.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Monday, February 13, 2006

On Heroes and Hypocrites

Disclaimer: Warning, Warning, an extreemly biased pro-US rant coming right ahead. If you don’t like the US, just don’t read it. Scroll down and read something else on this blog or any of the other fine blogs that I have in my blogroll. You have been warned! I am not a Hero. Not by a long shot. Neither do I ever want to be. I am the embodiment of P.Diddy’s line “I ain’t nobody’s Hero but I wanna be heard!”. I say what’s on my mind, and I am pretty consistent at aligning my life with my beliefs. Say what you say about me, but the one thing you can’t call me is a Hypocrite. That word does not apply to me, which is more then I can say about some other “Hero Bloggers” out there.

Take for example Dr. As'ad AbuKhalil, otherwise known as the “Angry Arab”. Dr. As’ad is a “hero” for his many Arab readers, always providing them with news pieces and criticisms that confirms their P.O.V. of the world: i.e. America Bad, Bush is evil personified, the damn Israelis are taking everything, etc..etc… And that’s fine, except for the slight fact that the man has been living in America for the past 23 years, where he taught at various Universities and establishments. He despises America and everything it does and stands for, yet has no qualms about living there for most of his life and making his money out of teaching in American Universities. If that’s not hypocritical, I don’t know what is.

But then again, maybe I am being too hard on the man when it comes to that specific issue: After all, where would he go? Back to Lebanon, which he despises with fiery passion? The man has no qualms attacking the Cedar revolution, which he calls the“Hummus revolution”, and shown no concern for the murders of Rafiq Al Harriri or Gibran Tueni, or any of the other outspoken anti-Syria Lebanese critics who got “silenced” by the Assad Regime in Syria. He doesn’t even care about the bad economic conditions that the Syrian occupation has left Lebanon in. His biggest concern? The conditions of the half a million Syrian workers in Lebanon who live there and provide Syria with its biggest source of hard currency. He fears they might get discriminated against because the “Shallow Lebanese” are mad at Syria. Forget the hordes of unemployed Lebanese guys who have to work abroad because they can’t find jobs in Lebanon, or the fact that it was some of those Syrian workers who burned down the Danish Embassy in Beirut last week. It’s all a set–up apparently. I blame the Jooz myself.

And moving from the pro-Syrian anti-American socialist Lebanese-American professor, we come to the other hypocrite of the day, our dear old friend Raed Jarrar. If any of you don’t know who Raed Jarrar is, or haven’t been around the blogosphere enough to meet him, here is a previous post that I wrote about him. Basically your average communist, Saddam is our national leader, America is evil, Democracy will open the doors to hell, Bush is Hitler kind of dude. Naturally through out his blog all he does is attack the US, which made him a sensational Hero of the leftist american blogosphere audience. The Kid’s disdain for America and the American life-style and set of values is of historic proportions, yet somehow he is ok with moving to San Francisco and getting a green card with his Iranian-American wife Nicki. That’s not hypocritical. No Sir. And the fact that he shut down the comments feature on his blog the moment he moved there is indicative of nothing, nothing at all.

But we can’t mention Raed without mentioning Nicki, who champions and defends the current Iran regime in all of her blogs while attacking the US, the country that houses her as we speak. Never mind that her parents came to the States escaping the Mullah regime in Iran, which she defends so much; never mind that she would never ever move there or even live there, or that she has no actual first-hand experience of what the Iranian people have to endure under the current theocracy thanks to her american citizenship. Don't bother with facts: The US is bad, Iran is good, she just wouldn’t want to live there.

So, to all of you America-Hating Arab Heroes out there, please don’t be Hypocrites and move there. If you hate the US that much, I have a simple piece of advice for you: LEAVE, or even better, DON’T EVER MOVE THERE. If you hate America and love Iran, move to Iran. If you hate America and love Iraq, then stay in Iraq. If you are a socialist professor, move to Canada: they are socialists and they speak English. And if you are a communist, please remember that the US is a capitalist country before you apply for the green card and move instead to the communist Paradise that is Cuba or North Korea right this minute. Just don’t go and live in a country you openly hate, attack and despise, and whose values do not reflect your own. It either means that you are an Idiot or a hypocrite, if not both.


At 2/13/2006 06:05:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 2/13/2006 06:30:00 AM, Anonymous Lee McDaniel said...

SM: Well done.
As far as "It either means that you are an Idiot or a hypocrite, if not both.", I vote "both" and add the descriptive adjective "disingenous".

At 2/13/2006 06:31:00 AM, Anonymous Lee McDaniel said...

sorry- "disingenuous"

At 2/13/2006 06:57:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

Although your point of view has merit I just think you're a little too generalizing here. I'm not an avid reader for both the blogs you mentioned so you maybe right about those 2 specific instances; but I see no hypocrisy in disagreeing with an American political regime (say Bush and his cabinet as you pointed out) yet living in the US. There are pure Americans in the US who have no other affiliations who oppose American policy, write about it, and are very vocal about their criticisms. No one is asking them to leave ! The "You are either with us or against us" attitude stuns public scrutiny of governments and policies leading to totalitarian political parties.

I also don't believe that your post is pro America, so no need for the disclaimer since in some cases this opinion of yours is mighty true ! In the case of the UK citizens that held the infamous signs in their protest 2 weeks ago your point is so on the mark you couldn't be more right !


At 2/13/2006 07:05:00 AM, Blogger Moron99 said...

As a society people can either be righteous or they can be rich and happy. That is the deal. One or the other but not both. Your neighbor believes something that you think is wrong. On the one hand you can beat him into submission and prove that your point of view is right. On the other hand you can allow him the freedom to be different and learn to tolerate his opinion. In return your grand-children will earn 150,000EGP per year and have the freedom to believe what they want. It really is just that simple. Free and tolerant cultures will always find a way to prosper.

The people you mention want to be righteous, free, and propserous. The only way they can do that is to abandon their own people to misery and criticize from afar. Yes, sandmonkey, you are right. They are deeply hypocritical. Not one of them is willing to stand up and try to improve the lives of others. Something that you do through your blog each and every day.

At 2/13/2006 07:17:00 AM, Blogger Jordan said...

Canada is not aa socialist as people think...

We actually are one of the few countries to have gdp growth and a budget surplus... even before the Tar Sands went online.

And when you combine medicare, our taxes are pretty reasonable (its actually cheaper to build a car in Canada than in the US)

We just like gay marriage and hate hand guns.

Damn our leftist image! :)

At 2/13/2006 07:20:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen and Amen SM! sis from the usa

At 2/13/2006 07:21:00 AM, Anonymous Elora said...


There is a huge difference between being born in a country with a regime that you defy and attempt to change from within, and moving to a country that you openly defy and despise.

The latter is incredibly hypocritical, the former is not.

At 2/13/2006 07:24:00 AM, Anonymous Elora said...


Socialist countries can easily have gdp growth and budget surplus - one does not exclude the other.

However, I agree that Canada isn't exactly socialist (base economic ideology is still old-fashioned capitalism, I believe).

Same goes for Denmark. We also have a healthy economy, but it is paired with a strong social system. I would describe it more as keynesian economics, with healthy doses of both liberalism and social democratism.

At 2/13/2006 07:27:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the article twice, and I have yet to identify the pro US part. All I read was anti hypocrite.

