1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

To Jimmy, a different perspective.

Reader comment on item: On New York's "Khalil Gibran International Academy"
in response to reader comment: Come on Mr.Pipes - Don't mislead us.

Submitted by Ynnatchkah (United States), Oct 20, 2007 at 19:45

Dear Sir Jimmy:

I got interested in what you said about Almontasser and her statement, reason why I dug into the meaning of the verb recognize- posted in a Nutshell from

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/recognizable:

Main Entry: rec•og•nize - Etymology: modification of Anglo-French reconois-, stem of reconoistre, from Latin recognoscere, from re- + cognoscere to know — more at cognition Date: circa 1532

1: to acknowledge formally: as"…" b: to admit as being of a particular status "…" to d: to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of

2: "…" b: to acknowledge acquaintance with

3 a: to perceive to be something or someone previously known b: to perceive clearly : realize

Almontasser said:

"…"I don't recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims," she told them. "Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion."…

Hypothesis step by step:

  1. She does not admit them as being in the particular status as Arabs or Muslims. Whether she is deceiver or a liar, they were both Arab and Muslims. Not to acknowledge that is to show her certificate in being an un-professional liar/ or deeply ignorant, or yet a person that clearly does not fit a position she claims she has the right to.

She does not acknowledge them as de facto being Arab or Muslims? Again, the previous interpretation about what she is revealed.

They were Muslims and belonged to the Arab People. They were Arab Muslims.

  1. She does not set acquaintance with them.

If they are Arab and Muslims, and she is also an Arab and Muslims, the argument Arab-Muslim is not suitable to be used in this context. She could have said: I do not recognize them as good human beings, for example. Indeed, if she were to say that she would buy fight with her own kind that swears to kill all those Muslims that go against its radicals. In its daily basis we see all over Arab Lands it happening. And, she would call radical Muslims bad.

Note that she didn't do so, which in my interpretation, is a form of condoning them.

If they were Arab Muslims and she does not find acquaintance, or she lies about their characteristics, or she is neither Arab nor Muslim, which is absurd.

  1. Again, it was known that they are Arab Muslims, so when not recognizing that, she corroborates her position as a liar, deceiving,, a radical Muslim camouflaging herself time enough to get strength to properly attack, but for the time being, playing victim.
  1. In all situations, whether she is deceiving/a liar or a psycho not with touch at any moment with reality, for what everybody knows they were Arab Muslims, in this case Islamic Fundamentalist, she is not eligible to fit the position she struggles to occupy. No tax Payer money should go to incompetents/liars/ignorant.

Finally you write she said:

"…Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion."…

Everybody knows that in every single kind in the Universe you find the good and the bad. It is obvious!

When she states this sentence, in a failed and primitive struggle to lure westerners, manipulate innocent ones and indoctrinate all towards the absurd idea that ALL the ones that belong to the kind ARAB MUSLIMS are good.

B/C "Those (bad) People have stolen my identity as an Arab", in other words, Arabs are all good, which it is an obvious non-sense, for what there are the bad and the goods as in any kind. And she continues by saying: "..Have stolen my religion"…

As in any kind there are good/bad ones that belong to Islam..

She wants all to swallow that naturally all Arab Muslims are good, b/c those who have stolen her identity are not- reason why they have STOLEN. As if -it is an abnormality, an aberration that occurs in a probability about ( 1/ infinite ). Which is a LIE again !!!!

This primitive attempt in putting us in Coma about the goodness of Islamists again shows in my understanding, for the third time indeed, why she is unsuited for the position she claim she has the right to. She cannot maintain a sense of logic. She is totally random or barely honors The English language, enough to measure her words....

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to To Jimmy, a different perspective. by Ynnatchkah

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)