Peter_Puget Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 A good read.... Sometime it is instructive to watch just how much the Left, in its unguarded moments, shows its love for the poor and downtrodden of the Third World. This snippet from the New York Times account of the conviction of radical lawyer Lynne Stewart illustrates it clearly. Stewart was an the attorney for terrorist Blind Sheik Abdel Rahman and passed messages to and from the mastermind to his associates. The prosecution also showed videotapes of Ms. Stewart saying "good for them" when her client was told in her presence that a militant group in the Philippines had taken hostages. Recordings showed that she seemed to enjoy trying to distract prison guards so they would not know when her translator was giving Mr. Abdel Rahman messages about his followers and their plans. The New Sisyphus, which quotes from Stewart's indictment provides more details on why Stewart said the kidnapping was "good for them": because it was good for her client. j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, “Good for them.” STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they “may be futile,” because it is “very, very crucial” that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the “Muiahadeen” (Jihad warriors). The Superseding Indictment against Lynne Stewart et al by the Department of Justice describes how Rahman tried to use his terrorist confederates to spring him loose, and how Stewart helped. The superseding indictment charges that, “[a]fter Abdel Rahman’s arrest, a coalition of terrorists, supporters, and followers, including leaders and associates of the Islamic Group, al Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines, threatened and committed acts of terrorism directed at obtaining the release of Abdel Rahman from prison.”... Also during the May 2000 prison visit, the superseding indictment alleges that Yousry told Abdel Rahman and Stewart about kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and “Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which Stewart replied, ‘Good for them.’” A contemporaneous report by CNN notes that some of the hostages ("good for them") held at the time were Filipino children. The Abu Sayyaf is also reportedly seeking the release of three men -- including Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Omar Abdel-Rahman, accused of conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks -- from jails in the United States. ... In addition to the 10 Malaysians, the rebels are believed to be holding 10 international tourists -- from Germany, France, South Africa, Finland and Lebanon. The nationality of the 21st hostage was not known. The Abu Sayyaf has been linked to two kidnapping situations in the Philippines. The group has reportedly held 27 hostages -- including 17 children -- for nearly six weeks in Basilan province, where it is under attack by Philippine troops. Whether the children would be released in exchange for Mr. Rahman is unknown. But here is the transcript of the conversation between Rahman, his confederate Yousry (masquerading as a translator) and radical lawyer Lynne Stewart. YOUSRY Mr. Abdeen is eh... I am telling the Sheikh about the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, and they took hostages...The, in the New York Times, never said that they wanted to free the Sheikh. ABDEL RAHMAN: And Ramzi Yousef. STEWART: Uhm. YOUSRY: But they eh, their demand is to free the Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef. STEWART: Good for them, I didn’t read that either. YOUSRY: She says, Sir that she never read it in the newspapers either. ABDEL RAHMAN: No, I eh, eh.... STEWART: Amazing, and they never said that. YOUSRY: Yeah, they never did, they never did. ABDEL RAHMAN: But are they still holding the hostages? YOUSRY: Yes Sir, they still hold the hostages. ABDEL RAHMAN: Uhm. YOUSRY: [Arranging his papers] They are still holding them, they are telling them that unless they respond to their demands, they will kill them. ABDEL RAHMAN: Wow! YOUSRY: Especially a German female with a heart condition, they are raising a big fuss. STEWART: Have they still, are they still holding them? YOUSRY: Yeah, and they still have them. Filipino children and a sick German woman were all expendable in pursuit of whatever people like Stewart pursue. Leftist professor Ward Churchill, who is under fire for describing victims of the World Trade Center attack as "little Eichmanns", said in his book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens that perhaps a few thousand would have to die for society to come around to his point of view. But they were nothing to cry over: just expendable Nazis. Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. The little Eichmann victims at the World Trade Center included fifteen Filipinos, sixteen Jamaicans, seventeen Columbians and fifteen Mexicans -- all dismissed with a wave of a hand. The Rocky Mountain News records Churchill as saying, "I'm not backing off an inch. I owe no one an apology". One of the sources of the inhuman 'strength' of the Left is its refusal to acknowledge the existence of anything smaller than a mass noun. Rhetorical service to the people, masses, workers, peasants; the poor and the downtrodden are objects worthy of the Left; but love, pity and sorrow for individuals would is sentiment beneath contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 What do you want us to say? Stewart isn't going to get any sympathy from me. She seemed to think that because she was acting in her official capacity as a lawyer that she was beyond the reach of the law. To her dismay, she discovered that the law applies to all equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well CBS try humming this forgotten nugget from the 60s: How can people be so heartless How can people be so cruel Easy to be hard, easy to be cold How can people have no feelings How can they ignore their friends Easy to be proud, easy to say no Especially people who care about strangers Who care about evil and social injustice Do you only care about bleeding crowd How about a needing friend, I need a friend… Ah those wonderful 60’s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Like CBS, I'm not shedding any tears over Stewart's conviction. I think he summed it up pretty well. As far as Churchill goes, he's guilty of tactlessness and grandstanding for sure, but he's got a right to say what he likes, doesn't he? I don't agree with his portrayal of the 9/11 victims as Nazis, but I think what he said gives some insight into why the World Trade Center was targeted in the first place. It wasn't chosen at random. That said, may everyone who died that day rest in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Wow it's fun to make broad generalizations using two examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I don't think political ideology really is the issue here. She commited a crime and now she's going to have to pay as she should. I'm sure I could dig a bit and come up with examples of conservatives who fit that bill. As far as the prof goes he does have the right to express his oppinion as long as he does so in a scholarly manor. I'm not in a position to pass judgement either way. It is a controversial view no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 This professor is not a scholar and certainly not a gentleman. It is never right to commit an injustice to correct an injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 You are comparing apples to Canadians. What she did was aginst the rules of her profession and a violation of the courts order and law. She was rightfully prosecuted for that. People could have died. In this case the speech is a weapon. I do not see anything