You tricked me you lying sandmonkey you.

At 2/13/2006 07:27:00 AM, Blogger Jeffrey said...


I'm very happy that you've decided to highlight the hypocrisy of As'ad AbuKhalil, Raed Jarrar, and Niki Akhavan.

There are so many bizarre moments that it's hard to settle on one, but I will.

One of my favorites is that Raed and Niki went to the protest for TOOKIE outside San Quentin the night that he was executed.

But did Raed of Niki protest the thousands of Iranians killed by the Mullahs for stealing or adultery or the thousands fo Iraqis murdered by Saddam?


Raed and Niki protested against the execution of a cold-blooded murderer, their DEAR, POOR TOOKIE.

It doesn't get any better than that.


At 2/13/2006 07:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I take it you agree wholeheartedly with everthing the Egyptian government does?

At 2/13/2006 07:29:00 AM, Anonymous jokerman said...

There are many in the Middle east who despise AMerica & are dying to live there. There are many who preach against the US yet virtually worship the US $, so to ahmed t who doesnt see it hypocritical, sorry mate, you got it wrong, you dont know what hypocrisy is then.
There is a difference between opposing policies of a government & opposing an entire country while making a living out of it.
What is hypocrisy if that guy isn hypocratic? how about a sheikh that calls Islam a religion of peace & then in his sermons preaches about killing anyone who dares to say anything against muslims, or killing anyone who converts to xtianity or judaism, then praises suicide bombers..where is the peace in all this?? If you mention semantics i will have to bombard you with examples so dont try going there.
Hypocrisy fills the ME more now than ever before.
Hypocrites,Dante had them in the Seventh circle of Hell if i remember correctly, while the Quran places them in the lowest level of hell...there has to be understanding of what actions translate into.

At 2/13/2006 07:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


There is a vast difference between being born in a country and opposing the way it is run, and moving to a country that you openly despise.

There is also a huge difference between disagreeing with elements of a society, and hating its base buildup.

If you hate the very foundation of a society, how can moving there and benefiting from that very same system NOT be hypocritical?

At 2/13/2006 07:42:00 AM, Blogger EducSubNorm said...

We have a lot of those too in the UK. They're usually on the loony fringes of one of the several political parties and thus tend to "cencel out". I guess in some of the countries you mention where there is effectively only one party, the single extreme gets a bit overheated. I've noticed on some of my (short and unquiet) trips to dictatorship countries that there is often a tendency to considerably overstate one's "patriotism" as a basic method of keeping one's head on one's shoulders - I think that then becomes a habit in the expat - there's attention seeking as well.

At 2/13/2006 07:43:00 AM, Anonymous Elora said...

Er, the anonymous post above educsubnorm was mine, apologies.

At 2/13/2006 07:49:00 AM, Anonymous Alb Sayed said...


"There is a difference between opposing policies of a government & opposing an entire country while making a living out of it."

Very well said, and I agree entirely that opposing policies, administrations, etc., is entirely different from opposing an entire country, it's people, way of life etc.

For example, anyone opposed to Libya as a country (not simply the regime), and moves there is a hypocrite.

But I think AhmedT's comment is inline with yours, he was referring to opposing regimes, government policies, etc.

At 2/13/2006 08:00:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

Elora, Jokerman,
For God's sake ! Did you read what I wrote ? My point was not that Sam was wrong, and Jokerman, where did speak of Imams and Shieks that condone suicide bombers and anyone who dares to differ ! Do you guys just differ for the sake of difference without even contemplating what you read.

Here's what I said again maybe this time you stop and read:

1- I don't read the blogs Sam mentioned a lot and hence I couldn't tell if he is generalizing or not. But even if he is right I felt a bit of it, hence I commented. There's nothing wrong with being wrong (be it me or Sam).

2- I believe any citizen should be able to to freely oppose the policies of his government even despise it if he wants (Noam Chomsky for example). Do I have to be completely brain washed by a certain culture or system to "honorably" choose to move to it ? Can I not see things in shades of gray as opposed to the polarizing B&W view that seems to be so wide spread ?

3 - I do believe there are redlines. It is in my opinion hypocrisy to hold signs like "Death for Europe" and still live there. But its not, again in my opinion (for example), to point out that the US made a monumental mistake and committed an international crime by unilaterally invading Iraq (regardless of their motives).

If you still don't get the point Read it again before flaming !

At 2/13/2006 08:01:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, SM. How true

Egyptian in Germany

At 2/13/2006 08:07:00 AM, Anonymous G Money said...

raed and niki will fit in perfectly in sf, where they will become part of a large and irrelevant crowd.

At 2/13/2006 08:19:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey AhmedT,
The last I heard,the number of documented corpses in mass graves in Iraq exceeded 300,000.
Invading Iraq = Bad. Allowing a dictator to kill 300,000 of his own citizens = Good.
What did you think of the 2 million killed in Cambodia after the U.S. left that arena? Or, do you even acknowledge this number?

At 2/13/2006 08:22:00 AM, Blogger Leap Frog said...

Well I've been visiting the one blog, A.Lord of late and when I disagreed with his take recently - he deleted the whole post, he has deleted threads or comments before. I did not know he was in the US, what bullshit indeed, pretenting to be in Afghanstan... just another F*^%^&* liar.

King shits on a turd island.
AF, raed and nikki, oh and throw riverbend on that turd pile as well as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks Sam for pointing this out.

At 2/13/2006 08:31:00 AM, Blogger The Sandmonkey said...


I get and udnerstand your point, but here is my rebuttal:

America was created and based on capitalistic principles from the start. When the American Government is acting in a pro-capitalistic way, or pro economic lberalism (classic definition liberalism people), they are actually adhering to the founding american principles. A small government is one of them, freedom of speech is another, individual right to pursue happiness is another,so on and so forth.It's a country so opposed to communist and socialist principles that it fought a cold war for 50 years and didn't care or falter. This is a constant in America, one that is true whether a republcian or a democrat are in office. This is why, the best thing a democrat can be is be a conservative democrat, cause that's the only kind they may be willing to vote in for office.

Now, why would a communist move to such a country? Why would a socialist move to such a country? It's a country that stands for-since its inception- everything they DON'T stand for. This is why they hate it. This is why they hate the US foriegn policy. That foreign policy, and tarde policy, etc etc... follows those same principles in spirit.

And let's not forget that the US is a democracy, and that any policy that the US government makes better has the backing of the people for it to work. If it doesn't, than it won't fly. The Majority of Americans vited for Bush, Twice. The majority of americans backed the Iraq war. The majority of Americans still don't want to cut and run. They want to stay it through. That's the truth of it.

This is not about foriegn policy. This is about a whole society and its values and thought process. If you don't like that- and all 3 examples don't- then don't stay there. I mean, if egypt was a democracy, and the islamists took over, I would be on the first plane out. Like, can you imagine me being the way that I am and moving to Saudi for example? I got offerd a job there for a lot of money, but I of course said no. I would shoot myself if I lived in that country.

So basically, if you don't respect the founding princples of america and the values of american society, let alone like the country, don't go there. And please don't give me the I love the country but disagree with the society/government stuff. The government is voted in by the society. it's representitive of them. This is why Americans view people's animosity towards their government as animosity towards them. When you call Bush ignorant and stupid, you are in effect calling 53 million americans that. And if that's the case, if that's what you believe, why move to such a country?

