I don't read most of the comments here, but I have been alerted to the fact that once again many of the threads here are being used as platforms by people with various agendas that have little or nothing to do with the common defense we need to be presenting against the global jihad.
So I refer you once again to this piece by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald, explaining what this site, and open comments, are for. Please read it, and refrain from Christian evangelism, gay rights activism, creation vs. evolution debates, romantic entanglements, and other causes which, however worthy, detract from the purpose of this site.
I will not close comments. I still believe the antidote to bad speech is more speech. I still believe that out of open discussion good can come, and it has, here, in the comments field, on many occasions. And I vehemently reject the charges by hate groups and hateful individuals that I am somehow responsible for one class of comments here but not for those entered by people with opposing views. I am not responsible for any of the comments here except those that I myself make, and it is extremely telling that those groups cannot find anything in my own writings to buttress their claims.
As I have explained many times here, comments are unmoderated. If you would like to donate to us a sum substantial enough to enable us to hire a fulltime moderator, it will be gratefully received. But until then, the policing can and will only be sporadic. Nevertheless, it is not nonexistent. Comments referring to "Muzzies," advocating genocide, or making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims or anyone else will be deleted if seen (and if you care about our work in defense of human rights here, please bring them to my attention in an email and I will delete them). Comments that are breathtakingly off-topic, racist, made up of endless pasted-in articles from other sources, semi-literate or illiterate, or abusive or threatening are likewise unwelcome.
If you are interested in defending the West and the ideas of the equality of rights and dignity of all, do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us.
And again, if anything -- anything -- tops your personal agenda other than defending Western civilization from those who would destroy it, and you want to make defending Western civilization subordinate to agreement with you on the other points of your agenda, please take your comments elsewhere. And thank you.
romantic entanglements
Did I miss something? Crap! ;)
Seriously, though, Robert, I will pledge not to be part of the problem, and to try to be part of the solution.
I admit to sometimes straying off-target :P
However, when it comes to Trolls (and in this, I mean those who deliberately try to steer us off-topic and never answer our questions):
1) No insults! Just hammer them with the facts.
2) Keep after them to respond to the topic of the thread.
3) Ignore them if nothing else.
romantic entanglements
Did I miss something? Crap! ;)
Must have been ships that passed in the night. Or vice versa.
Here I was prepared to handicap the Oscars despite the fact I haven't seen any of the movies. I predict many of the winning awards will relate to gay rights.
/D-oh!
Gee, I missed all of this, too!
More to to the point, be forewarned. You are on private property. You can be asked to leave at any time. You might get a note warning you to knock it off, but not necessarily. Try to mind your manners, and be aware when you are just beating a dead horse.
You couldn't help yourself could you Beagle. Tsk Tsk. Please go stand by that wall over there and put this blindfold on. For the wages of sin...
I think most people here are passionate, and l believe my most possible sin was characterizing the man who got caught in Irag who beheaded over a hundred people was deleted. l did not give a broad stroke to all Iraqis, infact l have been more positive about bringing in democracy into Iraq.
Hugh is very eloquent with his pieces, many of them very inspiring, but what l get is that he feels that Democracy is a failed venture into the middle east.
and wants mass deportation of muslims from western lands. wants Bush to openly say islam is the problem, although l would love Bush to say that, but as a Western Leader, he cannot do that. But can you invision mass deportation of muslims from Europe? there would such huge outcrys...it would not be possible. We already are starting to get your wacko muslim trying to mow down people with his suv! that could be added to Rush's suv stories btw.
anyhow my point l was most disgusted and my statement on the head chopper was very appropriate and if it offened any Muslim, than do something about stopping people like that!
Amazing what a "k" can do, a "k" preferably not in the vicious vein of "Amerika" but in the Herrmanesque vein of Krazy Kat (& Ignatz). The sense here demands that the "r" in "Krazy" be pronounced with a (pronounced) grasseyement that will take it beyond haut-Milanese or English-Embankment St-Peterbourgeois all the way to demotic Elmer-Fuddish "kwazy wabbit" so that despite the spelling, the good reader will already have sounded out the title, in his mind's inner vox, as "Komments kwaziness."
Of course, if from your mental menu you choose to select instead of a "kwazy wabbit" the Welsh rarebit, you will by a natural commodious vicus end up not with George Herrman's Krazy or Kwazy Kat, but with Little Nemo and Winsor McCay.
Robert! Hugh's Welshing on us again!
------your words are meaningless for Muslims and Muslim sympathizers lie about everything.
How do you tell when a Muslim is lying? Whenever a Muslim speaks.
Only lies and filth can come out of a Muslim's mouth for their souls are corrupted by following the corrupt souled Mohammed who was a pedophile and child rapist.
The Texican.--
I believe that such a statement is covered by THIS:
----- Comments making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims will be deleted if seen.-----
And I also guess that much of this topic was also directed at me.
But I'm afraid those who run 'Jihad Watch' are fooling themselves if their VERY MUCH NOBLE CAUSE (I agree 110% with what 'Jihad Watch' stands for in principal) is not tainted and basically made to look like nothing but one lot of religious hardliners taking swipes at another lot of religious hardliners because they are fighting over which religion shall control our lives.
And i thought 'Jihad Watch' existed to watch and warn people abou, t and peacefully fight, Islam because it is a cruel, backwards, prejudiced, war mongering, conquering, oppressive religion and religious culture.
And such a religion effects everyone who is not a Muslim (and even those minority, very moderate Muslims) and has NOTHING to do with being Christian or not.
It was not just Christian/Baptist/Jewish/Catholic bodies lying in the ruins of the Twin Towers, or on the trains in Spain, or the clubs in Bali or the streets and subway tunnels of my London!
BUT it seems Jihad Watch has very much been taken over by rabid Christian fundamentalists who in fact do nothing but bring one type of religious oppression to replace another and quite frankly taint the whole idea that 'Jihad Watch' should stand for.
Does nothing get through?
“Hugh is very eloquent with his pieces, many of them very inspiring, but what l get is that he feels that Democracy is a failed venture into the middle east.”
So do I. Islam has no need for democracy, Allah knows best.
”and wants mass deportation of muslims from western lands.”
So do I. They are bullies, intimidating everyone for anything, constantly.
“wants Bush to openly say islam is the problem, although l would love Bush to say that, but as a Western Leader, he cannot do that.”
He could but he won’t. Many courageous leaders of the past have said that very thing. We put those men in history books.
“But can you invision mass deportation of muslims from Europe? there would such huge outcrys...it would not be possible.”
Yes, I can certainly imagine it. In fact, if the common folk can take back their governments from the elites, I believe it will happen. Let them cry and stomp their feet. They had their chance and blew it. A hundred years ago, heart transplants and walking on the moon were impossible. Possibilities are only limited by physics and the imagination.
“We already are starting to get your wacko muslim trying to mow down people with his suv!”
If there were no Muslims here this wouldn’t happen, at least not for the reasons this wacko stated.
I’m not saying this to be mean Lulu. I enjoy your posts. I ask only that you open your mind a little.
J and D Watch are a great resource, the daily roundup of world events is about as clear cut as it can get... the articles you guys write are tops.
I have seen links to J/D news reports and the written articles posted far and wide across the net.
I love the comment section, I have particular people i look out for to see what their take on the post is and have given and swapped info in islam.
I have been reading and having posting spurts off and on here for about 2 years. I have recommended the site to so many people.
Please keep it up and know it is well received by people fighting oppression world wide.
I RS's article will make a difference in the discourse on these forums. I try hard to make a distinction between Islam, its canonical texts and political system, and Muslims as people; I have discussed my problems with Islamic doctrine with Muslims while holding carefully to this distinction and had some surprisingly positive experiences. Surely we can do it here.
Quijybo
Ouch! I think I might be guilty of that one. I'll be sure to check strictly for relevance before giving any links in future.
"What to do about prison da'wa"
"Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some suggestions about how to counter the spread of Islam -- and jihadist sentiments -- in Western prisons: non-Christians, including atheists, should be eager to support Christian ministries in prisons and elsewhere".... Stuff the da'wa in western prisons, it's our politicians who need the education on what Islam stands for and this "What to do about prison da'wa" thread was sure to "go off the rails" Kafir Nonbeliever was right, it was a ridiculous piece Mr Fitzgerald and l'll refrain from useing the "muzzie" term from here on in.
By and large I don't have any problems with any of the comments here, except perhaps by those christian numbskulls who write comments along the lines of "Jesus is going to win and the Muslim world will be nuked back to stone age". Hello guys, we're supposed to be BETTER than the muslims!
That this board gets hijacked by christian fundamentalists doesn't exactly make it a better place to discuss the perils of islamic fundamentalism.
I did notice how, quite recently, a thread that should have been dedicated to the beauty of Ms.Bynum and the beard of Mr.Spencer somehow became an exposition of Fifteen Top Reasons Why All Government is Bad. I myself try to avoid riding hobby-horses, but when someone brutalizes in writing my religion, my country or my views, you cannot expect me to be silent. And the issue of Islam is bound up with so many others, that it is difficult not to stray. The best thing to do is to keep warning each other. Ah, and I am against mass deportations on principle, as well as because I have Muslim friends and anyone who wants to mess with them will have me to deal with. If you want reasons why mass deportations are wrong, I will give them, but I am against them right from the gut. And incidentally, Hugh, you must be the only person who does not regard the Benes decree as odious and basically useless.
Stranger,
Dawa is a calculated method of recruitment.
Prisons are ripe targets, full of powerful and often angry potential "new extremists", often versed in crime and connected to various networks, it is very worth being concerned about.
The population is the basic foundation of any society, alot of this is in our hands, the pollies are bound to certain degrees, legislation and finacial trade etc.
There are easy simple methods on hand, the prison preacher, the prison therapist, why not?
As much as I don't mind so much when i see islamic stuff outlawed, I also beleive it's outlawing is going to give it mayter status.
It's the actual brainwash of the religion thats the ultimate danger. Ideally I'd love to see islam as a religious and lawful structure crumble, via, their own anger, the Western satan of beer and bikinis, or conversion to christianity, anything the open and Modern west has to offer is better than what they have now.
On saying this, also there is probably not the time to save then from themselves, any imput against islam from any western standerd is pretty valubale.
Comments that are breathtakingly off-topic...
There's a challenge. Comments may be off-topic but not breathtakingly so. The trick, then, is to fine-tune the deviation so as to avoid taking the breath altogether, but to cause the reader to pause for breath in delighted anticipation. This bating of breath is a skill that needs to be mastered.
lol im one of the spelling criminals :P
Dear JW, I do apologize for using emotionally inflammatory word pictures, I am being very serious. I have lived in an arab country and have seen first hand the nature of islam. I am personally horrified by the ignorance of 99% of north Americans & Europeans. Iraq was for oil (The US uses NO oil from Iraq) Bush IS the terrorist, palastinians only want their land back. Jews control the banks and US military. The ignorance is deep and the solution is to fight back with the same tools that the enemy uses. Word pictures. Truthful, word pictures. When I comment on the fact that a certain religion condones sex with animals, it comes directly from an imam's website where he explained it was necessary to kill the animal for seducing the poor man. Other images of debauchery may turn the stomach but are none the less true images of the current situation. Which is the better way to convey an impression. To say an annonymous jew was killed in France or to say James Goldsmith, a 15 year old student, was kidnapped in Paris after school. He was tortured by peeling off his skin while being read verses from a certain book. His fingers were amputated with wire cutters as his captores mother watched and yelled curses at him.
Which would you remember and respond to. This enemy is a notorious butcher with no feelings of love for others, not even their own children. The west is like a cow going along unaware of it's surroundings. Like the cow it needs the cattle prod to shock it into action for it's own good.
I think this erroneously conflates two different groups of people.
In any case, this is just what Robert wants to avoid.
The "fundamental" Christian message is "Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you."
I say this not because I am a practising Christian (I am not) but because it is so.
There should be no bickering between people owing allegiance to different groups. The clock is ticking: we haven't got time for it. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Secularist, we all face the same threat.
May I suggest, Robert, that you open comments to Jihad Watch staff and those selected by JW and create a separate forum for JW member discussions?
Robert, while I agree with what you are saying in principle, it is difficult to see people murdered for no reason other than that they are Christians and not respond as a Christian or sometimes emotionally. I for one do not believe Islam will ever be reformed by "moderate Muslims" as many people do. I strongly believe that the only way to effectively combat Islamic theology is with Christian theology. To illustrate this point I have yet to have any Muslim here respond effectively to any of my posts as to how the Q'uran makes Jesus Christ to be a liar and a false prophet. If Muslms practice D'awa here, we should be allowed to respond in kind. And if we are overtaken by emotion over the slaughter of innocents, may God forgive us.
Yojimbo wrote: "There should be no bickering between people owing allegiance to different groups. The clock is ticking: we haven't got time for it. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Secularist, we all face the same threat."
Yes, we should all unite, but it doesn't do us any good to sound just as rabid as the peopel we critizise...
Abby's suggestion above is excellent: "May I suggest, Robert, that you open comments to Jihad Watch staff and those selected by JW and create a separate forum for JW member discussions?"
Have two discussion forums:
1) for JW staff and select members whom you choose
2) completely, utterly unmoderated and free discussion with a clear disclaimer at the top: "The following stream of comments is completely unmoderated and Jihad Watch has absolutely nothing to do with it other than providing the space for it in the interest of Internet freedom of speech."
That way, Jihad Watchers can finally rid themselves of that nagging, highly annoying and stressful feeling that some officious prudish aunt is looking down her purple granny spectacles at our prickling necks with a ruler under her shawl all the fucking time, and breathe, at last, of 21st century secular Western freedom the way it's meant to be on this new-fangled invention, the Internet which hasn't yet, thank Allah, been sold to Dubai or Kofi Anan.
Merideth
You make a good point but, I just dont see Western prisons as the right place to begin the educating proccess about the perils of Islam, they're in prison because they're rebels and Islam provides a fair excuse to continue with their selfish sociapathic ways, the fight is to open the eyes of the general public and our politicians to the menace that is Islam and this tact of confronting the threat with-in the walls of prisons will only scrape the surface and will bring out the calls, " you cannot deny them a means of finding inner peace" from ignorant do gooders.
----- Comments making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims will be deleted if seen.-----
Thats good if the comments are untrue or unfair. While muslims are individuals, they are at the same time, clones of each other. There are lots of blanket statements that apply to all of them.
For instance, my oft stated quote of Bukhari that Jihad is an obligation incumbant on all muslims. This is broad brush...it also happens to be true. But then I did not come up with that, Bukhari did...Delete him...ha ha.
Religious evangelism...
There is a lot of 'My religion is less murderous than your religion', finger pointing, going on all over the place. You would think that these fingers would get tired of all that wagging, but they dont. This gives the impression that this is war of religions, which it is not. Islam is in the process of raw power seeking and hegemoney. It will use that power, not to get closer to God, or for the benifit of humanity, but to dominate. We have seen how Islam dominates. This is political and militaristic, not religious. Islam is just another form of government, bent on using force to get compliance, and collecting that everlovin tax. If you dont mind being subdued and subservient, and you dont mind paying for the priviledge, then let Islam dominate. If you love freedom, free expresssion, freedom of religion ect, then Islam must be vigorously resisted.
ALL, organised, man made religions, and all their prejudiced backwards bullshit, are mostly dangerous (with Islam being the biggest threat at the moment) and should die out. And I hope such crass (and plainly deluded) prejudices that they foster dies out too.
Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 3, 2006 09:11 PM
___
How acceptable is to attack all religions and want them dead???????
------------------------------
I believe it was 'the Texican' who went off-topic when he made typically prejudiced, bigotted remarks about books like 'My two Dads'!!
Or have we selective memory?
But raging homophobe 'Texican' takes time-out to attack them. And in fact Islamists would agree with him.
Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 4, 2006 04:53 PM
___
When you do not agree with someone, how acceptable is it to resort to calling that person perjudiced, bigotted, anti-gay, etc. and when challenge refuses to support his lies.
___
BUT it seems Jihad Watch has very much been taken over by rabid Christian fundamentalists who in fact do nothing but bring one type of religious oppression to replace another and quite frankly taint the whole idea that 'Jihad Watch' should stand for.
Posted by: DaveyFreak
___
Davey Freak:
Your hate for religion clouds your senses. You have been brainwashed by the leftist liberal dogma to where you condemn all religions and those that stand up and defend their religion and so tell you. This rankles you.
------------------------
As I posted on 3/4/06:
I am willing to have peace between us and to agree to disagree and leave our personal beliefs out of our posts to each other.
The choice is yours.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: Texican at March 4, 2006 07:15 PM
___
Davey Freak:
You continue to attack and think you are innocent and you do not realize that you are also part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.
