in the wake of the "Ground Zero Mosque" protests stabbed a NY taxi driver because he was a Muslim or by way of a Muslim threatening to kill or attempting to kill Americans in response to this idiotic provocation.

3. I think all of us would agree, however, that this form of hate speech--burning a Quran--is calculated to inflame passions on both sides and will likely place U.S. service personnel at risk overseas. (Though I'd have to add that it is hypocritical for either the President or General Petreaus to express concern for their safety when it is their decisions to perpetuate and expand this irrational "war on terror" that placed our service personnel in harm's way to begin with.)

4. We probably also agree that condemning Terry Jones' despicable Quran burning does not amount to approval of whatever violent reactions that provocation engenders, and

5. That reaching across this divide to search out our common humanity provides the best solution to the merchants of hate on both sides.

Oh you didn't go back far enough on the crimes of Empire, Camusrebel.

Consider these four stanzas of Bob Dylan's With God on Our Side:

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

Brad @ 17 & Ernest @ 19

Thank you both for the clarity. Thus we are agreed.
My main concern in all of this is that American freedoms are not held hostage by fear.

SR

Soul Rebel @ 20:

My main concern in all of this is that American freedoms are not held hostage by fear.

Not on this blog at least, amigo.

CamusRebel @ 17:

What we are working for is the day when the neocon and Zionist treachery behind 9/11 is equally well known and also clearly described for posterity in the history books.

With all due respect, who are "we"? You mean you? If so, that's fine, and I'd not wish to dissuade you from whatever mission you choose. But it's neither fair nor reasonable for you to ascribe what may be your life's cause to everyone else, is it?

"The need to address the dangers of the process of dehumanization" WTF? More lawerly gobbley-gook?

No. Not "more lawerly gobbley-gook". Can point you to --- at a very minimum --- of at least six million dead people who wouldn't view it as such.

I'm talking about hanging people. I'm talking about demolishing our current paradigm in one fell swoop.

Good. I hope your ambitions and strategies to that end are fruitful and worthwhile. (Without the "hanging people" part.)

Are there other truths worthy of discussion? Yes but none AS worthy.

According to you. Which I respect and appreciate. But you ought to respect and appreciate that others may feel differently.

But to prattle on about first amendments and Goebbels and rabbis for human rights without first making it abundantly clear that Mossad had more to do with 9/11 than any Muslim seems disingenuous.

It would "seem disingenuous" to you, someone who happens to feel that way. To others, who may not feel that way, such discussions are anything but "prattle" and describing them as such is both disrespectful and short-sighted (in my opinion, even if that's not yours). Particularly to folks who might otherwise be sympathetic, or at least open, to just about any substantive case which you may wish to make on nearly any topic of note.

There are certainly websites out there who are devoted to nothing other than "9/11 Truth". This website is not one of them, which you've certainly been around here long enough to know. And again, with all due respect.

All I'm saying is Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marnnari
(aka the dancing mossad punks)

had more to do with 9/11 than any hard drinking, porn loving, strip club frequenting patsies.

Some innocent sheppards are TO THIS VERY MOTHER FUCKING DAY being held at Gitmo and tortured.

All I'm saying is in a just world those 5 would have spent the last 9 years being tortured at Gitmo.

EC: I'd have to add that it is hypocritical for either the President or General Petreaus

to express concern for their safety when it is their decisions to perpetuate and expand

this irrational "war on terror" that placed our service personnel in harm's way to begin

with.
-----

Wow. Talk about selective history!

Let's get our narrative right here: 911 terrorist attacks happened BEFORE the War on

Terror. The WOT was ostensibly a response to 911 and other attacks.

@Soulrebel - agree. I don't see Canning or BF properly addressing your concerns. Quite

how flag-burning is legitimate but Qu'ran burning is an expression of hate and therefore

quite different is anybody's guess. BF doesn't make any coherent distinction. What was

the distinction? Can anyone spot it?

BF and Canning are wobbling around, likening an individual's legitimate self expression

to Nazi-state-sanctioned anti-semitism and social/intellectual engineering. Nazi book

burning was state-led and an organised effort at de-jewdifying German culture - it was

inherently racist -something that burning the Qu'ran is not. Burning the Qu'ran is no

more racist than burning a Bible is. Anyone can adopt Islam - it is NOT a

race/ethnicity. There's no reason anyone should assume this is an issue about race.