I f you don't like america and you are born there, you can eitehr stay there and hate it, or move. If you don't like America, but you move there anyway because it's nice and continue to attack it once you are there, then you are a hypocrite, pure and simple and they should kick you the fuck out!

At 2/13/2006 08:54:00 AM, Blogger Jeffrey said...


Here's a little personal detail about As'ad that I thought you'd enjoy.

As'ad AbuKhalil, the great COMMUNIST, employs a GARDENER!

Heh heh.

Say it ain't so, COMRADE!

Oh, it be so.


At 2/13/2006 08:57:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

>> Iraq exceeded 300,000.
>> Invading Iraq = Bad. Allowing a dictator to kill 300,000 >> of his own citizens = Good.

I guess 2 Wrongs make a Right. Who knew ?

Your point is well taken but don't forget that in both 2 elections Bush did not win by an overwhelming majority so there are a ton of Americans that loath him and his policies. I still agree with your point though in general, but where we can't seem to see eye to eye is that not every immigrant in the US who has an opposing voice and who moved there anyway is as hypocrite as long as he seeks peaceful and respectful means to express his opinion. The US is such a diverse country and comes with both the good and the bad and its not a take it or leave it sort of pie, if you know what I mean.

I too chose not to move to Saudi Arabia for a very good sum of money for the same reasons you mentioned, but come on, you're comparing the tribal Saudi Arabian society to the US ? There are things to like about the US no matter what, but there is NOTHING to like about Saudi Arabia.

I had to make that choice at one point of my life and what started in the US ended in Canada (hence I'm there now). I evaluated wether I can take the "American Package" as a whole and decided no, and out of respect for myself I moved to Canada. Not everyone:

a - Can afford to do this since some of those people don't even have an alternative home ! Namely Palestinians, and others who would otherwise be persecuted in their "home" countries. They are caught between a rock and a hard place (in their minds at least)

b - And not everyone who evaluated the "American Package" came out with the conclusion that its "evils" (in their minds, so don't flame without READING THIS AGAIN) out weigh its "virtues". I.e. they are not all hypocrites.

I'm merely trying to look at the situation you described in more colors than B&W. There are certainly B&W elements in the picture, but there are way more grays than both. And I'm not also disagreeing with you, I'm trying to enrich the debate by proposing an alternative view in hope of provoking thought that allows us to question our views and say, even rhetorically, "What if I'm not seeing the whole picture?".


At 2/13/2006 09:04:00 AM, Blogger Jeffrey said...


Thanks for moving to Canada.

We appreciate it.

Heh heh.

Okay, okay, I'm just yanking yer chain.

Blog on, my good friend. Your debate with the Sandman is interesting to listen to.


At 2/13/2006 09:06:00 AM, Blogger Dicodemy said...

I have a friend who came here to America from Lebanon, and he LOVES America. That's why he's here. The best part of this whole cartoon mess is the fact that I found your website when Michelle Malkin linked to it. As an American, your comments are a breath of fresh air in the comments we usually hear from your section of the world. Keep it up.

At 2/13/2006 09:40:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"but I see no hypocrisy in disagreeing with an American political regime (say Bush and his cabinet as you pointed out) yet living in the US. There are pure Americans in the US who have no other affiliations who oppose American policy, write about it, and are very vocal about their criticisms.No one is asking them to leave !"

I'm asking them to leave ! Right here! Me! Me! Me!

However, I cannot make them leave. I wish they would join their US hating ex-pats in living overseas... some place they'd fit in a little better. But they feel they do more "good" for their fellow Americans living right here in the belly of the beast. Lucky us!

There's a major difference, though. Our American America haters were born US citizens and have no choice in the matter of their nationality.

That doesn't mean we should allow our enemies to even get a visa to come to the US, let alone live here amongst us. Attend our schools? No, I don't think so! Attend your own fucking schools, or go to some country you like better to get your degree.

And we DAMN sure should not be letting people who hate this country become naturalized citizens. As I said before, we shouldn't even be allowing them to live here.

First rule of US immigration policy should be: You must like (or at least be neutral) towards your host country. NOT HOSTILE.

At 2/13/2006 09:55:00 AM, Anonymous Martin Jensen said...

I just translated this article from one of the danish papers today. I think it illustrates quite clearly that these kind of guys are all over. I'd have to point out that our beloved freedom of speech also extends to these kind of guys as well as any cartoonist.

From: http://www.bt.dk/nyheder/artikel:aid=420660:fid=100300456/

Danish Muslim Calls to Jihad

At an extremely effeciently controlled and staged conference sunday in Copenhagen the extremist muslim organisation Hizb-Ut-Tahrir proposed holy war against the west.

- "Don't talk to him, come on in .. and you can get a statement from the spokesperson afterwards."

The message from the suited security guard with the head-set cannot be mistaken. He is from the extremist muslim organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

- "But I agree with the spokesperson" the young person from a group of second generation refugees, that the B.T. attempted to talk to, told the spokesperson.

- "It is countries like France and the USA that started the war" he managed to say before being stopped.

Because he agrees to one of the main messages - the creation of a holy muslim unity state - kalifat - must happen by holy war against the west - Denmark.

But that message there was only one among the app. thousand muslims in the Nørrebrohallen in Copenhagen that was gathered that was allowed to send in the extremely staged and controlled Hiz-ut-Tahrir show - the danish spokesperson Fadi Abdullatif.

Hizb-ut-Tahrirs message is so extreme that the organisation is banned in alot of vestern european countries. But not in denmark - and that is why the organisation could organisation the so-called "conference" in Nørrebrohallen.

Lead by the danish converted muslim Musa Kronholt, that was spokesperson, the organisation called for holy war against the west to create a muslim state - khilafah - with muslim sharia-laws and without democracy.

"An attack on Muhammed is an attack on islam, and an attack on islam is an attack on all muslims". How should we react - via boycots or through demonstrations Musa Kronholt asked - and let the spokesperson Fadi Abdullaif answer - "Jihad - Holy war".

"Muslims must be lead to holy war for Allah's sake. We must have the leaders in the muslim world that reacts with the sword before with the mouth. The terror will fill the hearts of europe!"

"As to Denmark and Norway and countries like them - they will at that time be so much without importantce that they wont even try to get close to the oasises of muslims" Fadi Abdellufif said in his speach that he held in arabic.

Externally the official message to the danish press is not that warlike. When the tv-cameras and the tape-recorders are on Abdullatif and his spokesperson Khalid Amin "only" demand official apologies from the government and Jyllands-posten - and laws against the deformation of Muhammed.

"First of all we need an official apology from the government. It was that the told Jyllands-Posten to print the drawings. Second we need laws against offending muslims Khalid Amin says.

He told the B.T. that the "conference" has been planned for a week - in following with the Muhammed-case.

Allah-hu akbar

The number of 2nd generation foreigners that was present was big.

'Allah-hu akbar' they yelled with regular intervals during the speaches. And as at all the meetings Hizb-ut-Tahrir arranged women and children was seperated from the men.

A small muslim girl among the audience apparently did not get the message.

While she with gestures made fun of the speakers she waved several times to a small boy among the men that she several times attempted to approach.