Be a mature man and realize that Christianity and Christians will not go away. You will have a miserable life if you can not accept religious people.
I offered peace and you only offer vile retorts.
When you do not believe in freedom of religion but only in freedom from religion, your brand of freedom is no better than the brand of freedom offered by Islam.
I have had my say. I will refrain from responding to any additional leftists liberal dogma.
Davey Frank this may astonish you, but I also agree that America has a failed policy in Iraq and should cut our losses and leave and let the Muslims fight it out.
God bless you Davey Freak. I will pray for you.
The enemy is Islam.
Prepare, be armed, be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Islamic Jihad doesn't happen in a bubble. And the presence of millions of inimical Muslims in Western domains didn't happen in a vacuum. Things like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianism, secular fanaticism, Western self-loathing (and all of its causes), Western decadence, moral relativism, Western hypocrisy, Western corruption, human nature, economics, oil -- ALL of these enter any thorough discussion about Islamic Jihad!
How could this site serve it's central purpose, and not somehow post articles which deal with every aspect of those topics (and more too) and how could posters not, then, bring up those topics in the threads?
I, for one, always try to tie my posts back to those themes and how they relate to the Muslim's Jihad against us. I think most posters do the same.
There are many who deliberately attempt to drive the threads into the ditch -- and for the most part, I think posters repudiate them quite well here...
Given the fact that the world is full of Islamic fascist enemies, dissemblers with hidden agendas, agents provacateurs, andother enemies of the West, isn't it axiomatic that the threads would appear EXACTLY as they do?
And as for the idea of limiting posts to 100 words or less -- I find this suggestion absurd. Blogs with similar policies usually read like a reader's digests for shallow thoughts and quips. I value the incisive posts which appear here regularly by all manner of posters.
Posters who proselytize, or cut and past, or are generally insane, should be barred from posting, and in general, I think they eventually do get dealt with.
Is there really a giant problem here?
Sorry for being "part of the problem", but I
think there's something a bit self contradictory
about the request. It is stated that "broad brush"
characterizations of Mohammadans will be deleted,
but what constitutes a broad brush? If I say that
Mohammadans believe that the koran if God given
and that Mohammad's life serves as a model for
all mankind, is that broad brush?
There are always exceptions, and you can always
find the "muslim" like Irshad Manji who is
actually a decent person, but insisting that
generalizations be shunned is preposterous.
separate forum for JW member discussions?
Member discussions? Now those are off-topic. Off limits altogether, one might think.
Member discussions?
Lets be honourable about this.
Lets be honourable about this.
Indeed. Can't have things getting out of hand.
Yes, but if one gets banned, would they be dis-membered?
If they are allowed back, would they be re-membered?
separate forum for JW member discussions?
Bad idea. It would blow up into a permanent tangle of precisely they sort of thing we're trying to move beyond here and derail the purpose of the site. Add to that the logistical problems of moderating such a space, and it would be what my dad calls a "s***-ugly mess."
What do we do at Jihad Watch? Watch Jihad. Focus.
Enough mincing words about "broad strokes" and such-- use common sense, one of the gifts of the civilization we're trying to save. Enough defending one's own occasions of going "breathtakingly off-topic" into one of the categories mentioned by Robert. Take two steps back (watch the cat), and err on the side of not "going there." Believe me, this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you. ;)
True, true, jsla.
Cause and effect, inter-connectedness, abstractions, philosophical perspectives, propaganda, history, on and on. In order to understand the reality of Jihad, one must understand the reality of the world.
But, I acknowledge, sometimes, like when protecting an innocent life, the truth may be counter-productive.
I hope there's a counter-strategy I'm not privy to going on addressing the state of mind that has allowed and perpetuates the Islamic threat. And I don't consider ignorance of Islam by higher authorities to be that problem, I consider the path the "Western"( I don't really like that term, but I'm almost forced to use it) world has taken up to this point as the core of the problem. How else could that backwards-land(the M.E.) have developed into such a serious threat, especially in Europe? Ignorance? Maybe. How bout indifference, maybe even profit and power?
Shall we just continue on as if the past does not matter? I believe serious introspection and a re-evaluation of accepted "givens" in society/culture is in order. Clearly there are contradictions between words and reality that need to be faced, Islam just being the most obvious.
What is the main problem? The idea that truth is universally an arbitrary and subjective concept.
Which I believe leads to a denial of reality.
"romantic entanglements"
Is there some hanky panky going on here at jihadwatch that I am not aware of?
Can you please clarify here Robert?
I know that you say that you don't read the threads on this site very often but there are no soap operas that I can see on jihadwatch.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I read the attack on Robert yesterday by Kafir Nonbeliever who basically said that he cannot fight along side Robert unless Robert agrees with K.N.'s anti Christian, pro-gay rights stance.
Whatever.
Robert had every right to disagree with this guy and express his beliefs, as a Christian. It would be nice to not have to listen to a pro-gay rant, as it is certainly more off topic than Christian advice, like Paolo points out, (and I agree with him,) so eloquently above, but we are what we are, and as long as we believe that Christianity has answers to this fight then we can't muzzle ourselves on the subject.
I often read here that the answer is secularism but I don't see anything in that approach that offers satisfaction that the human spirit yearns for, except that darker side of humanity that tells the creator, "I don't want to serve You, I don't want to be bothered with You. Leave me alone and if You won't leave me alone, I will pretend that You do not exist and I will tell everyone You don't exist."
One problem here; many of the Christians that visit this site EXPERIENCE God's existence everyday. To negate our experiences is to do the same thing that the Muslims do to all of us: disregard our beliefs in favor of their own. For the record, I don't care if you are not Christian. My gay friends know that I will defend their lives with my own because they are my friends and I love them but I do not have to agree with their gay beliefs because they are opposed to my own. They don't much like Catholicism but they love me so they leave me alone on the subject. We agree to not discuss it out of respect for each others beliefs. They know I'm Catholic and I know they are gay, and we love each other just the same. So I would appreciate not being told by a gay guy what I believe in as a Christian, since there are many different Christian beliefs and to lump me in with people that this particular gay guy had a bad experience with is simply, at best, inaccurate and at worst, dishonest. BUT, if he wants to say that here I can read it and ignore it and go on.
Christians can also provide valuable historical data here that provides Christian answers to the problems we face regarding the threat of Islam and what other Christians have done to successfully combat it. I don't know of any gay rights groups that have successfully eradicated Islam from their realm but I do know of Christian groups that have. If someone has information about that I would love to know about it.
To deny allowing us to discuss these things here is to stick one's head in the sand, or worse, deny freedom of expression, which is the HALLMARK of the enemy we are trying to defeat.
Hmmm...that didn't come out the way I intended. Here is the suggestion.
Main Website Articles/Comments:
Post the Articles and the comment section would be for the JW Staff and selected commenters. The purpose would be to educate. Sometimes I see a news article here and did not fully understand the implications until Hugh posts something for example.
I think Robert has already identified a few people here who would be very helpful in making comments.
A Separate *Open* forum for visitors (I guess members was not a great word) to post their comments. The forum could have a section for the articles like:
ACTION
Article that would require action
[forum posters give ideas etc.]
ARTICLES
Al Qaeda's Zawahri calls for strikes against West
[first post would have the article]
[posts from forum people commenting on articles or going off on tangents]
NEWS
Place where forum posters can put up links to relevant news articles
LIBRARY:
Posters could add links to books, articles, whatever on Jihad and related topics for background reading. This could even be topical.
I guess the forum could be unmoderated but perhaps a voluntary moderator could be selected to edit for words like Muzzies and perhaps language and make sure things don't get too out of hand...troll patrol etc.
I am a moderator of an Autism message board and doing that voluntarily. It is possible to get voluntary board moderating. Obviously JW staff would make the rules for the moderator to follow.
I think this split would be beneficial to both JW goals/reputation and allow peeps to say what is on their minds. The article could have a link to the forum to make commenting easy.
Free speech is the very foundation of freedom. But free speech cannot be defined within the borders of this website, which is only one of millions of outlets.
The ironical reason for honoring his request, and it's a good one, is that the basis of Islam is the constraint of free speech. Abu Afak. Asma Marwan. And so many more, including us, lately.
MORE MOHAMMED MORE HATE MORE ISLAM MORE KORANS MORE MOSLEMS MORE
Mohammed asked for self-censorhip. And got it. Spencer and Fitzkennedy only ask that irrrelevant threads be taken elsewhere. And they should get that. We're trying to spawn a resistance movement here. Focus.
"Hugh, you must be the only person who does not regard the Benes decree as odious and basically useless..."
-- from a posting above
Judging by 1) their statements or 2) their failure to condemn, or to express any reservations about, the Benes Decree(s) at the time they were put into force or 3) in the case of some Poles and others, their seeming acceptance, at times expressly, at times by failure to express the slightest disapproval of measures undertaken by their own countries (e.g. Poland), for similar considerations, eve if on a smaller scale, and they have never expressed any disapproval of those measures, quite a few people "do not regard the Benes decrees) as odious and basically useless."
These would include, among the statesmen of the period when the Benes Decree(s) were put into effect, every major statesman and political leader in the West, including:
Winston Churchill
Harry Truman
Charles De Gaulle
as well as many less celebrated political figures.
It would include every major Czech figure, in 1946, and in the sixty years since, including:
Tomas Masaryk (the son) and Eduard Benes
Jaroslav Siefert
General Ludovik Svoboda
Aleksandr Dubcek
Pavel Kohout
Milan Kundera
Vaclav Havel (who on a state visit to Austria did suggest that he did not entirely approve, not of the Benes Decree(s), but of aspects of their implementation.
No Czech appears to think that the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was either "odious" or "basically, useless" as the comment above suggests.
Others who are natives of countries with policies similar to that of postwra Czechoslovakia (i.e., policies of removal, or transfer, of large populations of ethnic Germans) and who nevre protested, even though some of them did find fault with other populatio transfers, or failures to undo them after the war -- causing, for example, the continuing exile of many of the Crimean Tatars -- include:
Czeslaw Milosz
Zbigniew Herbert
Wislawa Szymborska
Milovan Djilas
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Andrey Sakharov
One may imagine what those who lived through World War II, and survived, would have replied if, in 1946, or 1948, or 1958, one had come to them and insisted that they should protest that "horrible offense against justice" the Benes Decrees. I can imagine how those who had lived in Europe before the war and survived it in the United States or England, would have answered that question. Make your own guess as to what mild-mannered Einstein, Panofsky, Max Ernst, Alexander Koyre, Roman Jakobson, Vladimir Nabokov, and a cast of tens of thousands of refugees would have said if asked to comment on the expulsion, by the Czechs, of Sudeten Germans in 1946. They might dislike the way it was carried out. They might disagree with the inclusiveness of the decree. They might not approve of every detail of its execution. But the notion that they would have echoed revanchist circles in Germany, in declaring the Benes Decree(s) "odious" -- that is unlikely.
One other point. Discussing such a historical precedent is not the same thing as complete endorsement. By reminding people of something most had forgotten or had never known about, one tries to instill the notion that there have been all kinds of population transfers (Greeks-Turks, Hindus-Muslims, Jews-Arabs) and large-scale movements of populations, and that it is not only such places as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and so many other Arab Muslim states (that routinely expel large populations even of fellow Arab Mulsims for "security reasons") ), but large-scale expulsions of a population that was deemed a permanent threat to the security of the nation-state and the people whose political embodiment it was, have been undertaken, within the last half-century, by the most tolerant and advanced state in Central Europe.
By describing as well the justification for such measures, one helps others consider the reasonableness, or lack of it, of measures that some may regard as "unthinkable" and will keep insisting that we must never ever think about it, while others, noting what Masaryk and Benes did, and what the entire civilized world at the time supported, or did not deplore or think unthinkable, may find raising the matter useful.Very few Czechs feel guilty about the Benes Decree(s). And among that dwindling number even of non-Czechs who lived through that war in Europe, few who did so would agree with the proposition that no one in his right mind, morally speaking, could not find the Benes Decree(s) "odious." There are those among whom that proposition will be warmly greeted and applauded -- German revanchists, still peddling their accounts of German "victimhood" and the "terrible" crimes that "yes, we suffered too, perhaps we suffered the most." Their view of things, including their belief that the Benes Decree(s) is "odious and basically useless," is one that most of us will find distinctly unconvincing. And distinctly unappealing.
As one of the most relentless introducers of his own pet anti-capitalist unrelated-to-Islamic-Jihad topics, I find the post above by Paolo to be astounding, and ironic. However, I also notice the opportunity such posters provide for thoughtful and informative posts such as the one immediately above by Mr. Fitzgerald.
Isn't this the essence of the comments section here at this site? I hope it continues largely as it has always done.
And Mr. Fitzgerald's elan and acumen is a model for us all -- I am especially fond of his 'hot' prosaic style, never overheated, nor hysterical.
OK, So what do we do?
All the items posted in this blog are very informative and mostly scary...
There have been many items here regarding certain governments and organisations and their lack of action regarding this menace.
But we all here, are guilty of the same thing!
WE JUST SIT AROUND TALKING ABOUT IT AND NOTHING ELSE!
I have the greatest respect for you Robert and I am glad people like you exist.
You say you don't read any of the members comments?
You're kidding me!
Like the film,The Life of Brian.
It's happening Reg!
Texican: You really refuse to admit WHAT you are don't you?
You and people like you, hardline Christian fundamentalists, don't even have a right to bitch and moan about those other hardline fundamentalists of Islam.
Take the example of the cartoon fuss.
Sorry Texican but when YOU post stuff like this:
----when such individuals attack my God, my family, my country and my religion I will stand up and be heard----
You sound just like those who said the exact same things over the publication of the cartoons!!
You can't whine about the cartoons being freedom of speech and go on anti-islamic attacks about their attitude to those cartoons when you hold the same views when YOUR religion and God (or Prophet!) is 'maligned'!
You are so damn fanatical in fact that you consider any remarks about YOUR religion an 'attack on your country'!!!
Lets dig that hole for you a bit deeper:
----- You will have a miserable life if you can not accept religious people.----
Well by definition Islamists are religious people?
Funny i don't see any acceptance of them on your part!
Or YET AGAIN are you doing EXACTLY what hardline Islamists do and saying that YOUR religion is the only religion and all must bow down to it and let God into their lives or else they are damned?
THAT is EXACTLY the kind of unwanted, hardline religious arroagance and fanatacism that those Islamic pricks spew out!!
-----When you do not believe in freedom of religion but only in freedom from religion, your brand of freedom is no better than the brand of freedom offered by Islam.----
Are you still confused here? Islam is a religion. And you want it to die out and you want total freedom from it.
But you say I can't have the right to say i want to be free of Christian fundamentalism AS WELL AS Islamic fundamentalism!
Like I said before...the hypocrisy you show and the irony you miss of just how close you are to many of the (non-violence preaching) Islamic clerics is laughable!
Islam is the greatest threat to mankind this side of Global warming I agree totally.
But people like you and what you beleive in are not the kind of replacement those of us who are against such fanatical religious thinking want to see either.
You are the face that keeps 'Jihad Watch' mired in the false perception that it is simkply a fringe religious organisation full of extremists who want the OTHER extremists out of the way.
And as such it won't be able to move forward and gain the widespread, mainstream following and acceptance it needs to actually DO anything.
No texican...YOU are part of the problem and what's sad is that you can't see it.
Assalma-laikum all,
I have to say a very honourable shukria (thank-you)to the folks at JW. They have done a great service for Islam...may Allah look upon them with favour for all their hard work.
Why?....To allow muslims to see comments made especially by citizens of Amrika will become critical to the umma in readiness for the future.
This site is as important to us muslim folk as it is to the greater West.
For me (and the people I tell about JW) there are three perspectives of particular interest which show up in the comments.
1) Historical ...and the skew that the JW "Islamist scholars" here put on it.....like not wanting to agree the inaccuracies of historical facts in the bible...."no it always has to be the Koran that is inaccurate"...even though several eminent muslim scholars have provided (divine)input...but still no sense of perspective.
2) Ridicule ...as the cartoon saga shows...this "faith-shaker" will be used again & again by the West. Also the perception that muslims are stupid, backward, inbreeding, and violent. Muslims are mooslims, towelheads, mohammedians etc. All very interesting information from the moderate folks of the West.
3) The future.... Western folks here talk about having guns at the ready (in confederate states like Texas particularly), mass deportations, reducing the ME to glass, sanctions etc. It also talks a lot about the lack of preparation of the West too....and the lack of knowledge about Islam to over 99% of the populations.