Abe Foxman recently wrote:

More than 20,000 books and journals, and about 5,000 images, all representing "insidious"

Jewish influence, were torched by students and Nazi storm troopers. Enthusiastic crowds

witnessed this feverish destruction of "un-German" writings which had been systematically

pilfered from libraries, public buildings, private offices, and citizen's homes.

We know that similar "ceremonies" took place in some 30 German university towns. We know

that torchlight parades were punctuated with speeches railing against "Jewish

intellectualism" and calling for the purification of German culture. We know that

writings by such Jewish intellectuals as Einstein and Freud fueled the flames, alongside

German texts by Bertolt Brecht and Thomas Mann, and volumes by international writers

including Dos Passos, Hemingway, Zola, Proust, and even Helen Keller.

The Nazis made no distinction between hating Jews for religious or "racial" reasons and

for so-called "impure" cultural ones. If Jews were historically the "People of the Book,"

German fascists were as zealous in their hatred of the Torah as they were toward Jewish

intellectual thought that grew in the fertile soil of the late Renaissance and the

European Enlightenment.
http://www.adl.org/ADL_O...st/20080507-JP+Op-ed.htm

To compare the pastor to this is ridiculous. PErhaps more instructive is to acknowledge

what the Nazi attitude towards those burning Mein Kampf would have been.

One pastor burning the Qu'ran is just silly. Sure. But look at the response of Islam?

Is this fury supposed to be an expression of the tolerance of Islam? The love and peace

that Islam always lays claim to? Oh right!

Tolerance for the furious intolerance of Islam under the rubrics of "anti-racism" is

ridiculous.

But the cry also goes up that nobody should offend Islam because you'll stir-up the

muslims. This is an absolute obeisance to militant, violent, intolerant Islamist

extremism. You are fearful of the response! What does that say about Islam? What does

that say about how intimidated you are? What a surrender!

How about a word on the hypocrisy of Islam? YOu think burning American, British and

Israeli flags is a symptom of a tolerance which should be resiprocated? But a pastor

with a constitutionally protected right to self-expression shouldn't burn the Qu'ran?

This is Islamic hypocrisy, no-one else's.

Soulrebel is waking up - Rushdie, the cartoons, this and everything else can't fail to

have an effect - if you bother to consider it properly.

Rolling over for Islamic intolerance - under duress of threats - for the sake of

tolerance is a joke. It's a process of surrender. Just look at how much of an issue

this silly affair has become? The condemnation of this pastor and his elevation to

global notoriety is a symptom of the chilling winds of censorship for which Islam is

responsible.

Let him burn the Communist Manifesto too - as if we communists would care. You see the

difference? There's no racism in burning the Manifesto - why is there in burning the

Qu'ran? Racists might imagine it is a racist act, but why accept the views of racism?

You appear to.

I'd also like to point how indulgent of anti-semitism BradBlog and its commentators are. It makes quite a contrast to this mollycoddling of Islam and its fury.

Indeed - Bradblog has persistently *censored* criticism of the anti-semitism and even fascism floating around here. FACT.

Doubtless you'll censor this too.....

I'm sure this will go down like a lead ballon, but it's very good, and you should take heed.

Hitchens, writing long before this episode:

As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/

BF: ...we are responsible for publicly condemning the act, in this case, as an act of hate, rather than of simple protest.
------

Fancy clarifying that distinction in this particular case?

It seems you are accepting that protest against Islam is ipso facto "hate". How so? Because it involves burning a book as opposed to a national flag?

Of course, it's easy to see why Muslims might be offended, but so what? Aren't we allowed to offend Muslim sensibilities now? And we shouldn't do so in case Islam attacks our soldiers whom are arguably involved in illegal occupation of Islamic nation/s?

Your position seems predicated on the book burning being an expression of "hate". Why is it hate? [And what's so wrong with hating Islam, anyway? It's a political ideology and surely deserves criticism and attack as vitriolic as any you readily dish-out to the supposed creeping fascism of the American state/capitalism/whatever your targets might be. And look at the hate bristling through the threads and comments here? For capitalism, Obama, the NWO, Zionism, whatever.... What's the difference? Are you pretending anti-Zionism is never an avenue of racist hate? Are you forgetting the culpability of radical militant Islam for 911, Bali, London, Madrid, Paris? If this isn't a reasonable source for hate, then what is?]