Finanlly the mother let the young girl cross the "neutral" area between men and women to meet the little boy that got aq big kiss before the young girl had to return to her seat among the women.

End of Article - sorry for any bad translations ;)

At 2/13/2006 10:03:00 AM, Blogger Egypeter said...

Now THAT is pure hypocrisy SM. Great post man. I really do hope you make it over here some day, although Egypt desperately needs you and about 20 million more!


These "America Haters" are not just Bush/regime oriented they genuinely hate what America stands for. I'm not talking just about the Dummy-crats but I'm talking about the "Arab-America Hater" who basks in the Liberty, Freedom, Tolerance and everything else of the US and then still has the audacity to piss on the country that gave him/her all these things. Those people should have their citizinship stripped and kicked the hell out of the country!!
There are plenty of others who want to come to the US who actually love our country...hmm...like SM

At 2/13/2006 10:20:00 AM, Blogger waterdragon52 said...


I guess your communist professor just wanted to live closer to a like-minded American born nutty professor -- Noam Chomsky.

At 2/13/2006 10:36:00 AM, Anonymous James said...

Just to weigh in with 2 cents; I'm a little saddened by Sandmonkey's stance in the debate with AhmedT. The entire point of having freedom of speech is _exactly_ to ensure that we can criticize our government. This is how we improve our society -- dissent is quite simply the foundation of democracy.

The stance most ignorant of democratic principles (like egypeters) is to equate a society with it's government. There is no real difference between making Bush or the Mullas holy, protecting them from criticism. If I cannot criticize the politicy, religious structure or any other position of power in my society, then I don't live in a democracy.

That's one of the points, I though Sandmonkey actually got.

I'm think many of the things my government does (the Danish) are monumentally stupid; I applaud other. I don't have an obligation to choose sides.

At 2/13/2006 10:38:00 AM, Blogger Jeffrey said...

Hey, the vile, anti-Communist, Great Satan USA only got TWO GOLD MEDALS today.


Three cheers for Hannah Teter and Joey Cheek!


At 2/13/2006 10:39:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

"The entire point of having freedom of speech is _exactly_ to ensure that we can criticize our government."

Excuse me, james, but it's NOT their government! They are VISITORS in this country. And somebody who comes here as an immigrant and displays open antipathy towards the US should be invited to leave, and to never come back.

We have too many naturalized citizens who loathe the US. I'm calling on immigration policy to be changed, and for disloyal naturalzied citziens to be de-naturalized and deported to tehir country of origin. Swearing loyalty to the US is part of becoming a US citizen, and lying on the citzienship application is grounds to be de-naturalized. Problem solved.

How long will it be before INS catches up to reality, though, I wonder.

At 2/13/2006 10:52:00 AM, Anonymous EgyptianInUS said...

There's a saying here for those who criticize this country "People vote with their feet", that should be the only comment Mr. Raed and wife should get whwnever they mention Iran is better, or that the US -their chosen new homeland- sucks.

At 2/13/2006 10:58:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

Craig ! Good to see you again buddy. I enjoy a good fight with you always :-P (love you though :-D)

>>Excuse me, james, but it's NOT their government! They
>>are VISITORS in this country. And somebody who comes
>>here as an immigrant and displays open antipathy
>>towards the US should be invited to leave, and to never
>>come back.

The VISITORS should respect their host for sure. No disagreements here whatsoever. If I visit Craig at his house and start throwing my dirt on him I should expect a permeant jagged boot mark on my behind :-)

>>We have too many naturalized citizens who loathe
>>the US. I'm calling on immigration policy to be
>>changed, and for disloyal naturalzied citziens to be
>>de-naturalized and deported to tehir country of

On this one I reach for my gloves and ring the bell for a new round :-) Here's why:

If any naturalized citizen showing antipathy for his elected government policy is going to be pronounced "disloyal" and hence his citizenship is revoked; then its not a democracy anymore. YES, there are people (like those demonstrated in Europe and held signs of clear threats of massively killing their fellow citizens) that should be held accountable in front of a court of law for their actions. But I stress, a court of law, within the framework of democratically acceptable norms. If you really hold that opinion Craig, then one day, you yourself may be thrown in Jail for holding the opinions you hold right now if a different government takes office. Remember those days when being called a communist in the US was enough to change your life forever ? Do you really want this ?

Is Citizen is a Citizen. No exceptions.

Ding Ding.... AT awaiting next round :-)

Cheers man,

At 2/13/2006 11:10:00 AM, Blogger doxRaven said...

Moving to a country says, hey there is something about this country that I like, hmm I might even stay here with my loved ones. If that is so but then ones goes ahead and unrelentingly criticize without acknowledging that the country was and is still good enough for a proactive lifestyle choice, well then that IS being a hypocrite

Of course if you move to that country was for martyrdom to the jihad or the communist manifesto, well, then that's ok ;-)

At 2/13/2006 11:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey there...wait just one minute. Canada is not socialist - there is a minority population of socialists, mainly those living off our refugee and welfare system, but the average joe Canadian who works their ass off to make a living is not a socialist, but a capitalist. Please do not send socialists to Canada where they reside in our major cities and vote for political parties that protect their fat refugee and welfare cheques, while our old-age pensioners, who have worked their butts off and paid into our Canadian pension plan all their working life, get only about one-third the amount as those who just jumped off the boat.

I certainly agree with the rest of this thread though. What I can't understand is why America lets these people in other than to keep an eye on them.


At 2/13/2006 11:18:00 AM, Anonymous James said...


There are three points I find to not be clear in your post:

1. You seem to conflate a complex picture into simply being "either for or against the US". How do you propose that your society will ever develop, if criticism of specific policies are shot down as "loathing the US"?

2. Are you saying that only natively born americans should be allowed freedom of speech? Or is it merely that they should be the only ones allowed to participate in the democratic process?

3. Do you interpret swearing loyalty to the US as swearing loyalty to the, at any given time, sitting government?


At 2/13/2006 11:21:00 AM, Anonymous Mohamed said...

SM, you're completely blurring the line and leaving no room to distinguish between valid criticism of some aspects of the us policy and blind hate for the us. I think it's everyone's right to think whatever he wishes about bush, the war, the republicans etc.
I don't think anyone can question Eisenhower's love for the us, when he warned in his farewell speech about the future dangers of the military industrial complex, he knew then what's been unfolding for the last 40 years.
I also don't think that you can question Jimmy Carter's patriotism despite of his criticism and despise for the current administration, or whether Ralph Nader has served this country more than someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld.
Your article here reeks of McCarthyistic finger pointing sandmonkey, which I don't thing we would disagree about how harmful and truly anti americam McCarthyism was.
Also regarding the hypocricy part, how is it that you're always able to pick up and point to and augment some negative aspects of the arab societies while staying absolutely silent with regard to any negatives of any other society.

At 2/13/2006 11:22:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...


>>Of course if you move to that country was for martyrdom to the
>> jihad or the communist manifesto, well, then that's ok ;-)

I usually don't like to comment unless I have something useful to say but


At 2/13/2006 11:25:00 AM, Blogger Gary Gibson said...