This provides a great deal of information to the people of Islam ...as muslims become more influential in the west...peaceful preparation for integration of Eurabia into Islam...and then moving onto the big one...all information is useful and important.
All muslims have to prepare for judgement day and be at the ready too. Allah ta'alah and Jesus will ask why we muslims were not better educated on that fateful day --- on those three points raised....and if we muslims answer...
"well actually we used to read Jihadwatch comments for knowledge"...
this may be an adequate answer even to Allah Ta'alah himself...as he is all knowing.
peace
Please read it, and refrain from Christian evangelism, gay rights activism, creation vs. evolution debates, romantic entanglements, and other causes which, however worthy, detract from the purpose of this site.
Posted by Robert at March 5, 2006 08:26 AM
Here I must agree with what is being said, the premise of this site is to enlighten and discuss the threat of Islamofascism and how do we come up with practical solutions to a very real and dangerous threat. This is a war and one that on the face of it we don’t seem to be winning. This is I believe because of the schisms which afflict the culture we are trying to defend. By this I mean political correctness, right vs. left political view points and any other distraction you wish to name.
We need to focus on the threat at hand and come up with viable solutions; I applaud Hugh for raising the Benes decree as an example of practical thinking, for without crossing the PC lines that have been drawn in the sand we will remain in a state of disarray and impotent in the face of the dawa.
Paolo you say you are against any form of forced repatriation, but what other solution is there when confronting the ideology of Islam. Show me a moderate Muslim and I will show you taqiya masters or potential incubation of mujahideen within a few generations. The logical dictates of Islam in its present form leads to nothing else.
So here I disagree with Hugh about immediate withdrawal from the ME, it is no point arguing about how we got there, we are there now and anything less than a complete defanging of the beast will just lead to increased power for those that wish to wage the Jihad against us. The key to breaking Islam is removal of the mullahs that hold the reigns of the Islamocollective. We need to crush Iran militarily then swiftly move to the Saudis and Pakistanis. Let them build their cultures again from the rubble of their own theocracies, this will be the only way to induce a reformation in Islam.
Just to finish as I know this is a long post, I think the criticism of people putting extraneous links on this site is a little tough. I come to JW as a source of information and I don’t think that I have followed too many links that are not on topic in some form or another.
And again -- we see the most splendid in situ example of a Muslim mindset right here in this thread! of all places-- Who would want to miss reading posts like this to understand what we're dealing with in Islam, with the Muslim?
This Muslim attitude, shorn of all pretense except that of Islam, is so instructive... the gentle seeming greeting: "Peace be with you all... " then the screed, the ending with "Peace".
It's absolutely PERFECT!
Davey Freak:
Islam is not a religion but a cult of murder and oppression.
Christianity does not beheaded people because individuals do not believe in our religion as does Islam.
Christians do not riot, kill people and destroy property over cartoons.
Christians do stand up and tell individuals like you that we have the right to be here in America, to believe as we wish and to tell you that you are wrong just as you scream and rant and rave that we have no right to believe in God or to so state our beliefs.
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.
Davey Freak, you still refuse to see this because of your complete hatred of all religions. Your hatred has consumed you.
How sad.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Naseem muslims influence is only going to go so far in the western world and then you will hit a brick wall,muslims seem to think they will be able to push there religion into western countries with no limits and force people to change there systems to suit Islam well it will only go so far and people will dog there heels in and refuse to bow.
What we continuously reflect here is the clashing differences between two civilizations, a coinage accredited to the Islamic umma, but quite appropriate. We comment passionately, and vigorously on defending, and expressing the differences between our foundations as we absolutely should.
Here we learn to recognize something that flies in the face of the character that we have forged for ourselves and from the environment that we grew up in, and that we so rightly are obliged to defend. Human rights, and freedom of expression, we should work to give dignity and quality of life to all who respect it.
We are learning that there is an ideology out there that wants to suppress these values that we hold so dearly and we have a clear duty to defend them not just for ourselves but the future generations of the free world as our for fathers have before us.
We cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope that it will all go away as many do. We must recognize its aggressive determinations to control the world with its Ideology and we need to confront it on every front.
We must not appease it, we must not ignore it, we must not compromise with it!
This provides a great deal of information to the people of Islam ...as muslims become more influential in the west...peaceful preparation for integration of Eurabia into Islam...and then moving onto the big one...all information is useful and important.
Posted by: Naseem at March 5, 2006 02:01 PM
Here it is the face of Islam naked and exposed; it is precisely because of this that we are at war. Those that refuse to accept this premise and believe Islam can be transformed through dialogue are delusional.
Robert and the staff at JW the world owes you a big thank you for the work you are doing here.
That is not the perception that Jihad Watch promulgates. However, what you don't wish people to know is that Islam is a violent supremacist ideology. This is from the Koran
One of the most eminent philosophers of the recent past, Eric Voegelin, comments dryly:
As Indian once remarked that one could go and see what is claimed to be Mohammed's sword - something I hadn't known. But, he added, "You won't find a sword belonging to Jesus or the Lord Buddha".
However much the corners may get rubbed off Islam by time, forgetfulness, easy living, and ignorance of what the Koran actually says, the potentially for regression to the horrific violence the religion is based on is forever a potential menace facing the infidel world - the Dar al-Harb - and that such a regression is currently happening worldwide is an empirical fact evident in the news every day. You won't find a sword belonging to Jesus or the Lord Buddha. But you will find a Kalashnikov, an RPG 7 rocket launcher in the hands of fanatical jihadists everywhere. You'll find them calling at a school or a pizza parlour or a bus depot with a belt of semtex, too, bent on mass murder. Even the IRA or Eta never did that.
Most people in the West, regrettably, are intellectually lazy, and do not know that the root of the violence is in the religion itself. And what has been described by, I think, Hugh as "the smooth-talking spokesmen of taqia aren't about to enlighten them.
Heigh, ho - think I'd prefer tequila myself - while the infamous sharia law has not yet been enforced across Eurabia and it remains legal to drink it.
"I disagree with Hugh about immediate withdrawal from the ME, it is no point arguing about how we got there, we are there now and anything less than a complete defanging of the beast will just lead to increased power for those that wish to wage the Jihad against us. The key to breaking Islam is removal of the mullahs that hold the reigns of the Islamocollective..."
-- from a posting above
Where in the Middle East has Islam been most discredited? In Iran, where there is not a single American soldier. Where in the Middle East does Islam appear to be ever more important in political and social life? In Iraq, where women have been re-burqa-ed all over southern Iraq, vendors (often Christians) of alcohol murdered. There is no "defanging" to be done. Islam must be seen, by enough people within Islam, to be the source, the explanation, for Muslim failures and Muslim disorders. That cannot happen with outside intervention. It can happen if there is less, not more, intervention by Infidels. It can only happen if there is less, not more, Western foreign aid, which always ends up as a Jizyah-tax, constantly received, and more demanded, by the Muslim recipients as if by right, constantly given by Infidel donors as if they simply had no choice in the matter, lest their failure to come through create anger in the disappointed recipients. as if it could not be denied.
The Administration did not first carefully analyze the problem, nor did it use the last four years to study Islam, to relate the various instruments of Jihad to one another, to identify the most important of those instruments and the most important theatres of war. The most important instrument of conquest in Europe, which is the most important theatre of the world-wide Jihad, is demographic conquest, not military conquest. The most important military theatre is not Iraq, but Iran, not as a place to invade (there is no need) but as a place to disarm or rather to prevent from nuclear arming.
American soldiers in Iraq are now being held hostage to the obstinacy of an Administration that did not know, and still may not know, that "terror" is merely one weapon, and not always the most effective, to dismantle Infidel defenses to the spread of Islam, so that ultimately "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated." Along with the inability to create a cadre of officials well-versed in Islam, unfoolable and unflappable (which means lessons in taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and in selective and misleading quotation from the Qur'an and Hadith, by armies of Muslim apologists), the Administration's highest officials continue to utter nonsensical phrases about Islam. Most perhaps do not believe them, but by indulging in such utterances (perhaps in the hope that this will limit Muslim resopnses to policies), they are misleading their own still largely ill-informed public.
If they did not study Islam, they also did not study Iraq. Had they done so, they would have known that once the Sunni despotism was overturned, a despotism disguised as a supposedly non-sectarian Ba'athist rule open to all (well, open to all those, even Shi'a and non-Arab Kurds, willing to accept that Ba'athist totalitarian rule within which the real power was held entirely by, and completely for, a small group of Sunni Arabs), the Shi'a would, with or without American intervention and "democratic institutions" as a figleaf, take power. They constitute between 60 and 65% of the population. Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20%. Among the Arabs alone, the ratio of Shi'a to Sunni is 3-1. All the oil of Iraq is either in the Kurdish lands or in the south. Yet the oil wealth has gone not to that south, whcih has been kept deliberately poor, but to Sunni areas. And in 1991, during the last widespread Shi'a rebellion, hundreds of thousands of Shi'a were murdered. This was known to the American government, and it must have known as well that the Sunni-Shi'a split is some 1300 years old.
Yet it chose to ignore, or not quite grasp, the meaning of this 1300-year-old hostility, and to accept the assurances of Iraqis in exile, almost all of them secular Shi'a, who could tallk the talk of Western, rational, man, and having been out of Iraq for so long, may even have come to believe that their fellow countrymen would indeed feel liberated by the Americans, would themselves become, overnight or soon, Western rational men. Nonsense. It could never have happened, and those upon whose advice the Admiinistration relied, including Bernard Lewis who predicted in 2002 that any liberation of Baghdaad would make the celebrations in Kabul "look like a funeral procession," have much to answer for. But even Lewis and Scharansky (with his own simple-minded "democracies don't attack democracyies" idea) did not realize that their ideas, which were hedged about with their own more comlicated understanding of the world, were dangerous if given to a schoolboy who would simple-mindedly seize upon them, and in reducing them to the most elementary form, and obstanately clinging to them despite all the evidence that they were not relevant to the case, would continue to misallocate American resources to this venture, because that schoolboy, who happens to be president, simply could not acknowledge that the mistakes were not minor, were not about whether or not Muhammmad Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi secret-service agent, not about uranium ore sought in Niger, not about weapons of mass destruction (that was a reasonable assumption, and that was, in fact, the only reasonable assumption, even if it turned out to be a mistake, that can be adduced as a legitimate reason for this war), but about how to use the situation in Iraq to Infidel advantage.
There is only one way to obtain such an Infidel advantage. That is by withdrawing, at once, and not "when the Iraqis tell us to" (what kind of foreign policy is entrusted to the "Iraqis" to make for us? What kind of craziness are we permitting when the President says he will wait for "the generals" to tell him when "the Iraqis are ready" so that "as they stand up we can stand down" which means that those generals are merely to report on the readiness of Iraqis, and that Bush in turn will listen to them only on that -- as if the heart of the matter, the Bush notion that staying in Iraq to create a stable nation-state with Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a, all making their peace, makes sense from the Infidel point of view.
Oh, it makes sense -- if you are a sentimentalist and believe we the Infidels should best spend hundreds of billions of dollars making Iraq a nicer place rather than spending those hundreds of billions on solar, wind, and nuclear energy. It makes sense, if you believe that we are conducting a "war on terror" only, and not a war of self-defense against the Jihad, in all of its local, but intimately related, manifestations, and with its varied instruments, by no means all of them military in nature. It makes sense, if you keep prating about "we have to fight them there so as not to fight them here" because you fail to realize that in Western Europe, without which the West is unthinkable, and life for Americans would be greatly impoverished, and much more dangerous (who will inherit the weaponry, including the nuclear weapons, of islamized countries in Western Europe?), and really beleive it, and cannot bring yourself to take a different tack -- the tack that Sunni-Shi'a strife within Iraq is a good thing for Infidels, or at least not something to work hard to discourage and even to expend American soldiers' lives in such discouragement. And a free Kurdistan should not be discouraged, in order to preserve the borders of this artificial, three-vilayetted Iraq, but should be encouraged, and protected diplomatically and in other ways, because such a state will be a headache for Iran and Syria, and an inspiration to other non-Arab Muslims throughout the Muslim lands, beginning, but not ending, with the Berbers.
Mr. Spencer,
A year ago I found JW via the Daniel Pipes website. In the beginning I found it difficult to read the sometimes illiterate, proselytizing or just plain ridiculous postings. Since we are discussing an enemy whose religion is all encompassing I am not sure what would be considered off topic. Through my careful reading of postings at JW I have determined that the forces against us consider JW a grave threat to their movement. I have learned so much in my brief association here at JW and those lessons have come from many different contributors. It is very important not only to read, but to comprehend what is written and also how it has been written and what was not said. You can learn a lot from a rant. As in life all rational people must read between the lines in order to get the complete picture. Unrestricted free discussion is a powerful weapon in our struggle for the truth. Keep up the great work and we will someday see you in our history books.
Texican:
---Islam is not a religion but a cult of murder and oppression.---
No. It's a RELIGION of murder and oppression.
A man made organised religion just like any other. And just as unwanted.
It just happens to be far more violent than the rest of them at the moment.
And not all Islamic nutters actually kill people either. But they do do exactly what you do.
They:
1) Say that their religion is the only true religion.
2) Attack people and call them misguided and doomed if they do not agree with their religion and embrace their God.
3) Cast down judgements on people based on what they see as the real truth written in some dubious holy book.
4) Say that people who don't agree with them are attacking their country.
I never said you were the same as the Islamist bombers and the be-headers.
But you're exactly like the Islamist one level down from tem. And just as deluded and hardline.
You are exactly what holds 'Jihad Watch' back and keeps it locked away in the shadows of religious fundamentalism.
If we are truly to protect The West (notice I simply said the West...not the CHRISTIAN West) from the evil extremism of the hated Islam we need place like 'Jihad Watch' to come out of the shadow of the cross and be seen as simply against Islam because of how bad Islam truly is. And not because it's seen to have a biased agaenda because Islam happens to go against Christianty.
Islam is bad enough, and as such the fight against it is right enough, without any hardline Christian agenda leading the fight against it!
Sadly it seems 'Jihad Watch' will always remain, at least in the public perception, as just another off-shoot of radical scum like Jerry Falwell and as such it will have no more validity than any hardline Islamic site or Baptist bullshit site.
YOU and those like you are tarnishing a site that is against one sort of extremism...with the stink of another. And that is fatal to the cause of ridding The West and protecting The West from the creeping, evil threat of Islam that is trying to rip apart our way of life.
I have no problem having to live with moderate Christianity (even though i disagree with much of what it stands for) and would choose it over Islam any day.
But i certainly hope that YOUR level of hardline Christianty joins Islam in the rubbish bin.
Personally, I find that the "scroll down" button takes care of any comments that go off-track.
If Muslims posting, like Naseem, etc., whose
"religion" advocates genocide (although, if you are cowardly enough to convert under duress, or are one of the "People of the Book" who meekly surrender, they won't kill you... which leaves me way out in the theocratic cold... since I won't do the former, and am not part of the latter)... if Naseem, etc. were honest about Islam's dogmas, they would thereby be unable to leave any comments here, according to the Spencerian "No Genocide, Please" Doctrine.
Does the dictatorial demand of Islam to "convert or die" (-to a "Person NOT of the Book")- NOT constitute an institutionalized call for genocide?
Of the "genus" of non-Judeo-Christian humans?
I wish Muslim posters would spell that out at the beginning of all of their comments: Islam wants you dead if you will not convert.
Then we wouldn't need to let them spread the soft-soaping b.s. about the rest of their "faith"'s wonders and glories (treating women like half beings; reducing the age of marriage to 9 to match the lusts of their pedophile founder; etc.).
If Islam is NOT a de facto genocidal cult, what is?
nariz / giouar, is that you?
I think you're right, Hugh. Frankly, the more I find out about the nature and the history of Islam the more I think the coalition has blundered.
I notice that Niall Ferguson is slating President Bush in the Sunday Telegraph today. The article takes as its theme a speech of Gladstone's in which he attacks Disraeli's foreign policy. In fact, Ferguson is perhaps a little disengenous, because, as an historian, he must know that one of the chief bones of contention on foreign policy between Gladstone and Disraeli was that Gladstone wanted the jihad out of "the province they have desolated and profaned" - but, unaccountably, Ferguson fails to mention it.