Islam is ideology - not a race or an ethnicity.

And in contrast to your thesis on the media, there's this:

"Earlier in the segment, Chetry stated how "freedom of religion is...one aspect of what makes our country so great and different from many countries around the world," in the context of Muslims' right to worship and build mosques, such as the Ground Zero mosque, but didn't once raise how Pastor Jones and his church have the First Amendment right to burn Korans. This isn't surprising, given how CNN has been using their coverage to press how "Islamophobia" is apparently sweeping the nation.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/b...your-hands#ixzz0zEhCFtT5

From their transcript of an interview with PAstor Jones:

JONES: Yeah, we first declared September 11th, 'International Burn a Koran Day'- actually, for two reasons. Number one, we wanted to remember those who were brutally murdered on September 11th. And actually, we wanted to send a very clear message to the radical element of Islam. We wanted to send a very clear message to them that we are not interested in their Sharia law. We do not tolerate their threats, their fear, their radicalness. We live in the United States of America. We want to send a clear message to the peaceful Muslims. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of religion. They are more than welcome to be here- more than welcome to worship- more than welcome to build mosques. But our 9/11 demonstration- our 9/11 protest is to send a clear message to the radical element of Islam that we will not tolerate that in America.
----------

HATE??? How so, do tell?

Where does one start in responding to the jumbled mumblings of a guy who describes himself as "Mr. Fantastic?"

I'll start with his opening salvo, then, because I have other matters to attend to, return at another time.

The "fantastic" one writes @24:

911 terrorist attacks happened BEFORE the War on Terror. The WOT was ostensibly a response to 911 and other attacks.

1. According to the unofficial theories, such as those subscribed to by Camusrebel, 9/11 was not a "terrorist attack." It was an "inside job," which, under "his," but not all, unofficial theories, included the Israeli Mossad.

2. Under the "official theory," 9/11 was the work of 19 al Qaeda hijackers --- al Qaeda does not equal the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

Al Qaeda was a spin-off from the same Mujahideen whom the CIA had funded and armed during the Reagan administration. Osama bin Laden was a CIA-funded leader of the Mujahideen, who just happened to also be a member of a wealthy, oil-connected Saudi family. Reagan compared the Mujahideed to our Founding Fathers and dubbed them "freedom fighters."

Under the "official theory" 9/11 was a form of what the CIA refers to as "blow-back" --- the unintended consequences of past actions. Al Qaeda, itself, is the product of a U.S. imperial presence in the Middle East.

Even under the "official theory," declaring and waging "war on terror" without end was neither an inevitable nor rational response to 9/11

As a practical matter, the concept of a "war on terrorism" borders on a meaningless oxymoron. As noted by General William Odom (U.S. Army, retired):

Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We are not going to win a war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few.

Yet, as a propaganda tool, "war on terror" has been exceedingly effective.

As noted by Norman Solomon in War Made Easy, quoting the New Yorker’s Nicholas Lehman, "war on terror…has entered the language so fully, and framed the way people think about how the United States is reacting to the September 11 attacks, so completely, that the idea of declaring and waging war on terror was not the sole, inevitable, logical consequence of the attacks just isn’t in circulation." Indeed, Solomon continues, contracting "war on terrorism into 'war on terror' involves much more than saving headline space. ’Terror’…is a word fraught with numerous meanings…; among the subtexts of the shortened term are vague notions to the effect that we can somehow effectively wage war on our own fear, a nuance that…hardly suggests an auspicious strategy." As noted by Bill Moyers, "the paradigm of the ‘war on terror’" is employed "to elicit public acquiescence in [the administration’s] policies while offering no criterion of success or failure, no knowledge of the cost, and no measure of democratic accountability."

Except in the case of civil wars, "war" is ordinarily confined to armed conflicts between nation-states.

Even if you accept the "official theory," 9/11 was not an "act of war." It was an horrific crime carried out by a stateless organization, a Frankenstein's monster of our own creation.

If one accepts the "official theory," the logical response to 9/11 would have been the international application of the rule of law as opposed to a globalized, perpetual "war" against a phantom menace who is anywhere and everywhere at all times --- a "war" that will create future blow-backs from the families of the victims of our guns, bombs, brutality and torture.