Communists in America are a joke. They pretend to be true believers in Communism or Marxism etc., but all they are is fucked up hippies who think it is so cool to be different, to be one of the "persecuted". They sit around talking about social justice or the evils of capitalism, wearing their cute little "Che-shirts" or maybe the really cool ones have Fidel bumper stickers on their 68 VW bugs. What's even funnier is when they hang out at Starbucks and read Pravda while sipping a $5 cup of coffee.

Communists in the U.S. are nothing. They live in a fantasy world, pretending to be part of a cause or to espouse that cause, but all they really want is attention for being different.

I agree it is their right to do so, certainly, are they hipocrits? Probably, unless they are real fuck ups, living in some co-op commune in the hills of Oregon, making hemp clothes, growing weed, and memorizing the Manifesto (Dude).

What they really are, though, is marginalized and irrelevant. They are no different than a Hari-Krishna in an airport, amusing spectacles...

Someone please notice me! I'm not like everyone else, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat!! I'm a Che-Commie and I'm looking for a revolution,we ll - ell ell.... you better free your mind instead..

Fringe cooks who won't be remembered,... or missed.

At 2/13/2006 11:27:00 AM, Anonymous Yohan said...

First of all SM, I think you misunderstand who As'ad is, he's much more nuanced than you give him credit for. First of all, he is an American citizen. He hates American foreign policy and he doesn't like world capitalism today but he DOES NOT hate America itself or what it "stands for"(whatever the hell that may be). This is exactly my position as someone who was lucky enough to be born in America. As'ad very clearly likes the freedom, peace, and prosperity that living in such a country as the US provides. At the same time, he understands that said prosperity is sometimes obtained by less than moral means. As'ad likes America and many many Americans but he doesn't like what the government does, and it's his right as a free human being to think that. He stays because, as flawed as it may be, it is the best place in the world for him. Does one have to think that a country is 100% perfect in order to live in it? I say that it is possible for someone to disagree with something yet love it at the same time. This is how I feel about America: I hate the things Bush and Co. have been doing, but that doesn't mean I "hate America" or that I have to leave the US. On the contrary, because I love this country I am going to stay and fight(metaphorically, of course) for what I believe in, to make America, and the world, a better a place. That is exactly what As'ad is doing and I see no major hypocrisy in that.

As to some of these American commenters, it's quite funny to see people who claim to love freedom through one side of their mouth are at the same time uttering such anti-freedom garbage out the other side of their mouth. If programmer craig and others actually valued freedom, they would not be calling for people to be punished for having different opinions. I mean, isn't that what we criticize(rightly) the Iranians and Chinese for?

At 2/13/2006 11:47:00 AM, Blogger Jeffrey said...


I've been reading As'ad's blog for over a year.

Here's a challenge for you.

Find ONE comment of his that is positive about the American PEOPLE.

Just ONE.

Good luck. I've been reading for a year and haven't found one.

But maybe you can.

The burden is on you to prove your contention that As'ad in truth likes American people.


At 2/13/2006 11:49:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a big difference between not liking or even hating a political party and hating America - the first is called an American, the latter is called a traitor or perhaps even, a potential terrorist.

If a country goes to war, every last person in that country should be willing to fight and work for the victory of that country. If a person has to leave to go fight on the side of another country that is fighting against the country they were living in, then that person shouldn't be living there in the first place.

I'm not against immigrants per se, but I expect them to work for a living and for our government to ensure that they do, not the opposite by providing them with significant funds which makes it very easy for them to sit back on their derrieres and enjoy the free ride. And this goes for every other useless Canadian living off hard-working tax dollars.


At 2/13/2006 12:01:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

Joanne ! You're making VERY BIG statements there ! Are you telling me that If I'm American and I disapprove of the war in Iraq (hence don't want to fight) then I'm a traitor ?

WOW ! So I should fight with my country even if I believe that my country is on the wrong side ? Or believing that my country is on the wrong side is treason to start with in your book !

God ! What happened to this world.

I agree with the rest though :-)


At 2/13/2006 12:06:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"If any naturalized citizen showing antipathy for his elected government policy is going to be pronounced "disloyal" and hence his citizenship is revoked; then its not a democracy anymore."

What does "loyalty" mean, Ahmed?

Perhaps we should look at the actual oath?

The Oath of Citizenship

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

Violate that oath, you're history, AhmedT. That's the law. I don't know about AhmedT but people like Niki (Raed's girlfriend) have violated this oath in each and every one of it's parts. In my opinion. Of course, it would take a court proceeding to determine if she can be *proven* to have violated this oath, under the law.

Maybe if somebody started instituting de-naturalization procdures against people like Niki, they'd at least get the message that YES, WE ACTUALLY DO expect naturalized citizens to be loyal.

At 2/13/2006 12:22:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

You bring up a very good point.

Here's a quote from the oath you posted above:

>> that I will support and defend the Constitution
>> and laws of the United States of America against
>> all enemies, foreign and domestic.

My question,
If I believe that Bush, for example, and his cabinet are destroying the United States Economy, creating a rogue state out of the US, and seeking global hegemony at the expense of Iraqis and others while formulating their entire conquest around their own personal Oil Interests in the Middle East Region. Doesn't that make me, under the same oath, obliged to fight them ? The oath said "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Do you see where I'm heading with this ?


At 2/13/2006 12:29:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"1. You seem to conflate a complex picture into simply being "either for or against the US". How do you propose that your society will ever develop, if criticism of specific policies are shot down as "loathing the US"?"

Niki does quite a lot more than express disagreemnet with the current administration, James. She goes back to historical events that happened before she was born to attack and condemn the United States. She accuses US politicians and troops of WAR CRIMES. And CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. And not just the Bush administration. She accuses America of being one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. And not just now. There isn't ANY attack she could make on America, it's people, and it's history that she has NOT made.

"2. Are you saying that only natively born americans should be allowed freedom of speech? Or is it merely that they should be the only ones allowed to participate in the democratic process?"

I already addressed this. Only naturalized citizens become citizens voluntarily (because they presumably want to) and they are the only ones required to swear an oath of loyalty. There's nothing I can do about natural born US citizens, unless they break the law. But that certainly doesn't mean that we should be encouraging our enemies to come and live amongst us.

"3. Do you interpret swearing loyalty to the US as swearing loyalty to the, at any given time, sitting government?"

Why should/would I? I'm not loyal to any particular government myself. The oath of loayalty is to the constitution, not to the government.

Here is the oath I swore, joining the military:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Which did require I obey the President, in his role as Commander in Chief of the US military. The oath of citizenship does not require this, though, obviously.

Here is the oath that government officials (including the President) swear:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God


"If programmer craig and others actually valued freedom, they would not be calling for people to be punished for having different opinions."

I'm not calling for anyone to be punished. I'm calling for them to leave the United States. If that nets out to a punishment, perhaps they should re-think their opinions, no?

Note that all I've said in these last two comments only applies to naturalized citizens, not to people like Raed. Raed should have never been allowed into the US. He should be deported immediately. Persona non grata. He's not an American. He doesn't even have residency status. He has actively suppported the insurgency in Iraq, and called for the deaths of US military personnel. I'm stunned and amazed that his name isn't on the "no-fly" list.

At 2/13/2006 12:42:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2/13/2006 12:44:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

You cheated, Ahmed :D

Here's the entire sentence:

"that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

If you want to make a case that the President is violating the Contitution, or any other US laws, then do so. That's an impeachable offense, for which even the President can be imprisoned.