As Chesterton had it:
I don't agree with everything Ferguson says, but I think it is an interesting article, and he is (regrettably) right on at least one thing:
I have never had any problem with the comments at this site (well, okay, aside from cut and pastes that are extremely lengthy and posted at every darned thread). Do the comments go off topic and wind up in debates between christians and atheists, leftists and rightists, gays and christians etc etc. Yes. But its usually after several dozen posts that have pretty much summed up all the possible perspectives one could have on the given article posted. I mean there's only so much one can say in response to an article that Hamas reaffirms its desire to drive all the Jews into the sea, for example. "Bastards" would be an on-topic comment, but after reading dozens of variations on that, I don't mind it when the discussion veers off somewhere, provided it is still remotely connected to any of the number of issues that jsla, in his 12:03 post above, correctly noted are indeed relevant to the overall context of the jihad. What I find amusing is why anyone should be bothered about posters debating these things between themselves when such debates usually only begin on threads that are already 50 posts long or longer and which would probably otherwise generate no additional comments at all. E.g - I noticed Archimedes on an old thread below telling jehana that they should probably cool their debate as its "off-topic" for the thread. But that's ridiculous. The thread is pretty much dead. Why shouldn't they continue their discussion? Noone else is "required" to continue to read the thread just because people are still posting on it. And that holds re the comments generally. I'm with jsla on this one, "Is there really a giant problem here?"
What has America and the World gained from the war in Iraq?
2,300 (+/-) dead American Soldiers. How many allied soldiers have been killed?
$200 billion in wasted taxes that should have been spent on the Gulf Coast and like Hugh stated on energy independence in America.
Sadam is out of power, but not executed.
Equalized the playing field between the Sunni and the Shia.
$60/barrel of oil. Who is making the profit on this?? And it is not just the Middle East.
There is an opinion that the War in Iraq has stabilized the ME. Does anyone really believe that the ME is stabilized.
___
It is time to subtract ourselves from Iraq and let the Sunni and Shia determine the leadership for Iraq.
Tyrants and the nations that they led will never join the civilized world until totally defeated and then rebuilt as shown with German and Japan after WWII. German was not totally defeated after WWI and WWII was the result.
What have we truely gained by the War in Iraq.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Also, I certainly would not want to see an end to people linking to articles that are related to the jihad but possibly off-topic for the particular thread. I often scroll through the comments at LGF looking for just such links. LGF's daily open-topic thread has made that easier. Spencer might consider adding a similar daily open thread for such links here.
Texican. Daveyfreak.
Gentlemen:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pot_v._Kettle
I hope you see what I'm getting at here, with all due respect.
---What have we truely gained by the War in Iraq.---
Nothing, you're right.
But there was only a war in Iraq in the first place (no 9/11 link, no WMD's) because radical, hardline, "I discuss my actions with God" President Bush took us there!
When we should have had our resources ready to take out the Iranian leadership.
Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam! And that damage is all the things listed in your post 'Texican'.
Seen the light yet?
Hugh your argument is a sound one and on many points I agree. I do however feel that I should clarify my statement about our intervention in the ME. Geopolitically we are positioned such that militarily we can deliver and now project power over many countries critical in propagating the dawa in its present form.
I would agree with you that nation building for the sake of currying favors with the Islamists is a useless and expensive strategy. What I am advocating is that we press the advantage that we have so far won and lance Iran and Saudi Arabia like the festering boils that they are. I believe it is no accident that we have taken and hold countries on the flanks of these most odious of enemies.
It is time that we use this geopolitical advantage to drive at the very core of Islamist infrastructure, we should engage in prolonged effective strikes against all the countries that are part of and supporting the Islamic Jihad. Then we should just pull out and wait, I believe doing this will kick start a chain of events that will lead to the cleansing of Europe’s demographic problems as the mindset of the Islamists will be to strike at the west the only way they know how, terrorism against soft targets.
This will force a reevaluation of the merits of multiculturalism which has let Islam flourish in most European countries and policies will be introduced to combat its spread. I know it sounds a brutal solution but the demographic bomb ticking under the EU right now is such that we can not afford to wait to take action. Should we only half finish what we have started in the ME we will only pay for it in the years down the road.
It is for this reason alone that I support ongoing military action, but only if the military is allowed to do its job without fighting with one arm behind their back. We should deal with the consequences of this action as they arise. Any consequences that do arise are likely to be less of a problem than a global caliphate, which is well on its way to establishment with the creation of Eurabia.
Maybe I am wrong but the clock is ticking and I am not sure we have the luxury of just being able to pull out and hope that things go our way. Sadly I also fear that the political will is such that we will continue down the current path we are on, trying slowly to turn the ummah into some democratic paradise that suits our needs.
Conclusion: We should do the job militarily, which if prosecuted to the full extent of our capabilities should take very little time, if this is not possible then I agree with your premise that a strategic withdrawal and containment could be the only solution but this will in my lowly opinion only lead to eventual victory for the Jihad.
To All:
I have tried to back off from DaveyFreak several times and yet he still attacks and issues false unsupported statements as is the SOP for leftist liberals.
I have no control over what he posts, but only on what I post.
As Shinolite has stated, it is impossible to deal with the Kettle or Pot because they can not see that he is also black. Pot_v._Kettle has some funny spots and also contains meaning.
Enough said about this. DaveyFreak you can continue your triade if you wish.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Yojimbo -- very interesting link to Ferguson's article.
He also states: "Seldom in the annals of US foreign policy has an administration been more guilty of inept execution than this one [bringing "democracy" to Iraq, Afghanistan]..." And while this in part may seem to contradict Gladstone's so-called "third principal", that is to "keep the other powers of the world as far as possible in harmony with one another" I subscribe (hopefully, without sounding too Panglossian) to the idea that the US or someone needed to do exactly as we have done in order to learn exactly what we will learn...
Even if we only conclude that "The theory of a democratic peace [in Islam] is a chimera: give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants", I put forward the idea that such a conclusion is priceless.
What would have been better than the course the US took? Business as usual after 9/11? French wheedling? German blandishments? Brussels appeasement and unfettered UN surrender? Russia's corruption? China's? These paths would have only resulted in a simulacrum of understanding Islam...
I, for one, am thrilled that we took a stick and stuck it into the hornet's nest -- we now witness them for exactly who and what they are. Islam has been "outed".
Or perhaps I am Candide.
"various agendas that have little or nothing to do with the common defense we need to be presenting against the global jihad."
All of us will propose different solutions, depending on our world view. I think as long as this is done calmly and politely, with respect for other people's different proposed solutions,and by giving some useful facts, this can only be beneficial.
Showing different perspectives on this site has many benefits:
1. It shows that a concern about Islamism exists across the political spectrum.
2. It encourages more people to join this movement.
3. It defends one of our most basic purposes: freedom of speech.
4. By discussing many solutions, we are more likely to come up with the right ones.
I don't mind people posting, say, anti-gay comments if they truly think this is related to the topic. I've in the past then just briefly posted pro-gay ones (definitely related to a fear of Islamism) to balance the thread. This is not generally my 'agenda', just the aim of making this site representative of a wide variety of thos opposing Islamism.
----I, for one, am thrilled that we took a stick and stuck it into the hornet's nest -- we now witness them for exactly who and what they are. Islam has been "outed".----
That certainly applies to Afghanistan, a direct link to 9/11 terrorist base.
That does NOT apply to Iraq!
Iraq is in fact a distraction from 'the hornet's nest' and has utterly wasted the men and resources on NOTHING that should have been used to fight back after 9/11.
And that is all down to Bush because 1) he had a personal family beef with Saddam after the first Gulf War.
and 2) he's a deluded fantasist who makes decisions after discussing thaings with God!!
IF Bush truly wanted to fight the correct fight after 9/11 and enter the RIGHT 'hornet's nest' he would have invaded Saudi where almost all the 9/11 scum came from!!!
And YOU, ME and all of us who are honest...know that!
Like I said Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam!
Yes, Lilith. I have written here for the longest time that we don't yet know exactly how to contend with what I call the "primitive eating machine of Islam". It has shown it's barbaric effectiveness at gobbling up other formerly great world powers -- why not us too?
Why not? Perhaps because democracy and freedom of speech truly are best! What a notion! But I believe in it. That includes the right to say absurd things, but then be excoriated in the public arena if I have said something stupid or ignorant or altogether false. Sometimes here the posters just talk at each other (just like in real life -- go figure) and generally such empty bloviation leads no where. But persons certainly have that scroll wheel -- and no one has yet abridged their index finger or their mouse...
I am also convinced that we don't yet have the answer to counter EFFECTIVELY against the forementioned eating machine -- It's deft at turning our strengths into weaknesses if we allow it -- it's deft at duping the dupable, and it's deft at acting with complete barbarity and ruthlessness to acheive its goals. I have also compared it to an infestation of sea urchins on a vibrant reef -- the reef simply can't fight back -- the urchins eat and eat and eat until the reef simply disappears -- as Byzantium did, as Persian did, as so many others did under Islam...
But we are not Persia. We are not Byzantium. And I am convinced that, in the end, Islam will be defeated, and we will be the ones to do this signal service for all humanity. How? Don't know yet. But we're working on it...
Naseem, I am very impressed with your ignorance. Please allow me to correct some of the misconceptions you have aquired. The Q'uran abounds with innaccuracies, from the "sun sets in a muddy pool" to saying that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and the He did not prophesy His own death on the cross or His resurrection from the dead. You call Mohammed a prophet, yet there is not one single prophecy in the Q'uran to prove him a prophet. If Jesus Christ was wrong in any of His prophecies, then the Q'uran is wrong to call him a prophet. The only place you will find first hand, eye witness accounts of what Jesus Christ said is in the bible.
The major flap over the cartoons was caused by Danish Imams who lied and took cartoons that never appeared in the Danish press and circulated them with the ones that did in the Islamic world simply to arouse trouble. Muslims seem to have no problem with cartoons showing Bush to be a Nazi, a dog, Jews as pigs, etc. As for inbreeding, 7 out of 10 of the countries with the highest percentage of birth defects per capita in teh world are Muslim nations where marriages among relatives are often arranged between families. This accounts for at least 20% of known birth defects in those nations. No Muslim nations have freedom of press, freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Despite what the Q'uran says about Muslims being superior, every Muslim nation, even those with vast incomes from huge oil reserves, is a third world country compared to the living standards in the West. All the technilogical advances of the last 200+ years (airplanes, radar, telephone, radio, television, computers, airconditioning, automobiles, all mechanical, electrical, medical, scientific, etc.) were made by Western civilization, not one single one of note came from any Muslim nation. Make of that what you will, but I see no evidence of Muslim "superiority".
There are no "Confederate" states in America. The Confederacy was defeated and ceased to exist in 1865, when America abolished slavery. In Arabic teh word "abeed" means both "slave"and "black". Muslim nations like Sudan, Senegal and Mauritania (and possibly Saudi Arabia and others) still have slavery, and see nothing wrong with it because Mohammed had slaves.
I know of many Muslims in America who own guns, not just people in "Confederate" states. People everywhere own guns in America. If there is distrust here for Muslims, it is because Muslims steered planes into buildings on 911 yelling "allah akbar", and because of the 4,000+ attacks that have been made by Muslims against Westerners and Christians in other countries since that day. It was not Christians burning, looting and killing in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain and France recently. Christians did not bomb trains in Spain or busses in England. The bible does not command us to murder to make converts as the Q'uran commands Muslims to do. Unlike Muslim nations, we have laws that treat all our citizens as equals, and that includes women and people of color. I also personally know several Muslims who converted to Christianity because the claims in the Q'uran and the hadith could not stand up to the truth. You are partially correct that Muslims will be judged by Jesus Christ. ALL people will be judged by Him, not just Muslims, and the question you will have to answer when you see Him face to face and look at the wounds in his hands, feet and side, is "Why did you reject Me?"
As for Muslims ruling the world one day, read the book of Revelation about what happens in the battle of Armegeddon. That is real prophecy.
"What I am advocating is that we press the advantage that we have so far won and lance Iran and Saudi Arabia like the festering boils that they are."
-- from a posting above
The American misallocation of resources in Iraq, and a policy toward Iran that is inhibited by fear of retaliation, either directly from Iran, or from Iranian agents in Iraq, or by Iranian-connected Iraqis, against American soldiers now in Iraq, is not an "advantage" to be pressed.
You mention Iran and Saudi Arabia. These are the two countries that have benefited the most from the removal of their enemy, Saddam Hussein. He went to war against Iran. He threatened war against Saudi Arabia, and had he digested Kuwait, might some day have declared it. It is important that both Iran and Saudi Arabia not be permitted to retain whatever enhanced security that the removal of Saddam Hussein gave them.
How to undo it? Let the Sunni-Shi'a split within Iraq end in outside aid, for both Sunnis (largely from Saudi Arabia, but with Egypt and Syria and Jordan contributing volunteers) within Iraq, and for Shi'a. Men, money, materiel,let into Iraq in a proxy war, just as the war in the Yemen in the late 1960s was a proxy war between the horrible Saudi regime, and the horrible regime of Nasser -- and both were kept occupied, and to some degree drained, as a result.
There is no "boil to be lanced." The metaphor does not apply to Islam, and the tenets of Islam. There is nothing to be taken care of at one fell swoop. Rather, many decades of the Infidels refusing to concede, refusing to yield, and taking measures to secure their own lands, and to do nothing to remedy or amerliorate the situation in lands under Islam, so that Muslims themselves will ultimately be forced to confront the connection between the tenets and attitdues that Islam inculcates or promotes, and the political despotism, economic paralysis, social and intellecutal stagnation, that characterize the Muslim countries, and that arises out of those tenets, and those attitudes.
What is wrong with the Muslim peoples and polities is -- Islam. The more this is realized, first by Infidels, and then by the more advanced Muslims, the better for us. And in the end possibly the better for Muslims. For who, if he were genuinely wishing Muslims well, would not wish for them one thing -- less Islam?
I’m not saying this to be mean Lulu. I enjoy your posts. I ask only that you open your mind a little.
Posted by: butterfly [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 10:15 AM
l do not take it that Butterfly, l grew up with a large family, five older brothers one older sister, and l remember very heated discusions at diner time , yeah you guessed, politics, religions.. so that is how l learned to fight back.. lol..
I think many write off Bush as stupid, but he knows by introducing democracy in the middle east, "it will destroy islam" as it is now. the two dont mix. so they have to reform, or we will destroy their religion... sell them BigMacs for a start.. bring in Wal Marts,..throw in some Rock Bands, Rap music and the best of all the sins.. some real good Jazz!
l forgot about Country Western, but that would get them going and we dont need that.. no we destroy Islam with Western values of democracy, freedom, education, literacy, especially for women. they will fight to learn and throw their bourqa's off at the immans..you will see it soon in Iran! they are fed up with the culture of death.. just needs a litte more help from friends! lol..
l am still kind of guess Robert's statement on this romantic stuff..cant find this out.. maybe it
is that we are trying to find what Hugh looks like? LOL..
Awww, BS. I think Christianity should be not only allowed here, it should be pushed here. muslims should be shown the marked difference between islam and Christianity at every turn. Also if you don't believe in God, so what? Is reading something that a Christian writes going to cause you permanent injury? Are you that vulnerable? Just scroll on by......
DaveyFreak quotes the following:
"Like I said Iraq is in fact a perfect example of the damage hardline Christianity does to the fight against Islam"!
Your comment is a classic example of using the fight against Islamic terrorism, as an excuse to rant against Christianity. I'm sure those Muslims who suffered under Saddam disagree with your sentiments, for obvious reasons.
The fact is, extreme Islamism is against everyone, be they Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, Hindu and Aethiests...et al.
Your blindness to the truth in your hate of a particular religion, merely looks extremely foolish and completely misses the point of the issue of Islamic terrorism and extremism.
If we succeed in triggering an antidote to Islamic totalitarianism in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will be a success. If we fail to, and in so failing, lose all desire to ever attempt to do it again, now understanding the impossiblity of such an endeavor, it will be a success.
Either way -- when Muslims decided to attack with such vicous abandon across the globe and particularly in NY on that day, when they decided to throw the gauntlet down against the rest of the world, thinking it was time, not knowing that perhaps it was a decade or two early, on the day when they took us on, the day they put their putrid dreams in motion, they also sealed their doom.
IF Bush truly wanted to fight the correct fight after 9/11 and enter the RIGHT 'hornet's nest' he would have invaded Saudi where almost all the 9/11 scum came from!!!
And YOU, ME and all of us who are honest...know that!
Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 5, 2006 03:57 PM
This should indeed be the final goal, the toppling of Islam from within its power base i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we should keep in mind that it is easy to say this, it is another to carry it out logistically. Degradation of and taking of Iraq I believe was a necessary step in the strategy to tackle Islam.
The only issue now is can we use the strategic advantage we have gained. I am predicting that Israel will not sit by and let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. They will strike in the next few weeks, which will force Iran to retaliate we can then use this as a pretext to toppling the Iranian regime from bases with in Iraq and Afghanistan. Initiation of hostilities by the Israelis will cause other fundamentally Islamist countries to ally them selves against the attack against the umma, which will open them up militarily as well.