3. At the risk of opprobrium from both sides, I, for one, am not totally satisfied with the evidence submitted to date by either the official or unofficial theorists of 9/11.

We have never had that seminal event forensically examined by an objective body with access to all evidence, including scientific evidence, that will permit hard-and-fast conclusions as to just what happened.

As an adherent to a fact-based reality and the scientific method, I am unwilling to subscribe to any theory offered to explain that seminal event until such an inquiry has been made. Unfortunately, I doubt that 9/11 will ever be subjected to such a rigorous, impartial scientific investigation during my lifetime.

More on Mr. Fantastic's sometimes incoherent mumblings at a later date --- I promise.

EC: The group also condemned their fellow Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League and Zionist Organization of America for their efforts to derail the community center.
--------

Well, here's Abe Foxman penning an editorial for ADL:

"Several groups with extreme anti-Muslim agendas have launched public campaigns that have both sheltered and fueled this bigotry. One Florida-based group, for example, has plans to observe an "International Burn a Koran Day" on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The campaign is the latest tactic employed by an organization led by Pastor Terry Jones, author of the book Islam is the Devil.

What's more, there have been repeated instances where mosques around the country have become targets of anti-Muslim protests, hateful invective, stereotyping, and worse."
----------

So why the criticism of ADL?

The ADL has just setup the "Interfaith Coalition To Assist American Muslim Communities Facing Opposition In Building Mosques":

"Working under the sponsorship of the Anti-Defamation League, which initiated the concept, ICOM will carefully monitor incidents of mosque discrimination around the country, gather facts and analyze the information, and speak out when appropriate to help Muslim communities who are encountering prejudice. "We will not take political sides. We will not make decisions based on ideology," the coalition said in its statement."
------------

So why the criticism of ADL and their representation as part of this supposed "Islamaphobia"?

Thanks for the response, but spare me the insults, please?

What has anything in your response got to do with anything? I'll address it anyway....

EC: Even under the "official theory," declaring and waging "war on terror" without end was neither an inevitable nor rational response to 9/11
------------

So? I never said it was. I was merely pointing out the ORDER in which events occurred, to clarify a little of the responsibility:

you said

"it is their [govt etc] decisions to perpetuate and expand this irrational "war on terror" that placed our service personnel in harm's way to begin."

TO BEGIN? You completely omit 911. And all the other crimes of which AQ are accused, opposition to which (for good or ill) is what ostensibly drives WOT.

I oppose the wars, but I don't absolve AQ and its operatives of all responsibility. Nor should you. To do so completely inverts reality.

EC: "1. According to the unofficial theories, such as those subscribed to by Camusrebel, 9/11 was not a "terrorist attack." It was an "inside job," which, under "his," but not all, unofficial theories, included the Israeli Mossad.

2. Under the "official theory," 9/11 was the work of 19 al Qaeda hijackers --- al Qaeda does not equal the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or the world's 1.5 billion Muslims."
-------

Why should I care what nonesense CamusRebel and other conpiracists believe?

And it isn't "the offical theory", it's the bloody obvious - until we have evidence which thoroughly justifies a different view. There is NO EVIDENCE otherwise and mountains of evidence against AQ.

Further, I did not say AQ EQUALS Islam. But you cannot deny AQ is a radical Islamic movement. AQ is Islamic - but it is not EQUAL to Islam. I did not say it was. Nor does Pastor Jones, apparently.

EC: Al Qaeda, itself, is the product of a U.S. imperial presence in the Middle East.
---------

Wow. Do you really believe this? Nobody (not even Hitchens apparently) would argue that American interventionist history isn't a factor - but to simply claim AQ is a PRODUCT of American action is absurd! These Muslims are mere automata are they, with no selfwill, no personal responsibility for anything, not even their own fervently held beliefs? Come off it? AQ has a definite and direct intellectual history in the coalition of Nazism with Arab ultra-nationalism through the 2nd World War, for example. The Grand Mufti spent the war in Berlin, not Washington. AQ has an intellectual history of its own entirely distinct from any machinations of the CIA. To illustrate - do you really think AQ would garner ANY sympathy and adherents if it were merely "a product of America/CIA"? Blowback, sure - but that isn't the whole tale. And such a view misconstrues what AQ means to radical militant muslims. Honestly, I know. You are being very naive. Maybe dangerously so. If we play nice, they will? Delusion.

