The Red and Black

It should be on record that, in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian question, Zaid Jilani called the American-Israeli Political Action Committee "a low-grade terrorist organization."

Do you guys not get laid enough so you have to go around stalking anything related to your hawkish blow-the-whole-world-to-hell agenda (that plays well to anyone who lives in the surburbs and doesn't own a passport) down and spilling your guts on it? Damn, you guys need lives.

It should "be on the record"? I don't think you guys care much for the record except for events taken out of social-poltical-historical context that is used to shore up islamophobia and policies that ironically incrase the things you claim to fear the most.

Everyone knows how much I despise AIPAC (and intelligent folks like Zbigniew and George Soros are joining in that chorus), even including Dawgs of Israel members here who work with AIPAC (and who maintain good friendship with me).

Whatever "record" you folks are keeping to where you keep following all of us around campus and sending your yuppie freaks after us with camcorders and notepads is just going to go into your little freaking piece of tabloid journalism that makes FOX News look tame that no one on campus takes seriously. The "Guarddawg" is something used to attack anyone who strays from its thin ideological line and no one who doesnt' share a totalitarian mentality supports it.

God, guys. Get a life. I promise the Muslim-homosexual-illegal immigrant-socialist-abortionist-French plague will not kill you in your sleep.

I'm sure Zaid, by now, can give a much better review of Weaver's _Ideas Have Consequences_ than what the GuardDawg produced a few semesters back. That's irony for ya.

Zaid, you must have been under great durress when you penned your wild remarks. Frequency in intercourse doesn't have anything to do with AIPAC, although it is a frequent criticism of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which you support, that their sexual repression and latent homosexuality lead them to acts of obscene violence and prejudice.

What's more troubling is that you accused panelists at the debate of engaging in ad hominem attacks, yet in the sloppy, vindictive passage above you spew venom on suburbanites and "yuppies." Yes, I thought it was important for readers to know about the egregious statement you made about AIPAC. And now you respond with statements that read like an Ann Coulter column. You've not elaborated on your position; you've only undercut any possibility that someone would take you seriously.

Andrew, Zaid is not under any obligation to elaborate his position as long as you make bizarre statements about purported homosexuality among Hezb'allah and Hamas. The great irony of your post is that you responded with ad hominems and unsubstantiated claims.

Furthermore, it doesn't appear that you are able or ready to field Randy's challenge a few posts back.

AIPAC is a political organization. The burden to prove otherwise is on the accuser. When someone has made a point in support of the claim that AIPAC is a terrorist organization, then I will address those points, but I wouldn't know where to begin since the imputation is so opprobrious and far-fetched.

My statements are not bizarre; many scholars have noted sexual repression and gender-segregation as the clandestinely homosexual underpinnings of radical jihadist groups. Also, I didn't insult Zaid even though he begs for it. I criticized his remarks, which ooze with malevolence for wide swaths of society.