Be patient DaveyFreak the Saudis time is coming if we can maintain the will to stick out the fight.
And for the record, Lulu, you're worst sin in my opinion was blaming 9/11 on America, as you did in another thread. It's that kind of swill which, if posted, must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms. It was done because you took such umbrage at a few posters saying "Shame on Canada" for advocating that terror sympathizing book. I reiterate -- Shame on Canada! And shame on Lulu for uttering her sewage.
(should she be banned? No. Let her utter such things, and be known for her thoughts on the subject)
I've always agreed with the idea that If something offends you, your beliefs must not be very strong. However I am learning today that there is a substantial difference between being offended and Defending, and being offended and attacking.
Texican is providing a good example of the West, Defending.
Davey is providing a good example of.... well. Look at the hysterics in the Cartoon Jihad.
Bohemond_1069 wrote:
"As for Muslims ruling the world one day, read the book of Revelation about what happens in the battle of Armegeddon. That is real prophecy."
In Norse mythology the end of the world is described to be a winter so cold that it kills all life, the Fimbul winter. I the Bible the world perishes in flames. This sort of gives you an idea about where on the planet the peopel who make up these end-of-the-world fantasies, lived.
"Thread akhbar!" (this thread is great)
I look forward to an unpublished essay on the letter "k" (by the sinologist Nancy Berliner) being -- published.
jsla, I NEVER BLAMED THE U.S. ON 9-11! what said about blame Canada, that post, was that Clinton , and his cohorts blamed US and Western policy on Arab aggression.. AGAIN I DID NOT BLAME THE U.S. I have always been pro WEst, pro U.S./ you dont like my post, just scrool OFF!
jsla
"What would have been better than the course the US took?"
I don't know I'd disagree. And Ferguson didn't either, of course:
"It was a good thing to try to bring freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq, not only for the sake of American security but for the sakes of their inhabitants as well. It was, and remains, correct that pre-emptive action is legitimate where a serious threat to American security is perceived (even if it turns out that the perception was wrong)."
Furthermore, a first peek at these untranslated papers that the Weekly Standard has been banging on about apparently shows that some 10,000 terrorists passed through training camps in Iraq. So much for the comfortable myth that Saddam was a "hardline secularist" who would have nothing to do with the jihad. What was that if not a "serious threat to American security"? To say nothing of everyone else's - even of those anti-Americans who like to indulge in "making mock of uniforms that guard you as you sleep".
And who would be truly surprised if it turned out that Saddam did have WMDs and had shipped them out - likely to Syria - in the long build-up while everyone dragged their feet for a year in the UN?
Of course, if the US had neutralized Saddam and then pulled out, it would have taken stick for not attempting reconstruction. At least, as you say, we can all see what we see. To put it another way: Iraq isn't the same as Germany or Japan in 1945 ... which reminds me that in one respect, Gladstone is a bit outdated. Gladstone's theory revolves around nation-states. The problem is not just that Germans and Japanese were not Muslims and Iraqis are, but also that there is this supra-state identity for Muslims, so that you get this situation where jihadists pour into a troublespot like Iraq from all over the globe. Foreign terrorists were not trying to disrupt the reconstruction of Germany or Japan. It's a totally different situation, and anyone who looks clear-sightedly can see that.
I remember reading:
"l stand on the right of most here! you want to know.. what Carter, Gore, Clinton... reasons why 9-11, yeah it was your fault in not so many words! "
Am I misunderstanding something? You seemed so exercised by a few people saying "Shame on Canada" that this was your riposte... There is was in plain black and white... "scrool off" or no...
Thread akhbar!" (this thread is great)
Posted by: jsla [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006
Thread akhbar!" (this thread is great)
Posted by: jsla [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 04:
jsla... l find it funny how you can read something and turn it around, if you read all my other posts.. you would know l have never been anti US.. something must be in the air this weekend..
DaveyFreak --
Agree or not agree with the decision to take the fight to Iraq. There are an amazing multitude of valid points to be made on that issue.
But I fail to see what fundamentalist Christianity has to do with them! I would much rather hear your views on where to go from here. Solid ideas to support the continued freedom of the west.
Chill man. I support your right to be gay, I get that not all Christians do -- but you arent' doing yourself or the anti-Jihad movement any favors to continually harp on fundamentalist Christians. We all need to come together to defeat the threat at the door. If you want to keep on eye on what you consider a possible growing/future threat in fundamentalist Christianity -- do so. But you don't do justice to your own ideas or your own ability to add substance to this resistance by becoming one note.
And, for the record, many great men and woman pray before making decisions. Others meditate or think things over carefully, and really, I believe it comes to pretty much the same thing.
An important pause before getting information and responding to it with action.
Let's all of us try to put aside our other differences, there will be time to work them out later.
jsla [TypeKey Profile Page]
l was paraphrasing what Clinto,Gore and Carter are saying about the cause of Arab aggression... geesh.. are you shane? lol..
There is no "boil to be lanced." The metaphor does not apply to Islam, and the tenets of Islam. There is nothing to be taken care of at one fell swoop. Rather, many decades of the Infidels refusing to concede, refusing to yield, and taking measures to secure their own lands, and to do nothing to remedy or amerliorate the situation in lands under Islam, so that Muslims themselves will ultimately be forced to confront the connection between the tenets and attitdues that Islam inculcates or promotes, and the political despotism, economic paralysis, social and intellecutal stagnation, that characterize the Muslim countries, and that arises out of those tenets, and those attitudes.
Posted by Hugh
Herein lies the problem, I certainly don’t disagree with your as usual eloquent summarizing of the situation and your solution. But and this is a big but, the dawa’s success across Europe is something that has to be taken into account. Do we have the luxury of being able to sit back and hope that Muslims themselves can work out the problems of their own religion in time so that the seat of modern Western civilization is spared from the sword of the caliphate?
I am not sure this is so, had those people who had been warning of the threat of Islam been listened to and the mass demographic change which Europe underwent after the Second World War been stopped we may have been able to use all of your suggestions to great effect. However in reality things are never that simple and we find ourselves in the current situation. Pulling out of Iraq now would be a death blow for Europe it will only empower the already massive Islamic presence to press on with their holy mission. By poking the hornets nest we are slowly but surely revealing the true face of Islam and raising awareness across a slumbering EU. I only hope there is enough time to turn things around.
"If you are interested in defending the West and the ideas of the equality of rights and dignity of all, do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us."
well said Robert.
folks should bear in mind the "liberty and justice for all" part of the U.S. pledge of allegiance is a bit more important than the "one nation under god" part.
for without "liberty and justice for all" you have no free world. end of. period.
jsla, l re-read my post, and you could take it the way you did.. and so l apologize for my mistake. english was not my first language, and even now l sometimes forget some words. and spelling mistakes by writing out e for i, as they are pronounced differnetly for me.
I have blamed the Cdn goverment for their policies on immigrations, our pc environment, and they like the Democrats ie, Kerry, seem so much alike. a little less than half the voting in the US voted for Kerry, and would think Clinton,Gore and Carter are the best. What as Western nations, including Japan need to understand that we are all in this together.. and l dont mind other religions, as a Roman Catholic growing we were thought to respect other relgions, and that is the problem. We cannot make judgements on Islam (in general, as a society)
as we would appear islmophobic,, anti islam that is.
so again my appologies..
Yojimbo -- And the signal lesson of the "Shock and Awe" portion was absorbed across Islam, on some level anyway...
Today Iran seems to loom so large that everyone forgets -- Saddam was the local hegemon. Those Mullah's who take such glee and delight today, whom Hugh thinks we've helped so much have set themselves up like Humpty Dumpty.
Let them believe their triumphalist fantasies -- that America is forever stuck in Iraq. Those terror masters who are, yet once again, buying into such cartoon anti-American concoctions have miscalculated, just as Saddam did.
Just as the 9/11 beasts used our own technology and traits against us in their jihadi jujitsu, we've begun using Islam's technology and traits against themselves. (Terror and fantasist triumphalism and arrogance) We've uncorked from the Jinn of Islamic terrorism right in the middle of their heretofore realtively stable domain. The Islamic tidal wave Ahmadinijad fantasizes so crassly about is true -- but it's not the world which will be subsumed in Islams bloody onslaught, it will be Dar al Islam itself which will fall prey... In this, Hugh's dream of endless internecine Muslim conflict will most likely unfold, not despite US actions in Iraq, but because of it.
And I also think you hit on a great point. This is NOT 1938 again, despite certain similarities. This is altogether new...
For the first time humans live cheek by jowl without the former real and imagined buffer zones... Never before have we encountered this condition as a species. It is new.
In the downside column there also is the horrible fact that never before has so much unprecedented wealth flown into the coffers of Muslim potentates, never before have the technologies and wealth of the world been placed before these serial haters -- never before have they been able to dream so greedily about global Islamic conquests, never before have they wielded the weapons (such as they are) of oil and wealth...
We see how they are like demonic children though... and not just from those tantrums about cartoons. These primitives, these backward desert bumpkins are in it. They're over their smug heads. All of their conniving and all of their supposed wealth are scant indeed if only the rest of the world notices what they're up to...
And they're noticing.
Despite all the confusion, and evidence of stupidity and cravenness on our side -- how can the world NOT notice Islam today?! How can the world NOT notice the repeating patterns of rejectionism, violence, hatred?
We notice.
We're just not quite sure what to do about this querulous beast on our doorstep, licking its chops, blood shot eyes, claws clenching, teeth gnashing...
But we'll figure it out.
jsla: "Even if we only conclude that "The theory of a democratic peace [in Islam] is a chimera: give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants", I put forward the idea that such a conclusion is priceless."
These were my thoughts on a previous thread: "As much as the "Iraq as a light unto the Muslim nations project" has been mocked at this site, one has to admit that the events of the past several years have provided a certain moral clarity, which I don't think would have been possible had we never gone into Iraq in the first place. Obviously there are many, like Robert and Hugh, who understood what Islam is about from the get-go and predicted how the grand democracy project would turn out, but the Iraq war has revealed so very much that could not possibly have been grasped by the vast majority of people had we not gone in there - everything from the brutality of the enemy (the beheadings, the hiding behind women and children and so on), to the direct results of the democratic experiment in the Muslim world, which have made it very clear that they ARE NOT LIKE US. What I think this means, is that should we be forced to take military action in the future to protect ourselves, noone will be under the illusion that the vast majority of Muslims are liberal democrats like us, held hostage to the dictatorial regimes in the region that we have supported. The cost of this realization has been roughly 2,000 American soldiers (yeah, I know, and some big bucks). The value of the lessons learned as we make the inevitable tough decisions that will confront us in the future? Priceless."
Posted by: Caroline [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 28, 2005 05:52 PM
U.S. military in Germany, Japan, S.Korea now over fifty years... could that be still considered for ever?
Lulu,
While I took your post the same way JSLA did, I now understand what you meant. And wow, I never would have guessed that English was a second language for you.
As someone who entirely lacks the gift for other languages, I commend you and am impressed by your facility with English.
:)
OK Lulu --Apology accepted. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification, although it seemed very clear to me when I read it then, and pon re-reading it (yet again just to be sure.) I'll chalk it up to a really unfortunate turn of phrase.
Caroline, l think the experiment with democracy in Japan worked out fine..look how mnay thousands of allied forces died in the WW2, was it worht it? many thought the Japanesse were different from us,and you see how well they have adapted to democracy. l do still believe the Chinese will become democratic, altough slower paced. l do think
Muslims can conform but the road is rough, and unfortunately many lives will be lost. which is the best way, is the question.
Islam cannot be reformed. The only hope is an Islamic Enlightenment.
More news from the front lines in the battle with Islam:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060304/w030454.html
Canadian soldier attacked during meeting with Afghan elders north of Kandahar
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Militants tossing a grenade and firing small arms attacked Canadian soldiers at a meeting with Afghan village elders Saturday but it was a lone man wielding an axe who caused the serious casualty among Canadians.
Lieut. Trevor Greene of Vancouver sat down for a meeting with village elders Saturday afternoon when a man suddenly struck him with an axe.
"He came out of the crowd and pulled out an axe from underneath his clothing and lifted it above his head standing right behind Trevor," said Capt. Kevin Schamuhn, the platoon commander who was sitting at Greene's side.
"The guy lifted up the axe and cried out the 'Allah Akbar,' the jihad prayer before they commit suicide. And he swung the axe into Trevor's head."
Schamuhn and two other soldiers each fired a volley into the attacker, killing him instantly.
A melee ensued, with local residents running in every direction and more attackers firing small arms from across a river.
Canadian and Afghan soldiers fired their own assault rifles and the Afghans added rocket-propelled grenades.
Moments later, another insurgent threw a grenade at Canadian and Afghan forces. The grenade exploded harmlessly a distance away. Soldiers returned fire at the man. They believe the man was wounded but he escaped.
The meeting was one in a series for the platoon based at a forward staging camp about 60 kilometres north of Kandahar.
Greene, Schamuhn and a security detail were meeting with local elders to talk about possible reconstruction projects when the attack took place.
The two officers removed their helmets and set down their arms as a gesture of trust for elders who traditionally guarantee security at such meetings, known as shura.
"We were completely vulnerable to them and they took complete advantage of that," Schamuhn said.
Greene was evacuated by U.S. Blackhawk helicopter to the Canadian hospital at Kandahar Airfield. He emerged from surgery Saturday afternoon and remains in serious but stable condition.
"We would classify it is absolutely cowardly, a maniac I guess is safe to say," said Col. Tom Putt, the deputy commander of Canadian forces in Afghanistan.
The soldiers are camped out at a forward operating base near Gumbad, north of Kandahar, a hotbed of anti-government activity. The small encampment surrounded by farmers' fields had previously come under rocket attack and several U.S. soldiers died in the area last year.
"The area in question has been one of the transit routes for some time for the Taliban," Putt said.
Greene, a reservist with the Seaforth Highlanders, is an author and journalist based in Vancouver. He has written a book about the missing women of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and also co-wrote Closing Bigger: The Field Guide to Closing Bigger Deals with Shane Gibson.
"Trevor is a talented author, an amazing dad and partner, the kind of person you can count on always," Gibson said in a statement.
"He is deeply committed to protecting and preserving the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians...keeping in the strictest confidence the nature of his military responsibilities and past experiences while serving our country," Gibson said.
A journalism graduate of the University of King's College in Halifax, Greene, speaks three languages.
Upon graduation, he spent seven years in Japan, working for the Tokyo bureau of Bloomberg News and Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
He went on to write a book about Japan's homeless and then worked as a research editor with the securities branch of a U.K. investment bank.
Greene returned to Canada in 1995 to join the navy.
After settling in Vancouver and transferring to the army reserves, Greene joined the Vancouver bureau of Bloomberg News as a general-assignment reporter on business and finance in Canada and Asia.
It's the second injury in Afghanistan for Greene, who suffered whiplash in February when his convoy was struck by a roadside bomb.
Schamuhn said he was impressed by Greene's conviction that the army could help the Afghan people.
The attack came as Canadian troops face increasing danger in the restive Kandahar region, including four in the last week alone.
Five Canadians were wounded in a suicide bombing Friday, one seriously.
Master Cpl. Michael Loewen will need major reconstructive surgery to save his arm but he will survive, a surgeon said.
Loewen was on his way Friday night to the U.S. combat casualty hospital at Landstuhl, Germany.
Four others had minor wounds and will be allowed to return to duty.
Cpl. Paul Davis died in a roadside accident Thursday. A suicide bomb killed Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry six weeks ago.
Two Canadians have died and at least 21 have been injured in action and accidents this year, as the Canadian military ramped up its small presence in Afghanistan to about 2,200 troops.
© The Canadian Press, 2006
Wow - Caroline -- I really didn't see that post --unless i absorbed it unwittingly! But spot on!
How fantastic if, in the future, if necessity warrants it, we just do what we need for the slapdown, and then go about our merry day. No more reconstruction of Mosques -- no more hundreds of billions to repair their sewer cultures or their cesspool govenrments or their garbage heap infrastructures -- It will be clear to one and all -- That's the way the Muslims want it -- and even when given the chance for something better, in the end that's the way the Muslims will always make it come out.. Broken. Failed. Hopeless. Destroyed.
Not our fault. Never was. Not our responsibility. Never was.
No matter how much money and blood and good intentions you pour into their Islamic wasteland, we would conclude that, in the end, there will always be Islam, the antithesis of good intentions.
jsla: "we would conclude that, in the end, there will always be Islam, the antithesis of good intentions."