EC: quoting - "...the idea of declaring and waging war on terror was not the sole, inevitable, logical consequence of the attacks just isn’t in circulation."
--------

Well, that isn't my position in the least. I oppose the wars but I don't absolve the guilty based on some fuzzy anti-imperialism, as you appear to wish to.

EC: "Even if you accept the "official theory," 9/11 was not an "act of war." It was an horrific crime carried out by a stateless organization, a Frankenstein's monster of our own creation."
------

So what? Does it mean we must now and forever bow before the intolerance of Islam? Surely we can oppose the wars without having to submit to Islamic sensibility operating worldwide? We can oppose the wars without conceding an inch on our own liberty.

But burying one's head in the sand and imagining there's no real threat otherwise is extremely naive and shortsighted.

EC: We have never had that seminal event forensically examined by an objective body with access to all evidence, including scientific evidence, that will permit hard-and-fast conclusions as to just what happened.
---------

That reminds me of the responses of Holocaust deniers.

Sure, the Holocaust is of a greater scale and only a fool could approach the 911 investigation without real caution. But still.....to claim the NIST reports aren't scientific, for example, or weren't objective is crazy. Based on what? There is mountains of evidence implicating AQ - but there's absolutely no positive evidence for any other narrative. There is no choice but to believe it - until there's good evidence otherwise. 10 years and there's absolutely no evidence for any alternative narrative. Even LIHOP assumes intent. Rejecting entirely the mountains of evidence for what you call "the official theory" is not 'operating in an evidence-based' way. We don't need every detail to form an idea of whom is culpable. Nor is war the only possible response to it. BUT SOME RESPONSE WAS REQUIRED. You would agree? Apparently not - you still haven't drawn a single conclusion from the event apparently.

Your views on supposed "Islamaphobia" should be understood in that context, then? You don't even accept AQ responsibility for 911 - nor Madrid, London, Paris, Tanzania, Bali, Bombay presumably?

No wonder you appear to entirely blame some vague American MIC apparatus instead.

And even then, you express concern for the harm that might come to US soldiers involved in (illegal?) war because of this Pastor's constitutional liberty to do as he pleases! Amazing.

[Can't be long before I'm censored again, can it?]

And even then, you express concern for the harm that might come to US soldiers involved in (illegal?) war because of this Pastor's constitutional liberty to do as he pleases! Amazing.
-----

I mean, you're expressing this amongst your reasoning against the Pastor. It looks a very messed-up argument to me.

The Pastor himself says it is a protest - against radical extremist Islam. Believe him or not, but that's what he says.

Imagine how he feels now that this shit-storm has broken out about it? He's "allowed" to do it, but mustn't........ How reassuring. Else he'll place American troops in danger! (From what!? Violence - by whom?)

This is called coercion, isn't it, Mr Lawyer? It's menacing. Personally I refuse to help turn that wheel - especially in the name of "tolerance".

The Pastor seems to be having his own fears realised in the response of those and that which his protest was against. But of course, as its a provocation it's self-fulfilling - because of the response from Islam. Death threats.....great. Concern for soldiers operating overseas (in illegal wars).....great. This is a chill wind. But let's turn on the book-burning priest, huh?

OT
A little 9/11 perspective for the day

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/090610.html

Oh man, what a day!! Started in front of the White House, 9/11 Truth signage, banners, a huge blow up elephant(in the room)...wow...what a rush....spreading truth to hundreds of tourists.

Then we paraded down 15th street to the Washington Monument where a thousand or so tea partiers were having a little shindig. Some minor confrontations...lots of pamphlets handed out to the curious.

The truth is like water going downhill. It cannot be stopped. It will find a way. The masses are awakening.

Most people I spoke with did not even know about WTC 7. Well, they do now. They are hungry for more truth after a little taste. And they will tell 2 friends and so on and so on and.....

Join us or get the fuck outta the way, cause we are growing every day and will not be stopped!

Mr. F -

Wow. And I thought I was long-winded. Ever heard of economy of words, Mr. F?

Most of your jumbled, redundant, nonsensical yammering deserves no response. At least from me. Though this part does, however:

I'd also like to point how indulgent of anti-semitism BradBlog and its commentators are. It makes quite a contrast to this mollycoddling of Islam and its fury.