the prof said as violating the law or his conditions of employment. It was stupid perhaps but that is all. His speech though lame and offensive hurt nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 The pointisnt a comparison of the two but rather as written at the begining..."Sometime it is instructive to watch just how much the Left, in its unguarded moments, shows its love for the poor and downtrodden of the Third World. " Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 That's nice, but saying one criminal woman and a wacko prof represent all the left is pure bs. Like I said earlier there are lots of bad actors on the right side of the spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 John Wayne Gacy was a Republican, it's instructive to see how Republicans view other people in unguarded moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Prof. Churchill has made a career from his incendiary remarks. Funny how this is only *now* making the news - long after he first wrote it. I think we're having a slow news month or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 That's nice, but saying one criminal woman and a wacko prof represent all the left is pure bs. The left does the same in it's characterizations of misstatements on the right, or individuals on the fringe. For the former, consider Trent Lott's statements on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's birthday. The left characterized these as "exposing how conservatives really think about race issues". It was questionable, in fact, whether the statements indict Lott specifically; extending them to everyone on the right was a despicable slandering of all conservatives in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 For the former, consider Trent Lott's statements on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's birthday. The left characterized these as "exposing how conservatives really think about race issues". It was questionable, in fact, whether the statements indict Lott specifically; extending them to everyone on the right was a despicable slandering of all conservatives in general. So the audience applauding Lott's racist remarks doesn't reveal their feelings? Lott's remarks were well received and defended until the heat got to hot. Nice try KK but that analogy doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 If you think one or two people are representative of huge swaths of humanity, then you really ought to opt out of life and politics all together because you really aren't built to handle either. You need to learn to accept individuals for who they are and not make demonizing comments about groups based on the actions of one person. This should be true for the left and for the right. For example, I think Bush is a dangerous idiot (just using the current prez as an example) but I don't extend that to the entire republican party who, like the democrats, have a fair number of concerned and intelligent individuals who want their country to be something great. If you can't look past the actions of one individual to see this, then you are either a paranoid delusional or you are just trying to irritate someone on the internet, which means you are juvenile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 So the audience applauding Lott's racist remarks doesn't reveal their feelings? Lott's remarks were well received and defended until the heat got to hot. Nice try KK but that analogy doesn't work. 1) I took the remark as being a way to make an old man feel good, and nothing more. 2) The remark was extrapolated well beyond the "applauding audience". It was applied to ALL CONSERVATIVES in the US by the left-wing spin-meisters. If you refuse to acknowledge any demagoguery on "your side" than don't expect the "other side" to make similar acknowledgements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 [quoteThe remark was extrapolated well beyond the "applauding audience". It was applied to ALL CONSERVATIVES in the US by the left-wing spin-meisters. I don't think this was true. Folks just thought Lott should have lost his job for such an idiotic statement. While I'm sure there's many statements by private right wingers that are used to represent all conservatives - this was a poor analogy. Especially because in Lott's case he was a high ranking public official in a public forum. Stewart was just as, if not more stupid but she is a private citizen. In either case they found the consequences of their actions surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Whatever ... all Republicans are brainwashed pseudo-patriotic tools of the right-wing neo-fascist military-industrial propaganda machine, worshiping at the altar of bloodthirsty, exploitative capitalism, drooling and sharpening their teeth in anticipation of the next batch of third-world laborers to be sacrificed to their almighty god of profit margins and stock returns, not one of whom would hesitate to drop thousand-pound bombs on his mother if he thought it would earn him a buck and give him a chance to put new flag stickers on his gas-guzzling Hummer. Fuck 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I detect the barest hint of disillusionment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Hey DFA, that pretty much describes my boss. Except I think he's a closet homosexual, because all he talks about is gays getting married. Fuckin' asshat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Whatever ... all Republicans are brainwashed pseudo-patriotic tools of the right-wing neo-fascist military-industrial propaganda machine, worshiping at the altar of bloodthirsty, exploitative capitalism, drooling and sharpening their teeth in anticipation of the next batch of third-world laborers to be sacrificed to their almighty god of profit margins and stock returns, not one of whom would hesitate to drop thousand-pound bombs on his mother if he thought it would earn him a buck and give him a chance to put new flag stickers on his gas-guzzling Hummer. Fuck 'em. Lefties managed to kill off a good 80-100 million third world peasants in the various workers manifestations of a "Worker's Paradise" that they established around the globe last century. Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al - remember those guys? Terror Famine, Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward - never aquainted oneself with these Great Moments in Leftism? Such innocence... I guess the message is that it's okay to eliminate 80-100 million people so long as the slaughter is accompanied by the appropriate rhetoric. Amazing stuff - it's still okay to talk fondly about Mao et all, but the CEO of Walmart is the devil incarnate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Like I've said at least twice before: If Gore had won the election in 2000 and had been in office when 9/11 happened, and had he done exactly what Bush did in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, all roles would be reversed: The Repubes would be anti-war and the Democrasses would be pro-war. And before all you liberal hippies make that smug comment that Gore would have never, let me just tell you ahead of time to save it and STFU. Thank you and good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Paul don't be an idiot Gore would never have invaded Afganistan or Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Like I've said at least twice before: If Gore had won the election... The Repubes would be anti-war and the Democrasses would be pro-war. Bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Like I've said at least twice before: If Gore had won the election... The Repubes would be anti-war and the Democrasses would be pro-war. Bullshit. Kosovo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.