I'm down with that conclusion. Also, I realize I needn't post here anymore. I'll just follow around after you and say - "Yeah - what he said!" :-)
Why has America not seen the truth about Islamic terror?
The PC in America has grown by leaps and bounds because every one in politics, in the government service and out in the public, does not want to be labeled as anti-whatever.
Middle Class American just wants to be left alone so they can work each day, go home, eat, watch TV and take their 10 days of vacation each year. This is the American way of life. No difference prior to WWII.
Ever sit in a jury room waiting to be selected for a jury? What attitude did you get from your fellow Americans having to do their public service? How few did not considered jury duty to be an interruption to their life?
The furor over 9/11 has acquiesced due to lack of continued input by the MSM.
MSN can but won’t inform Americans about Islam. How many of the major MSM networks and newspapers posted the Danish cartoons?
Why does the federal government always play down the riots and murders by Muslim? So America does not rise up against Islam??
Whose security is the American government really protecting??
An inadequately informed or miss informed populace can not adequately protect itself or force its government to protect it.
To defeat Islamic terror and win this war, America has to be awakened to the threat by Islamic terror.
How do we do awaken America???
The Texican,
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
I had been thinking of myself as undeceived, Caroline, but really I had no idea until I actually read Politically Incorrect Guide of the depth and extent of the problem.
For example, a few weeks ago BBC Radio 4 ran a programme on the Abbasid Caliphs (part of the In Our Time series with Melvyn Bragg) and Mr. Bragg said that he particularly wanted to establish that there was "tolerance" under their rule. Now, I wouldn't say that the three experts he had in the studio didn't make the point that it was not tolerance as we would understand it today, but you came away with the impression that it really wasn't so bad. And they didn't make the point that it could hardly be so - not because it wasn't "today' then, but because Islam is a supremacist ideology.
You get the same thing with Bernard Lewis. Sometimes he is startlingly blunt about Islam, but often he's fairly soothing.
It wasn't until I read Roberts's book that I found out that the dhimma was actually pretty harsh, that it may not always have been enforced, but also that far worse might occur under a capricious ruler. I hadn't been familiar with the long-drawn out persecution of the Zoroastrians and had known nothing of the Assyrian Church.
Who does know these things? The French Prime Minister actually spoke in the Assembly of Saladin "liberating" Jerusalem. How ignorant is that!
Relevant to my earlier points, from the Sunday Times today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2763-2070420,00.html
km,
But and this is a big but, the dawa’s success across Europe is something that has to be taken into account. Do we have the luxury of being able to sit back and hope that Muslims themselves can work out the problems of their own religion in time so that the seat of modern Western civilization is spared from the sword of the caliphate?
Given media, government, and academia, as they are?
I think we have two years or so. Islam is already privileged, enjoys special freedoms, and best of all gets to let off steam (a bit like a volcano) at our expense.
The exchanges I have with college and law students on the Internet fill me with dread for the future of freedom.
How do we do awaken America???
When we see France fall to Islam, when the see the Louvre and Notre Dame destroyed and an evacuation that makes the fall of Saigon look like a day in the park, we will wake up then. The Western, civilized world will wake up then. Unless of course the Arabs have bought us out... that couldn't happen, could it?
My kids are under five, and as soon as they are all old enough to appreciate art, I am taking them to France before it goes the way of Lebanon, Malaysia, and northern Nigeria. Most likely Ethiopia will be the next nation to leave the civilized world and revert to cave-man times, and it will be a great loss to the world.
But not like the loss of France. Right now, 1/3 of all children born in France are Muslims. Consider the fact that civilized humans usually have small families and fools usually have as many children as possible.
Figure out what that demographic make-up of France will be in 2026... it's easy to see that the republic of France, and it's "Equality, Fraternity, Liberty" will not see it's 250th anniversary, in 2039. By then it will be a third-world hellhole with about as much clout as Algeria and Lebanon now. The children of Voltaire, those that don't convert and do survive, that is, will relocate to Israel, England, Canada, America...probably by then Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg will be battling their own "clash of civilizations" problems and not want to take anyone else in.
We already know HOW it will end, we just aren't sure what the date is going to be yet. But if anyone wants to visit France, I would suggest that you do so within the next 5-10 years.
I hope this doesn't get me banned. I am not trying to insult Muslims, or France. But given current demographic trends, and historical examples, I don't see it going any other way.
kj
fanorollins@yahoo.com
Assalama Laikum all,
I remember reading a hadith somewhere which in essense said "tell your opponent what is coming...inform them as best as you can....educate them truthfully ...and then defeat them ... they love it....they saw it coming but because they were educated ...that made it alright.
Yeaaas... this is where we are...the crusader no longer has the strength of faith that carried him before, he is distracted and that makes him weak and vunerable.
So I have followed this hadith....you now know that you are weak in faith...and distracted
and eh.... welcome to eurabia.... you sit there & discuss it....but live it.
peace
Hey Naseem,
The fanatical moron's in your religion have certainly educated us, with their penchant for bloodlust and torture.
You may think we are weak, good for you. I wouldn't go taking bets on that however, oh; you can't gamble can you?
That's just as well, as you'll lose in every way.
Talk about having an inflated ego, it'll be a pleasure watching it deflate.
Naseem,
If you take so much stock in what has been written in a book to foretell the future, then I suggest you read Nostradamus to see where your part of the world is heading.
kj, there is Never any reason you should be banned. You are too much fun :P
The exchanges I have with college and law students on the Internet fill me with dread for the future of freedom.
Posted by: Beagle at March 5, 2006 05:56 PM
I agree Beagle, academia is in a sorry state. All we can do is keep debating with them, so eventually a few will see the error of their ways.
I have said before that posting on this site is a kin to preaching to the choir. Instead of posting here we should be challenging the moonbats on websites that encourage the Islamist 5th column and quislings in our midst.
Keep up the exchanges my good man.
And Naseem it works both ways we have given you savages plenty of warning about whats comming so when your fantasy world starts crumbling in a hail of DU shells, hellfire missiles and the roar of Apache rotor blades dont say we didnt warn you.
By the deterioration of grammar, spelling, and tone, I'd say the third-shift "Naseem" has clocked in for the evening.
By the deterioration of grammar, spelling, and tone, I'd say the third-shift "Naseem" has clocked in for the evening.
Posted by: Shinoliite at March 5, 2006 06:19 PM
LOL
I love it though when they are here, nothing like taking a good close look at the monkeys mind set to keep things in perspective.
Re "Johnny One Note" Jihad and "Johnny One Note" JihadWatch
The value of Jihad Watch is in the necessity of pointing out the "Islamist" (from the recent Manifesto) dimension of a world conflict that involves the killing of Infidels, and the desire to impose Koranic law on non-Moslems by a significant number of Moslems. The leaders of the U.S. and much of the world would greatly benefit from seeing Jihad reality (in their own words!) by visiting this site.
Though there are other dimensions of the conflict (particularly in what Zbigniew Brzezinski has called the "Eurasian Balkans'), including oil, ethnic clashes, sectarian clashes, and the imperial ambitions of Russia, China, Iran, and even Turkey in the "Eurasian Balkans", Jihad appears to be the glue that Persia-Iran hopes to use to establish Iranian dominance in the region. (However, even in Iran, which is relatively more stable than many countries in the region, only 51% of the population are Persian, and the Aryans rule with an imperial sense over the rest of the population: Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%.)
The "Eurasian Balkans" are so unstable that it is in the interests of the world (ASAP) to invent alternative energy. All problems that emanate from the "Eurasian Balkans" will be contained when that happens. We must do everything we can to make that (alternative energy) happen as soon as possible via an "Energy Manhattan Project."
Meanwhile, Jihad Watch must stay on point re the "Islamist" dimension of the region's instability (and it's wordwide impact) because Jihad is not given enough attention in the general media- which is still too PC to face reality on the issue. The narrowness of JihadWatch is healthy because it creates a forum for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions on the matter.
Finally, I note that Mr. Fitz believes that the Bush Administration is "hallucinatory" in the belief that Western style parliamentary democracy will bring stability to the region. He is absolutely right on that.
The way out of the region is an "Energy Manhattan Project." We must all become "Johnny One Notes" on that.
--------olks should bear in mind the "liberty and justice for all" part of the U.S. pledge of allegiance is a bit more important than the "one nation under god" part.
for without "liberty and justice for all" you have no free world. end of. period.---------
Exactly! And "Liberty and Freedom" have nothing to do with the "God" part. Those fine ideals are seperate from "God" and people don't need to be part of Baptist bolloz to believe in them and fight for them.
I agree completely with the remarks about France. It is indeed a sign of the future of Eurpe unless we fight back effectively against the Islamic threat.
Islamists basically shit on what The West gives them.
The rioters in France recently were mostly Islamic freaks burning the country that gave them safe haven and a better life than they have ever had (OR ELSE WHY GO THERE!?) purely because they decided that the country had not given them ENOUGH!
Disgraceful.
But yet again the PC brigade came to the defense of these people because they happened to be an ethnic minority! The ultimate shield Islam has is that anyone who fights them is called a 'racist'!
Despite 'Muslim' not even being a race!
One of the scum that attacked London came to the UK as a child when we gave him a place of safety from his war-torn African home!! And WHAT is the thanks we get? British corpses in Britain's capital!
And even then PC idiots and hippies were having measure to combat such scum watered down!
I fear we will indeed have to learn the hard way.
Robert,
During the recent cartoon imbroglio, we saw our mainstream media argue that, in order not to offend muslims and to maintain harmony with them and to not be provocative, they refrained from using certain cartoons in their 'speech'. In doing so, they tacitly acknowledged that the cartoons were indeed offensive.
You resoundingly derided such a tact and rightfully claimed that we should ALL stand up for the right to say what it is that we want to say. Free speech included the right to offend. You recently returned for a conference in support of this right.
Today I visit this site to learn that the term 'Muzzie' has been banned for fear of offending muslims. How soon we forget..
In the name of not being offensive, you've backhandedly empowered muslims from this point forward because when they encounter the term 'muzzie', they'll claim to be offended. God knows how they over-react. And how are the infidels going to say that the term is NOT offensive when the muslims will argue that even the noted islamophobe, Robert Spencer, has banned it's use from his own website!
I won't thank you for empowering the islamists that much further; ableit one word at a time. Nor for agreeing with the proposition that free speech does not mean the right to offend muslims.
Good day..
Mahdi.
Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at March 5, 2006 06:49 PM
I couldn’t agree more, but in Roberts’s defense he is standing in the front line and we should do our level best to ensure that he doesn’t take hits from the Islamonazis and their quislings. There is a similar policy in terms of discussing Europe’s extreme right wing parties.
I use the term Muzzie my self and often discuss the legitimacy of using the far right as a means to confront them. But we should be aware of the negative impact this can have for this very important website.
Kudos to you though Mardi for raising this obvious and important contradiction and how it leads more to the empowerment of the very people we are trying to stop. What a tricky road this counter jihad is.
"...and I am against mass deportations on principle, as well as because I have Muslim friends and anyone who wants to mess with them will have me to deal with. If you want reasons why mass deportations are wrong, I will give them, but I am against them right from the gut..."
From a 'Paolo' above.
You have Muslim 'friends?' I sure hope you know what the Koran sez about that.
And you might be well advised to get out of the way once the deportations begin, for people like yourself will get hurt.
What are you suggesting anyhow? That we lay down and submit to Islam? That we allow them to outbreed us, slowly? That we allow the inevitable Balkanization of Europe?
Surely you don't believe that you can forcibly convert them to whatever you believe, but you sure sound like it...
Mahdi,
I repeat: If you are interested in defending the West and the ideas of the equality of rights and dignity of all, do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mahdi-
I find the word "Muzzie" to be too vague a play on "Nazi" to make its point as strongly as it should.
And lends itself to being used sloppily by those afflicted with momentary pique and not savage intensity.
And tends to alienate those among the uninitiated (to the violent and intolerant dogmas that guide Islamic Imperialism) who don't like 'cheap shots' that glibly bring to mind other mere unthinking insults like "niggers", "kikes", etc.
One shoots oneself in the foot by slinging cheezy insults at the Muslim Juggernaut when this enemy deserves both intellectual and vituperative barrels.
I wouldn't ban it, but those tempted to hurl it should realize that it is a weak slur and a potential propaganda boomerang.
"Muzzie" is like a waterpistol.
I prefer -and recommend- a flame-thrower.
Re: the Benes decree
Many Germans in Eastern Europe were rounded up and forcefully removed from their communities by the communists and their Soviet overlords after WWII. Decree or no decree. Most of the people I've heard about or known were transported to the Soviet Union, to its many gulags, to Siberia, to god-forsaken places where they left their bones to enrich the barren Arctic soil.
One guy I know, a survivor of the Soviet exile, was a Nazi sympathiser in his youth. He's now in his late 70's, crippled but enjoying the full benefits of a German citizenship in Ms. Merkel's
land, citizenship bestowed on him and his family as an inalienable right by West Germany as reparation for the Soviet exile.
He has no regrets or nightmares. He's fine.
Exactly, we should not leave them any ammunition. Robert does not need any headaches over the likes of C-A-I-R et al trying to make mileage out of some juvenile or ill-chosen words in the comments section.
Mentat,
Thanks for posting that. I guess an axe into the head of one of our soldiers by someone yelling Allahu Akbar! can be properly classified as jihadic activity. Note that this was purely an unprovoked attack on the soldier, who was meeting with village elders. The attacker lunged in, knowing he would surely be gunned down in seconds after he'd swung the axe. This kamikaze-style attack sounds like something straight out of the Hadith.
"Comments referring to "Muzzies," advocating genocide, or making broad-brush characterizations about Muslims or anyone else will be deleted if seen ..."
Broad brush characterizations about Muslims?
Is there a distinction between them and the ideology of islam? Should we then draw a distinction between say, skin-heads and neo-nazis and the ideolgy that bears their name/
Can anything critical be said and if so exactly what are the boundaries?
" ... do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us."
Just by virtue of the fact that this site exists is ammunition with which they can try to discredit you; because you say you are not islamic yourselves -- your enemies will automatically discredit anything you offer as an insight into islam.
After all, they will argue, you have taken the original arabic language out of context -- you know the drill.
Regarding personal agendas -- I've never met anyone, anywhere, that did not have a personal agenda of some kind.
So then, one wonders "what is up?"
To everyone's credit -- things have toned down a great deal -- I dare say, most everyone is civil for the most part.
But, I suppose it is all part of the human drama and for your part I believe you offer a great service for the sharing of ideas -- over the top -- or not.
Therefore, thank you.
Archimedes:
Someone close to me accused me of being a hate-monger just because I pointed out this article. It reminded me of Robert's comment about the Dutch politician who would not read the Qur'an because she did not want to be further prejudiced against Islam. The insane people are far too close to running the asylum in my opinion. Fact based reasoning better make a come back soon or we are all doomed. Why is Platonic reasoning (start with the theory and make the facts fit the theory) so attractive to people when compared with Aristotelian logic (start with the facts, base your theory on them, if the facts change, change your theory)? Where are the Ben Franklins, the David Humes of this age? Is no one capable of holding two contradictory thoughts in their head at one time anymore? I gotta admit I am getting a little pessimistic for the human species. You'd think after we invented the printing press we would have become a little smarter by now.
witness: "So then, one wonders "what is up?""
It's my assumption that a few people who don't understand how to work the scroll buttons on their mouses (mice?), sent complaining emails to Mr Spencer.
Yojimbo: “Who does know these things? The French Prime Minister actually spoke in the Assembly of Saladin "liberating" Jerusalem. How ignorant is that!”
One of the truly bizarre things to contemplate is how it has come to be that the west is so amazingly ignorant about its longstanding mortal enemy. How come so many of us knew nothing about Islam at all until we went looking for the truth ourselves on the internet after 9/11? Why is the president and his administration so ignorant even now? Why does it take an epidemiologist (I think that’s what Bostom is) to go hunting and compile a comprehensive history of jihad?. I remember a thread about the Pope and how we were all excited that the Pope apparently “gets” Islam. What would be even MORE bizarre, though, would be if the Pope DIDN’T “get” Islam! The Pope of all people? Can you imagine? How come so many Israeli’s didn’t seem to know that they were the target of a jihad and have seemed to mistake this for a localized conflict? Why didn’t the European elites realize what they were doing when they let the Trojan Horse in? How come all of this? It’s bizarre. It can’t all be laid at the feet of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito and their ilk. The ignorance is too widespread to account for it that way. I'm not even sure that "political correctness" can entirely account for it because that’s only been a truly dominant force in say the past 20 years. So what accounts for the fact that the truth about Islam wasn’t widely taught in the west back in say the 1960’s? What accounts for the ignorance of the European elites when they formulated the Eurabian project? Was it widely understood what was really going on when Israel was attacked in 1967? I don’t get it.