Indeed - Bradblog has persistently *censored* criticism of the anti-semitism and even fascism floating around here. FACT.

Doubtless you'll censor this too.....

Play the victim there much, stud?

I am aware of no "censoring" of you, nor any "censoring" of any "criticism of...anti-semitism and...facism". You are, in short, making shit up. Knock it off.

If any of your posts were ever disallowed, and I have no memory of such a thing, it was doubtless because you abused one or more of the very few rules we have for commenting at The BRAD BLOG.

One of those rules, I should note, is against posting knowing disinformation. I'd consider the above exactly that. So unless you'd like to be disallowed from commenting here at all, please knock it off. Thanks.

[Can't be long before I'm censored again, can it?]

You were never "censored" before. But if you persist in posting such knowing disinformation, perhaps the privilege that you are granted to write on my blog will be removed. Don't do it, mind the other very few rules, and there will be no problem for you here, no matter how silly and unsubstantiated your ridiculous screeds are.

Shabbat shalom, amigo.

Thanks for putting that windbag in his place Brad.

Your blog is a national treasure.

One question: is it "anti-semitic" to point out Mossad's role in the 9/11 false flag?

Never censored?

OK - let's put your claim to the test?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

LOL

One question: is it "anti-semitic" to point out Mossad's role in the 9/11 false flag?
--------

Yes, because there's absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

And, I'm a windbag so as to ensure my words can't be purposefully miscontrued - as Canning has already done.

Thank you for the reminder, "Mr. Fantastic". The name you used to use here was "SiliconDoc" and you were put on the moderation list after many violations of our rules --- insulting other commenters, posting knowing disinfo, using different names --- and many warnings.

So, since you've used a new name yet again, yes, you're back on the moderation list. Why it's so difficult for you to follow the very few simple, posted rules we have for commening here, I don't know. But go play in someone elses sandbox if you don't like them.

Actions have consequences. As a rightwinger, I'd think you'd be very familiar with that phrase. Unfortunately, as a rightwinger, you also seem very familiar with paying no attention to it whatsoever. Sorry, Doc.

CamusRebel @ 35 asked:

One question: is it "anti-semitic" to point out Mossad's role in the 9/11 false flag?

Not in and of itself, if you have evidence to present for it.

That said, I've yet to see anything even close to compelling or convincing to that end. At the same time, however, many of the folks I've seen suggesting that's the case ARE, in fact, anti-semites. No idea if you are or not, or if you've just fallen for what appears to be a seed planted by anti-semites or by those who've fallen for their unsubstantiated (in lieu of any hard evidence) nonsense.

Never used the name SiliconDoc - never heard of it - never used it.

I'm a Marxist - by my own definition, granted. So, not rightwing.

I really have been censored here for criticising anti-semitism, I have never broken any of your rules. Rather, I am subjected to unwarranted attack, such as being called "SiliconDOc" which I have never heard of and certainly never used. FACT.

the five young israeli gentlemen i named in comment # 23 are a good place too start your inquiry.

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

If one chooses to peer down the rabbit hole many strange but true facts/evidence appear. If one chooses not to look, ie eat the red pill, the virtual steak still tastes delicious, I am told.

How and why were they set up to film before the first plane hit? Why were explosives found in their "Urban Moving Systems" van? Why did the owner of this front company hightail it back to Israel. Why were the 5 held for 71 days but then released back to Israel(according to one source at the behest of the Whitehouse)?

What country owned the company running airport security where the "hijackers" boarded the plane?

What country has several dual citizens in high places of the US gov.? Who was Skeletors mom? Rahmbo's dad? Comverse? Odigo?

You can call me anti-brussel sprouts or whatever you want. I love all human beings that love all human beings. Those that do not I am anti.

As I said, Camus, I've yet to see any compelling or convincing evidence for "Mossad's role in the 9/11 false flag". Sorry.

Mr. Fantastic - Thank you for the reminder. I stand corrected. You are not SiliconDoc. You used a different name last summer (first "ANTI" and then others) while I was on vacation and others were looking after the blog. You proved to be a sockpuppet and/or friend of a long known, rather psychotic stalker of this blog, who had been repeatedly banned --- over and over and over again --- for repeated violations of the rules. You picked up where he left off, and thus, were set to moderate and your posts were removed.