If, however, you just don't like government policy...

Do you want me to go to Niki's blog and find posts she's made where she criticizes US law (and the US constitution) - calls us barbaric, says US law violates international law, that the US should be subordinate (and therefore not even a soveriegn nation) to the United Nations, etc...

And do you see where I'm going with this? I swoare an oath (which I took seriously) "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" also.

Niki is one of those "domestic" enemies. She should go. She should leave. Voluntarily, or by force, if necessary. I'll be interested in seeing how the US handles people like Niki if and when the US goes to war with Iran.

At 2/13/2006 12:46:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

I think the conversation we are having here exemplifies the very difficult situation we're all in and clearly shows how adolescent humanity in general is. We seem to be condemning each other (humans in general) all the time yet we can't answer simple questions about what exactly we stand for let alone kill each other for it !

I invite you to read "A People's History of the United States of America" by Howard Zinn; you'll be amazed. History is usually written by the victorious, when its written by the defeated you see things in completely different light.

I'm neither for or against Zinn, I'm merely pointing out the fact that Being American (naturalized, or otherwise) is not mutually exclusive with the kind of accusations Niki or anyone else may have.


At 2/13/2006 12:56:00 PM, Blogger Christine said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2/13/2006 01:20:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

Ahmed, I read you blog and I just want you to know I don't have any problems with what you say. I even agree with most of your opinions. And I'm in no way anti-immigration. I was married to a naturalized US citizen for over 10 years.

The point I'm trying to make is simple

1) Why should the US allow people who hate America, immigrate to the US?"

2) Why should we even allow such people to attend our universities, or to work here?

Is it supposed to be some kind of human right, that people can go to whatever country they want to, when they want to, and stay as long as they want to?

US immigration policy has got to be changed. We never had problems with enemy agents infiltrating our society before... but we do now. We need to be aware of it, and to protect ourselves from it as best we can.

I would never even visit a country, as a tourist, that I hated as much as Niki hates the US. France and Japan are both in that category, for me. I don't want to go there. I was sent to Japan several times when I was in the Marines and on each of those occassions, I was happy to leave again. I don't *understand* why people who hate the US want to come here, and I certainly don't understand why the US government LETS them. Somebody like Niki does a tremendous amount of damage to other Iranian immigrants. There are about a million Iranians living and working within about 20 miles of where I'm sitting right now. My dentist is Iranian. I work with several Iranians. I know very well that Niki is not a typical Iranian immigrant. But how is somebody in Ohio or Missouri supposed to judge? Allowing somebody like Niki to reside here, and spew her hatred for the US, isn't helping anybody. Except the Islamic Republic of Iran.

At 2/13/2006 01:30:00 PM, Anonymous Elora said...

Er. AhmedT. First of all, you are the one getting upset. I don't recall anything in my post being insulting or even remotely flaming.

Quoting your first post:
(...)I see no hypocrisy in disagreeing with an American political regime (say Bush and his cabinet as you pointed out) yet living in the US. There are pure Americans in the US who have no other affiliations who oppose American policy, write about it, and are very vocal about their criticisms. No one is asking them to leave !

My reply to that:

There is a huge difference between being born in a country with a regime that you defy and attempt to change from within, and moving to a country that you openly defy and despise.

The latter is incredibly hypocritical, the former is not.

You compare people who are born and raised in a certain society to people who willingly move to said society. I reply that those two are two separate matters.

My point is if you choose to move to a country, if you choose to make your living in said country, then doing so while aggressively opposing said country strikes me as pretty hypocritical. After all, why go there in the first place, if the country is so bad?

Please point out in what way I did not read what you wrote correctly, and please do so without the aggressiveness?

At 2/13/2006 01:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is incredibly ARROGANT to EMMIGRATE to a country you don't like. And of course you can't just like the standard of living.

What is America anyway? Its an idea that millions and millions of people have contributed to.

At 2/13/2006 01:56:00 PM, Anonymous Philipp Krieg said...

Incredible wise words!
clap clap clap clap clap

We don't need such people on our land!

At 2/13/2006 02:02:00 PM, Anonymous Angie said...


I know what you're saying as a general condition: people should be allowed to disagree with and criticize their adopted county.

I agree with that... for the typical condition you might ordinarily encounter.

What the others are saying back is; when you come up against a case where an individual(s) has a documented (blogs entries) compulsion that amounts to nothing less than an obsessive HATRED of their adopted country (literally OBSESSIVE), to the point where you feel COMPELLED to write day after day about the negative aspects of that country in all it's hues and intensities...then yes, you're a hypocrite for living there and you should leave.

It's that special case for the three people Sandmonkey mentioned.

And if you argue, that they are doing that adopted country a favor by staying and fighting injustices, then I would counter that both Raed and Niki would have done FAR more for mankind if they had stayed in Iraq (or gone to Iran) and fought injustices there. Plenty of injustices to go around, there.

At 2/13/2006 03:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AhmedT, history from Howard Zinn!?! Do you get your news from Seymor Hersh?

I agree with most of the people on this thread, if you live in london and wish it was more like Saudi Arabia you should just move to S.A. It's probably only six hours away on the plane. It will also save the other 99% of the muslims in the city the trouble of being told to fuck off and go home all the time.

At 2/13/2006 03:55:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...


I apologies if anything I said to you was interpreted as aggressive. I'm not upset at you at all not after your first post neither after the second. I try to keep cool headed as much as I can, and although after reading my comment again I don't feel that it conveyed any aggressiveness I still believe that an apology is owed to you. Elora is such a nice name, I couldn't be aggressive even if I wanted to :-)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think my mistake was that I replied to you and Jokerman in the same comment, so you got some heat at no fault on your side :-)

I do agree with you and I think our discussion is philosophical to some extent. I think what we're all arguing about here is the relativity of what may be considered Obsessive hatred and our ability to objectively quantify that which is unquantifiable :-)

I love arguing with you :-) its becoming a habbit ! lol (I love u even more :-P but I'd stop going to that Iranian Dentist If the US decided to preempt Ahmed Najiballah if I were you. you never know what he may stick in your mouth if it comes to that ! lol) (innocent joke for all of you out there who are gonna flame me for this :-D)

In general, that was a very good debate. Sam, keep it coming buddy.

At 2/13/2006 03:59:00 PM, Blogger Moron99 said...

Every silver cloud has a dark lining. The hypocrisy of Raed is to possess blind hatred towards the dark lining, claim that where he is currently living is better, and then seek asylum inside the silver cloud of freedom because he can not find it anywhere else.

At 2/13/2006 04:07:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

>> AhmedT, history from Howard Zinn!?! Do you get your
>>news from Seymor Hersh?

-- from a poster above (was anonymous)

Actually, its a very good point you brought up. If you go
here you will find the wikipeida article on Zinn which to no surprise is contested as not neutral for the same reasons we are discussing here. Very interesting read at this wikipedia Talk on why its contested... You will find the same arguments that we discussed here more or less rehashed about Zinn's controversial view of American History.



At 2/13/2006 04:07:00 PM, Blogger Louise said...