Caroline:
I agree. It is mystifying.
If the Muslims have their way, the whole world will be subject to internet censorship regarding their religion. Then, we will be reduced to being like the Russians in the old Soviet Union, meeting secretly in each others' houses and passing samizdat pamphlets to each other. I agree. What is the matter with people? The blind are leading the blind.
Yojimbo
I'm with you. Tequilla yes, sharia no, gin fizz, gin tonic, everything gin, including my favorite game, gin rummy, yes, jizyiah no, jihab no, G-string yes, Jumarats no, jazz yes, jinns no, Jews yes and yes yes yes oh yes yes (channeling Molly Bloom )
Jews forever
Mentat - I can't think of a single "conspiracy theory" I've ever subscribed to but I am beginning to wonder if Islam isn't the greatest "conspiracy" even perpetrated upon the human race.
Definition of conspiracy in my New World Dictionary: "a planning and acting together secretly, esp for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason."
One only needs to consider what goes on in the mosques - e.g. the post about the undercover tape at the Czech mosque at DW - to question whether this isn't an accurate description of Islam.
And the REALLY ironic thing, is that the folks like those at Democratic Underground, who see conspiracy theories everywhere (the US caused the tsunami through deep sea nuclear testing, e.g.) would never dream of suspecting such a thing about Islam. And so, going out on a real limb here, I am beginning to wonder how long and patiently Islam has actually laid the groundwork for this silence about Islam in the west. There's basically been a virtual information blackout for a very long time.
Naseem,
I'm not going to argue with you. I wish I could disagree with what you just said, but honestly, I can't.
So, I just want to ask you one question.
When your co-religionists destroy the edifice of technology, secularism, and freedom we've managed to build over hundreds of years, will your life actually be better?
You know, without modern medicine, technology, and all the other 'meaningless' trappings of our secular 'crusader' culture?
The so-called progressive Left is so invested in its propaganda, they don't seem to realize everyone is one sentence and a trip to the local mosque away from changing sides.
Has there ever been another war where one could join the enemy in less time than it takes to buy milk at a convenience store?
Oh, and the best part, no penalty, but advantages to doing so?
ovidius_naso - I am prepared to entertain the distinct possibility that you are PUI - "posting under the influence". (Which of course is no problem as there is no possibility of causing a fatal accident in this (internet) traffic). :-)
Beagle: "Naseem, I'm not going to argue with you. I wish I could disagree with what you just said, but honestly, I can't."
I can.
Naseem: "the crusader no longer has the strength of faith that carried him before, he is distracted and that makes him weak and vunerable."
No, the "crusader" is civilized and humane and Naseem mistakes that for weakness. Admittedly, these virtues do hamper our ability to fight against uncivilized barbarians. But human decency (something which Naseem doesn't understand, despite her superficial appending of the word "peace" at the end of her posts) is not the same as "weakness".
I am confident that as more and more westerners are brought into the dialogue as they come to understand what Islam is all about, collectively we will do what needs to be done and it will be the most humane course of action, among the available alternatives. (Already, more and more people are acknowledging that we need to limit Muslim immigration to the west, for example). Because there isn't anything at all "decent" whatsoever, about passively permitting human civilization to slip back into 7th century barbarity.
Caroline:
Yes. I do not understand the thought processes over there at DU and Daily KOS. I don't know why conspiracy theories are so attractive to those people. The bottom line is that the world is far too complex for anyone country, organization or group of people to control in any circumstance. And besides that, it is literally being torn down and recreated person by person as one person dies and new ones are born. I guess that is one problem with people is that you spend your whole life to gain a little wisdom and then you up and die. If we had two hundred or three hundred year life spans, that might make a real difference.
ovidus_naso-
You forgot one of the nicest uses of the distillate of juniper spirits: the gimlet. (Also shaken, not stirred.)
Three of these and you'll want to rotate around the Ka'aba. Or an ottoman. (By that point, I can never tell the diff.)
Zam-zam water, optional.
Freedom.
What is the worse thing that can happen to you if you are found guilty of demeaning or inciting a riot or terrorist threats against Islam?
Loose your job, loose friends, go broke, go to jail...
___
What is the worse thing that can happen to you and your family if Islam conquers Western Civilization?
Convert to Islam. The females in your family will have not rights.
Become a slave, the females in your family be they a grown woman, a girl or even a baby will be sexual slaves to Muslim men.
or
Death by stoning, beheading, etc.
___
I have chosen Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
I am not politically correct.
I decided years ago about my stand against Islam. I do not trade with a store owned by a Muslim or where Muslims work if I have any other choice.
I have spoken out about the terrorism of the cult of Islam and lost a professional position and have lost friends that ignore the threat from Islam.
I will continue to speak out against the terrorism of cult of Islam irrespective of the penalities for I am free.
I may be jailed and loose all that I have, but by my God I will remain free until I die or am killed when Islam attacks America which they will do again and again until there is just one victor.
The freedom of my family, my country, my religion and my belief in God mean more to me than my life which is precious.
___
Each person has to look into their inner being to determine what you personally will do.
The choice is yours.
God bless all.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Lowers head looks at shoes, "I will be a good boy"
l am confident that with education, and democracy (l used the term losely in the middle east) changes will occur for the good..we need to create an atmosphere for change for the better.. we cannot put our heads in the sand and wish things to be better. and also educate more Westerners. Today l just had a very good friend from Mich. come here for a visit, and a mutual friend also from Mich. come here..she just took one of my pups. her husband wanted to bond with him before he leaves for Iraq. Her younger brother is also going for Iraq this summer.. l had Robert's PIGuide to Islam on the kitchen table. and told her to take the book and have both her husband and her brother read this and of coure herself.. she
read a few exerpt, and was wowed by them.. l told her that this book will help them become acquainted with the culture and religion, l mean death cult.
Texican: "I am not politically correct"...
"Each person has to look into their inner being to determine what you personally will do."
Actually your post gives me good idea of a place to start with my "outer" being.
In speaking out about Islam, why am I "politically incorrect". Who says so?
No. I AM POLITICALLY CORRECT!
"Make it so!", as Captain Jean-Luc Picard used to say!:-)
No friend of conspiracy-theories myself, I have a haunting suspicion that the political left, which has lost the plot in many western countries, is willing to sell out to Mohammedan infil-traitors in order to bring down democracy and the capitalist market-economy.
Mohammedans vote in a block and that has made them a formidable force to be reckoned with. Who gave them the vote in the first place? Would we have 'politicians' like the slimy Gallow-swine in Scotland or Red Ken in London without the Islamo-fascist vote?
How is it possible that 17 per cent of EU politicians are of the Mohammedan faith? If the total population of Europe is 300 million (correct me if I'm wrong) includes roughly 25 million Muslims, doesn't this show that something more is cooking, something much more insidious than most of us suspect?
How the hell did they get in there?
In speaking out about Islam, why am I "politically incorrect". Who says so?
No. I AM POLITICALLY CORRECT!
"Make it so!", as Captain Jean-Luc Picard used to say!:-)
Posted by: Caroline at March 5, 2006 09:24 PM
Political correctness has been appiled to Islam by our current President when he called the cult of Islam noble.
The posts on this thread talking about not using the word "mussies" shows the begining of the bow to Islam.
I will remain politically incorect until America and our federal government final realizes that Islam is a terroristic cult intent on conqujering the world in spite of Islam's lies otherwise.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Caroline,
Sometimes I employ stragegery, quite frequently in fact.
A few of my posts have been erased so I guess at times I sound hateful. I think considering the times they have killed my friends I have been sweet and extremly nice. I don't hate them but I also have learned the hard way. I don't trust them, respect them or do I plan to stop watching them. They talk a good line about the bennies of islam, shiria etc, prove it. Where does it work? Give me one example where it worked over the last 1400 years. I wonder small things like why they say pbuh when they talk about ol mo, he was a prophet so they say, they claim Christ was also one. Shouldn't he rate a pbuh? Maybe, just maybe, they make this crap up when cornered. Hmmm, that sounded hateful, but I meant it with love.
Another steaming pile of Taqiyya:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,404005,00.html
Caroline
that was a magnificent post.
someone said before you can get meaningful answers you must first ask meaningful questions -and that is far more difficult.
You have just asked a very relevant question and i hope that Hugh in his wisdom will address it.
It would be easy if one is prone to conspiracy theory to promote the idea that there has been a deliberate long term attempt in western society to obliterate all the misdeeds of Islam, and i have to say that it is far more believable than assassination of JFK theories.
That is also what Jihad watch should be about- not just the excellent coverage of Islamic misdeeds.
We must also investigate our own failings in dealing with the problem which we have now identified beyond a shadow of doubt.
Only when we understand the weaknesses in our society can we have the courage to stand up and defend it.
toleranceorappeasement
l dont have much of a gift of languages..and that is my problem, l had to become fluent in English when my family moved south and to get ahead in life, you need English. with English adjectives are reverse to French, ie you say "white house", in French you say "house white", so l am constantly thinking in reverse and forward lol.. but now when l go home up north, my family say l sound too American because live near the US border! some of my mother's family moved to Mich. years ago and even some cousins are still bilingual, but now their children etc speak only English. but anyways l need to be more precise and go over better my posts.
THOUGHTS AND RUMINATIONS
Cornelius Boza Edwards
MENTAT: "The bottom line is that the world is far too complex for any one country, organization or group of people to control in any circumstance."
This was a central premise of the writings of the great Friedrich von Hayek. He was able to deconstruct the prevailing wisdom of the Western Left which had gained such great currency in the years immediately after WWII (before the Cold War sobered us up) by detailing how inexact, confused, wasteful and primitive central planning actually was (is).
Instead of the complex organism of market forces representing society as a whole which determines production and pricing, the Soviets had a handful of men sitting at the pinnicle of power micromanaging the economy to such an extent that they were bogged down in such minutia as how many pairs of panty-hose the state would produce.
Hayek's economic premise is equally applicable to the sociological realm. The true conservative generally accepts the fact that society is the bi-product of literally thousands of years of evolutionary development...that there is a time-tested wisdom to our laws and our ethos; that those laws and ethos in the past that were unworkable were discarded over time and those that survived did so because of their utility and their beneficiality.
In his disdain for the past, the Leftist professes to understand how to remake society, but that understanding has always been limited to theory and supposition. Hell, has anyone ever noticed that a careful reading of Marx (insofar as that's possible) reveals a great scarcity of detail in his blueprint for the Communist future. He indulges in great detail deconstructing Capitalist society, but offers very little in the way of a detailed schematic for the Communist future.
The best Marx could come up with - as far as I recall in reading the Manifesto and Das Kapital - was that Communist society would be a "free association of producers councils." He made no attempt to project how that "association" would be self-regulated in the absence of an arbitrating super-structure (what we refer to as government).
That glaring vagueness is not accidental, for there was nothing ever "scientific" about socialism. It was (and is) in its essence a return to a primitive (barter) economy. What a monumental testimony to the ignorance of man that entire generations believed (and still believe) in socialisms potential as a model for progress.
The Muslim's problem is different altogether. His fidelity to the past is apparent to all...but it is a past not like that of the West, where progress was the standard, certainly from the high Middle-ages on...but rather a past hopelessly stagnated by the dictates of his theology.
It was the West that bequethed upon the Muslim world the standards and tools of modernity (including WMDs). And now we find ourselves at a crossroads...and in their crosshairs.
For all its pathologies, the Muslim world has a sense of identity. Has the very pluralism that is the defining feature of the West deprived us of our own?
On Use of the "Muzzie" Term
There is no contradiction in a site like this discouraging use of an ugly term like "Muzzies". The term gives the impression, sometimes correct, that the person using it believes all Muslims are alike, i.e., lacking any individuality or humanity. And we all know what mobs feel entitled to do to those who are "not human" -- any ugly thing that suggests itself. Not only is it false that Muslims are without humanity, but the "Muzzie" term is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot and turn off a lot of people who might otherwise agree with you and be open to an alert to the totalitarian threat posed by Islam.
Because of the term "Muzzie", and much of the style that goes with its use, some will get the wrong impression and shun this site, go back to some bastion of more intelligently modulated discourse, and say, "I guess there's no merit in the anti-Islam argument -- just bigots."
"Muzzie" reeks of the ugly and stupid mob mentality and slur quality of words like "nigger" and "kike" and so on. From now on, anyone who uses the term "Muzzie" should arguably be regarded as little better than an enemy of Robert Spencer and of Spencer's efforts to sound an alert to the Western world.
I have stated many times that it's not the individual Muslims that we should blame, it's the cultural, political and religious milieu that has enslaved the average individual Muslim.
We denounce Islam because it not only threatens us but condemns it's followers as well. If saving ourselves means removing radical Muslins fro the West then less do it humanly and fairly.
I am a Christian, a devout Catholic and do not use this platform to discuss my beliefs yet can help to admit that my background as a Christian does influence my views.
I think Robert that it would be a great Idea to separate JW contributers from feedback from the rank and file.
Also a pass-protected section for JW members to organize.
El Cid, do you think in this PC environment the West can remove radical muslims humanely? you have all the so called watch dog groups ready to leap upon anything they presume to be bigoted, unfair, blah blah..bleading heart liberals..or does it have to come to a blow up all out war like WW2? Iran and those supporting islam radicals are lose canons.. and stopping them will be really tricky.
The first step in stopping Islam is to stop political correctness.
Convincing our Congressmen and Senators that blasphemy laws have no place in America is a beginning with dealing with political correctness and Islam.
America has always been strong because of the right to speak out against intolerance be it political or religious.
There are several articulate individuals that post here that should be able to express this in a short and concise manner that will garner the attention of our Congressmen and Senators when emailed to them.
How about a group effort.
Any takers???? Archimedes, Hugh, Caroline, Cornelius, Profitsbeard, Robert, eduardo odraude, El Cid, Frank, KJ, Yojimbo, JSLA, Mentat, toleranceorappeasement?, LuLu, DaveyFreak, Shinolite, Frank, KM, Gary, Ken, Beagle, KM, toleranceorappeasement?, Archduke, Bohemond_1069, Gary, Carolyn2, Tgusa, American and for those that I did not include it was not intentional.
If we attack this problem together, we can make a difference and defeat the terror of Islam.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
A poster above said:
Every reality contains within itself some measure, however small, of its own opposite, and therefore every reality is, in however slight a measure, self-contradictory. As a reflection of this, it should indeed be possible to hold two "contradictory" thoughts in one's head at the same time. But then why can't you hold Plato and Aristotle in your head at one time? The truth is arguably often to be found in a synthesis of the two, not by rejecting one in favor of the other.
Jihadwatch is an important website in exposing the truth about Islam.
Sadly, there are millions of people around the world, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who continue to be misinformed and deceived about the real nature of Islam.
Jihadwatch helps to cut through the smoke screen of deceit and ignorance.
It is true that not all Muslims are bad people.
The Islamic faith is the real problem.
Islam is an oppressive and hostile faith.
It simply comes down to this statement:
Muhammad was not really a prophet of Allah- as Muslims claim him to be.
Muhammad was an ordinary human being who claimed to be a prophet.
How much longer must Muslims around the world remain in darkness believing a lie about the real nature of Muhammad?
How much longer must the rest of the world put up with the lies from Islam?
I certainly don't agree with all of the postings on this site. There are some people on this site that I respect more than others.
But I certainly don't believe that there should be a protected section for jihadwatchers. I have learned much from a variety of different people on this website. To separate people and place them into categories will create an elitist atmosphere where only the approved intellectuals will associate with other like minded intellectuals.
Educating the misinformed with the truth of Islam is sorely needed on this website. How will that happen if the informed never shares postings with the uninformed?
Keep Jihadwatch the way it is. There will always be some on jihadwatch who are filled with hatred and venom. But the majority are not this way. And the majority shouldn't be penalized for the few stupid ones who make inflammatory statements and make it appear that this website is filled with hate mongers.
I think Robert that it would be a great Idea to separate JW contributers from feedback from the rank and file.
Also a pass-protected section for JW members to organize.
Posted by: El Cid at March 5, 2006 10:53 PM
The elite want to be separated from the rank and file for they consider themselves to good to deal with the rank and file????????
How sad. Marx, Stalin, Hitler voiced these same attitudes.
Where do you begin and stop your isolation and separation??
Without the rank and file where would America be?????
I thought Jihad Watch was about freedom and equality and a united front to stop the terror of Islam.
If you can not stomach dealilng with the rank and file, how will you survive when there is open warfare in America?