I wasn't here at the time. May, or may not have dealt with you differently, but I stand behind the judgment of our volunteer moderators. Really, it's not all that hard to NOT piss them off. Sorry about that, but you'll have to find somewhere else to play. I really have no time for your ravings (evidenced in the thread above). If you don't care for that, too bad. You can find somewhere other than my own private property to call me an anti-semite if you like. One of us will end up looking like a fool in the bargain. I suspect it won't be me.

Peace.

You will find everything you need to know about both "Mr. Fantastic" and his hero, Abe Foxman, in Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

Finkelstein's core thesis is that since the injustice inflicted on Palestinians by Zionism and a now more than 43 year, brutal and illegal occupation is both morally and legally indefensible, Israeli apologists resort to charges of anti-Semitism against anyone who dares to question Israel's brutal occupation and racist policies in order to evade the embarrassment of their defense of the indefensible.

Finkelstein presents a solid academic work which specifically exposes Foxman's "misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history" as Foxman seeks to present his apologia for the crimes of the Israeli government.

Since Finkelstein is Jewish, it becomes a sticky matter for anyone to label him an anti-Semite, so, instead, the Israeli apologists call Finkelstein a "self-hating Jew."

Our "Mr. Fantastic," however, appears to not only buy into the Foxman apologia and his misuse of anti-Semitism, but he also appears to bear a hatred of all Muslims that is so palpable as to suggest that it is pathological.

He extends Foxman's anti-Semite charge not only to those who criticize Israel, but to anyone who would dare to criticize Foxman's organization, The Anti-Defamation League.

The odd feature --- the one which is indicative of the deep degree of the Fantastic one's pathology --- is that it was not I who raised the issue of the Anti-Defamation League's inappropriate opposition to Park51 (aka the mislabeled "Ground Zero Mosque") but the group known as Rabbis for Human Rights.*

Thus, our Fantastic one has leveled the charge of anti-Semitism against a group of American Rabbis.

How's that for irony?

so why were they filming? give me something here, come on, you gotta at least throw something out.

I promise not to ridicule your response or even respond in any way. Just make up some shit if you have to but please, at least toss me a bone here. Why were they filming? From before the first plane?

Really, any silly reason, excuse, explanation will do, I just think it deserves SOME comment.

Even a "they were not there, you are mistaken" or "they were filming their girlfriends water-skiing" or "the 19 dastardly Muslims paid them to document it".............please Brad, give me SOMETHING.

Making war by deception is below a man with your integrity on every other issue.

camusrebel @48:

Brad asked for "evidence."

Your remark about filming does not meet that.

You've provided no links, no material that would prove that the Mossad was "filming," no evidence that if the Mossad was filming, they did so because they had foreknowledge of the attack.

People film inside NYC all the time. Multiple governments conduct illegal surveillance in foreign countries all the time. Merely filming an event is not proof of anything.

As to your last comment:

Making war by deception is below a man with your integrity on every other issue.

Perhaps I am missing something. I am unaware of Brad Friedman having made war. I am unaware of Brad having set out to deceive anyone.

If you are referring to the manner in which the Bush/Cheney cabal seized upon 9/11 to initiate their irrational "war on terror" as a means to consolidate executive power, to secure acquiescence to their radical agenda and to provide an excuse for the imperial conquest of Iraq --- well, one does not have to accept an "inside theory" in order to understand that the administration did those things.

Finally, neither Brad nor I are required to "give" you anything. One of the core functions of this blog is to speak truth to power. Truth is arrived at through application of the scientific method. It is not something that can be achieved by "give me SOMETHING."

you both act like those 5 punks from #23 do not exist.

they do. When released after 71 days they scurried back to Israel and were interviewed on TV.

They admit they were there to document it.

Why weren't they waterboarded? Or at least flown to a few of our finest black-op prisons?

Mossad's motto is "By deception we wage war" or some sickening shit like that.

Is confession on television evidence?

Correct: I am in no position to impose requirements of any kind. But I think if you look a little closer I was not demanding, I was pleading.

But I think we understand each other's positions clearly enough and will make no more progress in this area.

what would happen if a christian church would want to open a church in Saudi Arabia? Would the liberals support that? If Saudis prevent it, how would the 'good'people react? Does anyone have the guts to try this in practice?