Sandmonkey, you are so right. In a democracy, criticism of the government is, ipso facto, criticism of the voters who put them there. With that in mind, then, I would like to lambast one aspect of American foreign policy. Quit recommending that the assorted assholes that you have let into your country be sent to Canada. WE DO NOT WANT THEM!!!! For those of you, my dear neighbours, who hold stereotypes of your neighbours to the north, such as we are all big bad socialists, please come and visit us this summer. I'd be happy to show you some good old Canadian hospitality, show you around and let you see first hand how wrong you are.

At 2/13/2006 04:08:00 PM, Blogger Mr Holger said...

Lets start a movement: this is what moderate danish muslims are doing now:



At 2/13/2006 04:12:00 PM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

>>AhmedT, history from Howard Zinn!?!
>>Do you get your news from Seymor Hersh?
- From a poster above ....

Very good point you brought up. If you look at the wikipedia entry for Zinn you would find, to no surprise that its Contested for neutrality ! The reasons behind this is in this wikipedia talk page. The reasons for the contention is exactly the same reason we are having this debate only rehashed and directed at Zinn's personality and his controversial view of American History.
Very good read in all cases. Highly recommend :-)


At 2/13/2006 04:34:00 PM, Anonymous Angie said...


That's agreeable. But I also think you'll agree that even though the exact amount of obsessive hatred is unquantifiable, we can ascertain the extension of limits.

Raed and Niki have reached the farthest limits of obsessive hatred. I dare say they hate the US, no less than suicide bombers. They're just slightly more pragmatic (and far more self-serving)in their hatred. I don't see much more room to shove any more hatred in between what they already feel and express daily, and the absolute limits of what hatred that can be felt, do you?

They've got themselves on a perpetual motion machine that runs continually on the hatred it generates without actually having to have a real (objective/accurate) source to feed it.

A strange jungle creature that feeds continually on itself and never dies .

At 2/13/2006 04:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AhmedT, I was just teasing you about Zinn. I try to avoid Zinn (or any other socio-anarchists) because I think history is something that either happened or didn't. I don't give a damn about his point of view, I want facts.

At 2/13/2006 05:08:00 PM, Anonymous An American said...

What can I say, Sandmonkey? You rock!

You and a few of your Egyptian colleagues (Big Pharaoh and Freedom for Egyptians are two that come to mind) are some of the most intelligent voices in the Arab world.

Continue speaking truth to idiodicy, Sandmonkey!

I wish you the best.

At 2/13/2006 05:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to point this out but if you've read the declassified documents about the McCarthy era you would know that what he was saying was the truth. Democrats were as treasonous then as they are now!

I say we do a 2 fer, we'll send 2 anti-American's( naturalized, or born doesn't matter) to anywhere in the dictortorial world that they want to go (or N Korea, Cuba, your choice) and take one like SM. Shoudl solve the problem in no time. Don't people realize that they are in no way really anonymous when they post to blogger and I'm really hoping that the INS is paying attention. You can have your citizenship revoked, doesn't matter if you were born here or not.

Been to Canada, I still think it is socialist.

At 2/13/2006 06:05:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canada just elected a right wing, pro-israel, pro-life, ban gay marriage, scrap gun control Prime Minister. Steven Harper is many things. A socialist he isn't.

At 2/13/2006 06:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AhmedT -

The point I was making was that if a person lives in a country they would not fight for, then why are they living there? Some people live in countries to destroy them from within - these people should bugger off or be called out for what they are - unfortunately, it is sometimes hard to refer to people as traitors, when they never supported a country in the first place.


At 2/13/2006 07:02:00 PM, Anonymous Mohamed said...

Anon @ 3:51,
Do you find Seymour Hersh a non credible source of information because he refuses to tell no lies, and says the truth as it is however ugly and painful or because he exposed the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib abuses, would you rather have those things hidden and swept under the carpet and have yourself watch listen and hear only feel good escapist propaganda through media whores like Fox news and Judith Miller.
Power to you AhmedT, and I absolutely agree with you about Howard Zinn.
Those McCarthyistic right wing fanatics won't stop until they turn it into a dictatorship with no place for anyone not willing to scream seig heil in absolute obedience.

At 2/13/2006 07:06:00 PM, Blogger Moron99 said...

I just want to say something. I find these calls of "if you don't like it then leave" to be somewhat offensive. No, no .. don't worry. I won't burn anything down. But it still doesn't seem right. If Raed and Nikki want to live in America then fine. They don't have to agree with us. If everyone agreed on everything then America would suck. They just have to be tolerant, non-violent, and abide by the rules. If they do that, then cool. We're still free to call them hypocrits and they're still free to call us war-mongering, hitler-loving, capitalistic, imperialistic, infidel pigs. That's cool. My mom called me worse.

At 2/13/2006 07:18:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

Hey AhmedT, glad somebody likes to argue with me! I guess :)


"Those McCarthyistic right wing fanatics won't stop until they turn it into a dictatorship with no place for anyone not willing to scream seig heil in absolute obedience."

Errrmmm.... where'd this come from? No country wants bad citizens, just like no person wants bad neighbors - or misbehaving guests in their home. It's not politics, it's part of being human.

At 2/13/2006 07:32:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"If Raed and Nikki want to live in America then fine."

It's not fine with me. Raed wants me dead, and he wants my friends dead. He said so. And he meant it.

"They just have to be tolerant, non-violent, and abide by the rules."

What if they don't? You familiar with the concept of crime prevention, Moron99? If I look at Raed's background, and his public statements, I can't see a spit's worth of difference between him and Mohammed Atta. In fact, if anything, he's worse than Mohammed Atta. Mohammed Atta was a quiet and unassuming guy who everyone thought was peaceful and good natured except for an occassional outburst. Raed has outbursts of hatred against the US every single day.

In any case, I can do it your way too. Perhaps you can give me Raed & Nikki's address up in the Bay Area? I've been planning a trip up there anyway, and I think perhaps I'll take the opportunity to peacefully burn some Iranian flags on Niki's porch, and non-violently throw rocks at Raed :)

At 2/13/2006 07:50:00 PM, Blogger Moron99 said...

If he is as you say, then report him. Death threats are a crime.
Throwing rocks at someone is too. So is trespassing on their property. And depending where you live burning a flag might be against the law too. They had anti-pollution laws in my Atlanta suburb where you could only do outdoor burning on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

Anyhooo .... if you are overly concerned, then print out a bunch of his anti-american rants and mail them to a local FBI office. I'm sure you can find the correct address from the internet.

seriously though "like it or leave" is not the way to handle immigrants. immigrants are a vital part of our country. We need them just as much as they need us. there's better ways to handle assimilation than forcing them to agree or leave.

At 2/13/2006 07:57:00 PM, Anonymous Greg said...

The real Hypocracy here is within the Muslim religion IMHO.

How can you belong to a religion that supposedly stands for peace when you espouse violence, condone Violence in the name of your religion. Turn a blind eye to those who use your religion to preach hate and violence.
Harbour those who use your religion to further their own agendas against the west with violence.

By turning a blind eye or harbouring those who use your religion to propagate violence in the name of Allah you are just confirming he worlds view that you religion is based on violent principles and tars your whole religion with the same brush because of your complacency.

This isn't the wests problem this is a Muslim internal problem which they need to sort out themselves amongst themselves.

The west is just a scape goat for the censored and cow towed masses of Islam IMHO. Some of it may be due to censorship and just plain ignorance in part because of blind faith in their religios leaders espousing hate and violence. All the more reason to publish these cartoons far and wide to try and separate the extremists from the moderates.

No one from the west really thinks Mohamed was a terrorist but he is being used by the terrorists now to promote their agendas against the west.

If the ast majority of Muslims don't stand up against this view being protrayed by the extremists then the west and the world as a whole will have no other recourse than to denounce Muslims as a terrorist religion and fight the religion itself because it stands for violence and terrorism.

The ball is in the majority of muslims court.

At 2/13/2006 08:14:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"If he is as you say, then report him."

I already did, weeks ago. He's still here. What's my next step?

"Death threats are a crime."

You're damn right they are. And if you support America's enemies in a war zone, you are an enemy national. raed is an enemy national. That's all there is to it. He shouldn't be here.

"Throwing rocks at someone is too. So is trespassing on their property. And depending where you live burning a flag might be against the law too."

Oh, but it's OK for other people? I was just joking, but if I wanted to I could get some of my buddies from Camp Pendleton (I still know Marines that are on active duty) and we could caravan up to SF and start a hell of a riot. Marines can play the role of a thug pretty convincingly. And they aren't afraid of getting arrested, and neither am I. I've been arrested before.

And isn't that going to look good for Niki and Raed, sitting in Court, testifying against a bunch of US Marines sitting there in their dress blues, mostly decorated veterans of the Iraq war?

Actually, this is starting to sound like a good idea!

"seriously though "like it or leave" is not the way to handle immigrants. immigrants are a vital part of our country. We need them just as much as they need us."

What part of my comments made you think I'm anti-immigration? I married an immigrant. I live in southern california... most of the people I know are immigrants!

"there's better ways to handle assimilation than forcing them to agree or leave."

Did you read the oath of citizenship? It *is* agree or go. That's the deal. You don't like it here, we don't want you. There are plenty of other people who actually DO want to come to the US, and actually DO want to contribute to American society, and to become a valuable and productive part of it.

At 2/13/2006 09:45:00 PM, Blogger Donna said...

Same old story. Everyone hates America but everyone wants to live here. I know, I'm in the hiring department of a company in NYC.

At 2/13/2006 10:03:00 PM, Blogger Eagle said...

Cartoon discussion featuring As'ad Abukhalil

At 2/13/2006 10:23:00 PM, Blogger Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

Bravo Sam! You nailed the angry moron!

At 2/13/2006 10:30:00 PM, Blogger yochanan said...

asking Howard Zinn anything would not be that different from asking Bin Laudin anything. I respect the owner of this blog to much to say what i really think of howard zinn on it.

At 2/14/2006 04:45:00 AM, Blogger Christine said...


Normally I don't differ with you much. But, this time you are being a moron.

At 2/14/2006 05:57:00 AM, Blogger Moron99 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2/14/2006 06:07:00 AM, Blogger Moron99 said...


I thought this was obvious, but I gues not.
Allowing freedom of speech amoung your enemy is a good thing.
Not only do they get to speak but you also get to listen.
"keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

When you made your report did you include documentation?
Did you send duplicates to the Department of Homeand Security?

A bunch of web log pages with highlighted text.
An overview of Raed's comment section demonstrating active participation by people who claimed to be active insurgents.
A summarry of your own that briefly outlines your "evidence" and does so in terms that might be considered "actionable intelligence". (If you sound hateful your are just as likely to be ignored as listened to).

At 2/14/2006 06:51:00 AM, Blogger Wade said...

You are of course right that they are hypocritical. The more interesting quetion is why? My guess is that one defense they would use is "If you are so in loe with America, why not move there yourself?" Of course you have the dence that this may just not be possible for you, also that though there are aspects of life in Egypt that you don;'t like there are other reasons for making Cairo a good place. However my suspicion is that there may be more parallels than you would like to imagine. Although most people (almost by definition, feel most comfortable swimming with the crowd, there will always be a small minority who feel more comfortable as a fish out of water. One of the major advantages of this is that you are a "someone" rather than a "no one" if you swim with the rest of the shoal. I think if you are honest you will recognise the pleasure you get from the attention that a pro American Egyptian in cairo will get. You can say a whole bumnch of things which are really not that extraordinary, but will get atention because it is an Egyptian in Cairo that is saying them. I imagine that they experience a similar pleasure from being an Anti American in America.

The other issue is the fact that most people like to enjoy the high degree of personal freedom, high wages, descent environment, good university education etc that is available in the US. They would ideally like a communist/islamic utopia as well and conveninetly overlook that its only the absence of the latter which allows the former.

At 2/14/2006 09:00:00 AM, Anonymous AhmedT said...

WOW ! This is still active !

From a poster above:
>> history is something that either happened or didn't.
>> I don't give a damn about his point of view, I want facts.

I STRONGLY Disagree.. Shall I start on this and keep this going ? or maybe Sam can start a new post, or I could take it to my blog..

This page is starting to take to much time to load :-)


At 2/14/2006 09:11:00 AM, Blogger Der Tommissar said...

Raed is moving to San Francisco?

That means the area will be gaining a moderate.

At 2/14/2006 10:06:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mohamed said "do you find Seymour Hersh a non credible source of information because he refuses to tell no lies"

You are an idiot. First of all you and everyone else know about Abu Graib abuses because the military was prosecuting criminals. I would love for you to go into detail about My Lai because you don't know the full story (partly because it doesn't fit into Sy's story). Seymour Hersh is not interested in the truth and he never has been. If you are stupid enough to believe that the Army is secretly run by A Gang of Seven then Hersh is the guy for you.

At 2/14/2006 10:53:00 AM, Blogger D.C. said...

Great work, Sandmonkey!

We have the pro-Taliban, pro-martyrdom Kadr family enjoying freedom in Ontario.

In Canada, capitalism and secularism are suppose to be the way of life.
Let's hope we can get there soon!

At 2/14/2006 11:40:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"Allowing freedom of speech amoung your enemy is a good thing."

I disagree. Allowing an enemy, during a war, to propagandize has never EVER been a "good thing."

"Not only do they get to speak but you also get to listen."

Can Raed not "speak" from Jordan or Iraq?

"keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

I prefer the philosophy I learned in the Marines. Which amounts to keeping your friends alive, and your enemies dead.

Interesting after you tell me all the reasons I shouldn't mind Raed being here in the US, you try to help me file a report on him.... what's up with that?

der tomisser, Raed has been in San Francisco for about 6 months already.

At 2/14/2006 02:34:00 PM, Anonymous amnesians go home! said...

> LEAVE, or even better, DON’T EVER MOVE THERE.


Zio-Nazis from Brooklyn, that "move" to Palestine?

130.000 american killers, levelling towns in Iraq?

The same fascists, that killed hundred thousands
of Iraqi civilians in the early nineties?

I agree, go home - never move there.

At 5/19/2006 05:05:00 PM, Anonymous Ahmad Khojasteh said...

Thanks. Great post.
I am Iranian myself and I wanted to say the likes of thsi Nikki are filth. They are like leeches who feed and benefit from the misery of the Iranian people while living in the US. I wished the US would just kick this bitch out.
Thanks again.


Post a Comment

<< Home