What the Saudis do concerning religion in their own country is of no interest to me. They do not have our constitution, and we have no authority to demand that they allow churches to be built. Human rights abuses stemming from their religious laws are another issue, and though they may imprison and even execute Christian practitioners in a legal fashion, I do not think we should do business with such regimes...but try getting that one past the so-called religious right in congress.

We should work on being an example of tolerance...something about a beacon of hope and freedom. Should we rather become like them?

That'll show 'em!

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Posted by commenter who has repeatedly been banned for using multiple user names. In this case, it was the previously banned "Mr. Fantastic" writing as "Torres" in order to "agree" with "Mr. Fantastic" (a user using yet another name after previously being banned for violation of our rules). All of this is the very definition of sock-puppetry, and one of the main reasons we disallow use of multiple names in our very small set of wee-posted rules we ask you to respect in order to continue to enjoy non-moderated posting here The BRAD BLOG. - BF}

Carlos Kleiber @49 wrote:

what would happen if a christian church would want to open a church in Saudi Arabia?

Intolerance by another nation does not justify intolerance in ours.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. It does not have anything resembling our First Amendment.

Also, and I know this may come as a shock to many of the uneducated, the United States is not a "Christian nation." It is a secular nation whose constitution guarantees both freedom of religion (the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment) and freedom from religion (separation of church and state).

Re "Torres" @51:

While I can't be certain, it appears the latest tactic of Zionist apartheid supporters is to come into blogs like this one sporting an Hispanic name.

"Torres" writes:

[Mr. Fantastic] says criticism of anti-semitism was deleted - and if you check the sources he gave (and which you have deleted) you'd see it is true.

Facts: 1. "I" never deleted any of Mr. Fantastic's comments. Mr. Fantastic did not provide a link that establishes that any of his comments were deleted because he criticized anti-Semitism. So I am baffled by what you claim as to "the sources he gave."

2. When he posted under another name, his previous comments were deleted or banned by others who have engaged in enforcing this blog's rules. (Changing the pseudonym you use to post here at The BRAD BLOG is itself a violation of the rules). The rules do not bar "criticism of anti-Semitism." They do preclude the deceptive posting of information the poster knows to be false.

3. In this instance, Brad Friedman @34 placed Mr. Fantastic's comments into moderation with a warning about violating our rules against knowingly posting disinformation and against personal attacks. Mr. Fantastic did more than persist in those violations. He submitted comments containing expletives. Mr. Friedman did not permit those knowing violations of our blog's rules to be posted. (Mr. Fantastic's earlier comments, which were posted before the warning were not deleted.)

Torres wrote:

Mr Fantastic asked why the ADL were being criticised. The question hasn't been answered.

I mean no disrespect, Torres, but this comment suggests either that you are dyslexic or that you failed to actually read the content of my article or my comment @45.

1. "I" did not criticize the ADL.

2. I quoted a criticism of the ADL which was leveled by Rabbis for Human Rights.

3. Rabbis for Human Rights criticized the ADL and other Jewish organizations as follows:

"The most notable anti-Muslim rhetoric has targeted Park51, a nonsectarian community, cultural and interfaith spiritual center that will house a Muslim prayer area and a monument to honor all those lost on 9/11. Some Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have issued public statements against the building of this community center near Ground Zero."

4. In my comment @45, I discussed the broader criticism leveled at Abe Foxman and the ADL by Prof. Norman Finkelstein in Beyond Chutzpah.

That said, I personally find both the criticism of ADL presented by Rabbis for Human Rights and the solid academic structure of Prof. Finkelstein's analysis of the "misuse" of anti-Semitism to be quite persuasive. I stand by my conclusion that Prof. Finkelstein's assessment on the "misuse" of anti-Semitism applies to the comments posted here by Mr. Fantastic.

While I don't know for certain, I suspect that since my piece contained the criticism of the ADL offered by Rabbis for Human Rights and a link to the ADL, it drew in ADL supporters whose role it is to slap the anti-Semite label onto anyone and any web site which dares to print criticism of the ADL. If that proved to be the case, it would render the very title used by the Anti-Defamation League to describe itself to amount to nothing more than an oxymoron.

I mean no disrespect, Torres, but this comment suggests either that you are dyslexic or that you failed to actually read the content of my article or my comment @45.