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
km wrote: "I couldn’t agree more, but in Roberts’s defense he is standing in the front line and we should do our level best to ensure that he doesn’t take hits from the Islamonazis and their quislings."
Two things..
We are ALL on the frontline in the fight against islam.
Having our so-called 'leaders' in this fight restricting what the rank-n-file can and cannot say for fear of offending muslims may be morally uplifting and give us all an aire of self-righteousness. So what? That's not what muslims respect. Acts of self-righteousness never killed any bad guys nor did anything to stop them from killing you. Christians sang morally uplifting songs as they were led into the colliseum but the lions still went home with full stomachs. And Jews walked with their heads held high straight into the gas chambers. Muslims only respect strength and they loathe weakness. Offending people who want to subjugate us is exactly what we need to be doing. Not worrying about their feelings.
If we give these people an inch, we KNOW they'll take a mile. And never give it back! So, why give them the inch in the first place.
Someone above said:
No, it is not preposterous. Generalizations are a problem when they do not spell out their own limits, because then innocent individuals are slandered and injured by the generalization. For example if you say that all Muslims are X, when in reality only 79% of Muslims are X, then your generalization has injured the other 21% of Muslims, and you have lied about them. Lies should disgust you, except in response to questions asked by prying busybodies, or in certain other exceptional cases where lies are morally justifiable.
Unqualified generalizations are often for the lazy, who do not want to look into details. If you are a real defender of Western values -- where individuals matter at least as much as groups because each individual is felt to have a sacred "something" within -- then you will hesitate a long time before throwing around your generalizations, since it is often precisely those innocent, sacred, real, individuals whom you thereby injure. That is the noble reason why the great Robert Spencer rejects unqualified generalizations, and why you should too. Spencer is a defender of the West's belief in the free community made up of individuals each of whom has rights -- the community based on liberty and equality.
To save the West, it is not necessary to assert that all Muslims are a danger to it. It may be quite sufficient to show whatever the truth is. For example, if it can be shown from polls that even only 40% of Muslims reject human rights and freedoms as the West defines those and that the same 40% would agree with the implementation of theocratic Sharia, while only 5% of Muslims would support violence to get there, and only 1% would actually do terrorism, those numbers could be quite sufficient to cause the West to stop Muslim immigration.
But whatever the numbers given, they should be accurate, and polls of Muslims should be cited more often, providing the webpage address, the number polled, and whether and to what degree the poll's methodology is considered scientifically reliable.
No answer is much better than a lie any day.
Having our so-called 'leaders' in this fight restricting what the rank-n-file can and cannot say for fear of offending muslims may be morally uplifting and give us all an aire of self-righteousness.
Maybe that sort of thing happens to offend us infidels, too.
I'm not from a background that gets called uncharitable names much nowadays, but slurs directed at others are no less distasteful to hear.
This is too noble a cause to be associated with slurs that bring to mind images of toothless rednecks with mullets a-waving, yelling "Git off mah land!" This is the sort of image CAIR would like to tag Jihad Watch with.
Don't let them.
Most likely Ethiopia will be the next nation to leave the civilized world and revert to cave-man times, and it will be a great loss to the world. Posted by: kj
kj
Of all countries, what made you pick Ethiopia? This is one country that was never under Islamic rule - it used to be described as an 'island of christianity in a Muslim sea.' Its only Muslim majority area was coastal Eritrea, and that seceeded in the 90's. Given that, why do you think that Ethiopia is likely to fold before, say, Spain, or Holland?
I think Robert that it would be a great Idea to separate JW contributers from feedback from the rank and file.
Also a pass-protected section for JW members to organize.
Posted by: El Cid at March 5, 2006 10:53 PM
El Cid I appreciate your posts here and look forward to reading each one that I see they are often insightful and practical, I also I am aware that you were not the first person to advocate the idea but you were the last. I have to unfortunately disagree with you on both points.
The beauty of this site is that it is free to all to contribute and all though you may not agree with what has been written, you have the option of scrolling past or challenging that person in debate. To remove this very valuable mechanism from the site would be to reduce its effectiveness. A free and open exchange of ideas is necessary if we are to address all issues in an intellectually honest way.
I am also not sure about a password protected zone either, this is a common technique used on many sites particularly pro-jihadist ones. I would hate to create an environment where people would essentially do what the Islamonazis do, practice sweetness and light in the public arena yet denigrate to raving savages when the spotlight of scrutiny is taken away (even though the raving maybe justified especially when trying to digest the daily acts perpetrated by Jihadists and their supporters) See the post on Dhimmiwatch about the Czech documentary, a situation like this would do us no favors.
Keep Jihad watch open to all and as unmoderated as possible, let freedom of speech ring out clear and true as is this is our most effective weapon.
No disrespect intended.
A poster said:
You miss the point. Robert Spencer may sometimes "offend" Muslims simply by stating facts and logic, but he never descends to insult or petty brawling and name-calling. We too should stick to facts and logic, and if those offend, fine, but we should avoid all gratuituous and petty insults to Muslims, because our purpose is to help win over the Western world to a realization that Islam poses a totalitarian threat. Name-calling and petty brawling with Muslims here will only turn off many non-Muslim visitors to this site. If we want to help create a broad-based consensus among Westerners that new forms of collective self-defense against Islam are required, then forget the petty brawls and insults, even when provoked, and stick to facts, impartiality, and as much thoughtfulness as we can muster. That would be devastatingly convincing to potential allies and especially to that portion of the educated elite that still needs convincing. We need scientific polls of Muslims so we can show people what Muslims as a group are likely to do as their numbers in the West increase.
Mahdi- I find the word "Muzzie" to be too vague a play on "Nazi" to make its point as strongly as it should. [....snip....] I prefer -and recommend- a flame-thrower. Posted by: profitsbeard
I used to wonder why anyone would use the term "Muzzie", when nothing angers Muslims more than being called "Mohammedans", but this clears it up.
It sounds like a very apt description - better than that redundant term "Islamo-fascist". But if it is going to earn the reputation of "niggers" and "kikes", then I agree with Robert - we should avoid using it.
The flame-thrower word is "Mohammedan". Use it. In the MSM, using the word "Muzzie" would make others think that we are bigots. Using the term "Mohammedan" would make them wonder what the Muslims are so pissed about.
On the original thread, (since I got in after 150 postings,) I didn't really see a problem. When I see evangelizing by anyone, I just hit the pg-down button and move on. While proselytizing is a good thing to do to Mohammedans, I don't see the point of it being posted here, where the only Mohammedans who read it are those who have an axe to grind with people here.
eduardo,
Of course, it's not nice to generalize. But when safety and self-defense are at stake, one must rationally generalize to some extent. Even if we could reasonably estimate that a given percentage of Muslims are harmless, we can never know with sufficient certainty which Muslims are the harmless ones, and which are the ones ready and willing to plot destruction of innocents. Nor can we be sufficiently certain which Muslims who may appear harmless now will not become more... Muslim, in fidelity to their fundamentalism against what they would see as an increasingly hostile Infidel world -- "increasingly hostile" = increasingly unwilling to accept their God-sanctioned intolerance of all things non-Muslim.
This is true not even taking into account the enormous difficulty any kind of accurate poll-taking must encounter among Muslim populations.
For example, if too many 40-something white postal workers began going postal and shooting up innocent people in post offices -- not just in one small town, but in towns and cities across the US and Canada --, then our law enforcement would be entirely rational to generalize about 40-something white postal workers, and regard them with more suspicion than 20-something black female postal workers. What constitutes "too many"? There is no magic formula for the threshhold that warrants reasonable suspicion and reasonable measures of self-defense.
Most of us here at JW would agree that the amount of Muslim violence over the past few years, the prevalence it has displayed over wide areas around the globe, the religious fervor and fidelity to the Koran of those Muslims who have been violent, and the widespread recruitment of new jihadists from many different countries -- all of this weighs heavily as a sufficient threshhold warranting our reasonable suspicion and generalization of the wider pool of global Muslims.
And if it's not nice to all the harmless Muslims in that pool, well, the destructive stakes are too high to be nice right now.
One more question, while we are debating what is and isn't halal, er kosher, er whatever - on J/W and D/W - in a thread several months ago, I recall seeing that any advocacy of the destruction of sites like the Dome of the Rock/ al Aqsa mosque - is banned, even though such sites are disputed between Mohammedans and Infidels. Can any JW staffer - Robert, Hugh, Rebecca, et al - explain why this is a policy?
I understand why genocide is not to be tolerated. But a great number of mosques had been constructed after destroying existing churches, synagogues, temples, monesteries, et al. And it continues to this day - Rachel's tomb in Nablus being a recent example. If any of the destroyed houses were primary to a religion, such as King Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, or the Ram temple in Ayodhya, why is the support of the destruction of replacement mosques something that is verboten here? In what way is it more hateful then calling on Muslims to recognize what is rotten about Islam, and apostate?
There are several articulate individuals that post here that should be able to express this in a short and concise manner that will garner the attention of our Congressmen and Senators when emailed to them.
How about a group effort.
Posted by Texican
How abou this letter published in Charlie Hebdo (France) and the now infamous Jyllands-Posten
Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Someone above said
Often, yes, but sometimes "no answer" is not a moral option. To give just one perhaps obvious example, if I had an opportunity to assassinate Pol Pot during the period when he was murdering hundreds of thousands of people, but I could only position myself for the kill by telling lies, then my most moral option in those circumstances would probably be to do the necessary lieing so I could finish Pol Pot and thus save some of his countless victims-to-be. In a world where evil often runs rampant, sometimes it is moral not only to lie, but even to kill, because that may be the only way to prevent innocents from being victimized.
And maybe there are more commonplace examples where mere silence would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, and the only moral option is a "white" lie? Not sure...
Dr. Pepper said:
Well, I objected to unqualified generalizations, not to the "rational generalizations" you support. I presume by "rational generalizations" you mean generalizations contextuated by empirically-based estimates of the extent to which the generalization is applicable. I have nothing at all against rational generalization, because rational generalization always will say, "yes, but..." and attempt to take into account concrete details that set limits to the generalization, thus stepping outside the realm of mere generalization.
Nor do I have anything against rational profiling, as in your hypothetical example of white postal workers gone mad all over the country. In that case I might not mind if the FBI decided to search 100% of white postal workers, but I would object to the FBI saying that all white postal workers are killers -- I'd object to that statement even if 75% of them really were killers. Profiling is probabilistic -- it does not generalize in a simple way and assert that all X is Y. It merely says that all X has some heightened probability of being Y, by comparison with the rest of the population, so we are going to spend most of our time searching Xs. That is very different. The kind of generalization to which I object, and to which Spencer stated an objection, is the unqualified generalization that doesn't bother with exceptions, details, and mere probabilities, and simply paints all with a broad brush.
Rejecting mere generalization does not prevent one from recognizing very broad patterns -- it just prevents one from universalizing those patterns, and from disdaining contact with facts that could help define the limits of the pattern.
Science generalizes while seeking to define the limited frame of reference within which a generalization is accurate. Newton revealed incredibly broad patterns in nature -- yet he is only accurate on the ordinary macroscopic level and breaks down at sufficiently large fractions of the speed of light, and at the subatomic level.
There is nothing wrong with generalization as long as it is done with a clear consciousness of its limits and with an effort to discover concretely what those limits are -- particularly when one is dealing with human beings. If you want to achieve a Western consensus about Islam and about the kind of collective action Muslims are likely to take as their numbers grow in the West, you will need to base yourself as much as possible on facts and details, and let those speak for themselves, without arbitrarily imposing a universal generalization. Speak of patterns, estimate on the basis of logic and evidence how prevalent those patterns are, but don't pretend they are universal -- you'll only alienate people who are not interested in biases and want to discover the truth for themselves, which discovery requires facts and qualified statements. Spencer never makes unqualified generalizations about Muslims.
Dr. Pepper said:
Well, I objected to unqualified generalizations, not to the "rational generalizations" you support. I presume by "rational generalizations" you mean generalizations contextuated by empirically-based estimates of the extent to which the generalization is applicable. I have nothing at all against rational generalization, because rational generalization always will say, "yes, but..." and attempt to take into account concrete details that set limits to the generalization, thus stepping outside the realm of mere generalization.
Nor do I have anything against rational profiling, as in your hypothetical example of white postal workers gone mad all over the country. In that case I might not mind if the FBI decided to search 100% of white postal workers, but I would object to the FBI saying that all white postal workers are killers -- I'd object to that statement even if 75% of them really were killers. Profiling is probabilistic -- it does not generalize in a simple way and assert that all X is Y. It merely says that all X has some heightened probability of being Y, by comparison with the rest of the population, so we are going to spend most of our time searching Xs. That is very different. The kind of generalization to which I object, and to which Spencer stated an objection, is the unqualified generalization that doesn't bother with exceptions, details, and mere probabilities, and simply paints all with a broad brush.
Rejecting mere generalization does not prevent one from recognizing very broad patterns -- it just prevents one from universalizing those patterns, and from disdaining contact with facts that could help define the limits of the pattern.
Science generalizes while seeking to define the limited frame of reference within which a generalization is accurate. Newton revealed incredibly broad patterns in nature -- yet he is only accurate on the ordinary macroscopic level and breaks down at sufficiently large fractions of the speed of light, and at the subatomic level.
There is nothing wrong with generalization as long as it is done with a clear consciousness of its limits and with an effort to discover concretely what those limits are -- particularly when one is dealing with human beings. If you want to achieve a Western consensus about Islam and about the kind of collective action Muslims are likely to take as their numbers grow in the West, you will need to base yourself as much as possible on facts and details, and let those speak for themselves, without arbitrarily imposing a universal generalization. Speak of patterns, estimate on the basis of logic and evidence how prevalent those patterns are, but don't pretend they are universal -- you'll only alienate people who are not interested in biases and want to discover the truth for themselves, which discovery requires facts and qualified statements. Spencer never makes unqualified generalizations about Muslims.
sheik yer'mami wrote:
In most cases I don't think so, sheik. I don't think most of them are neither so calculating nor so destructive - although some may well be. I think more often it is (for politicians) venality (i.e. looking for votes) and (for both politicians and others) that many of them have simply become fixed in a posture of opposition to the West.
Moreover, I think a certain blurring of loyalties has also occurred, because of the phase of European imperialism in 19th-century and because that has been explained in terms of what historian Paul Johnson dubbed the Hobson-Lenin theorem. This was the theory that imperialism (or should we say Imperialism?) was a phase of "capitalism" and was to do with a claimed need to use "surplus capital" - a commodity that, as Johnson remarks, is actually something of a myth. Lenin, he points out, needed the theory because of what Marxism was unable to explain. Imperialism was never about "capitalism" - which, when you come down to it is, as someone once remarked, "just a rude term for economic exchange by consent". In fact imperialism has been with us for many many centuries. (And what about the Marxist-Leninist empire of the USSR?) But "Imperialism" - this reified demon-term with the capital letter - has become part of the mythology of the left, and all the foreign policy of the West is fitted into that mythology by people whose emotions have become entangled with that particular way of seeing.
And then again, many on the left are influenced by Christianity - not directly any more but, of course, everyone in the West is culturally anyway. Forget the accusations levelled by some here that "religions" (another reified abstraction) are violent. I've said before I'm not a practising Christian, but I'd urge all agnostics and atheists to Look at the Sermon on the Mount - here I just Googled it:
http://www.biblepath.com/beatitudes.html
... and ask themselves if that leads to violence? In fact, some people have condemned Christianity for being too meek, too "slavish" - look at Nietzsche's condemnations, for example. (In fact, one might rather wonder whether if when the Christian ethos has thoroughly permeated a civilization it becomes considerably less able to defend itself even when - perhaps especially when - actual belief has decayed.) .... To get to the point: many on the left look for the beam in their own eye (or rather their country's own - which is far less painful) before looking for the mote in any other country's or people's. What they haven't grasped is that Western civilization has a speck in its eye; but Islam has got a beam in its.
I've made the odd loose comment about "the left" here and there, and I'm not sure I don't regret it now. (One doesn't see Robert or Hugh do that.) I think most on the left will come round if things get very much worse. I just hope its not too late.
I notice that Peter Tatchell, who is certainly on the left, has denounced Clare Short's disgraceful toadying to Hizb ut-Tahrir and pointed out that the group is anti-democractic and anti-Semitic. I'm sure other leftists can and will follow suit. Tatchell had received death threats from Radical Muslims owing to his being gay. Nothing like a death-threat to clear the mind.
I don't think most of them are neither so calculating nor so destructive
Drat - ended up as a double-negative. I meant:
I don't think most of them are either so calculating or so destructive.
Oh, my goodness, will you look at this in the Daily Telegraph
When I wrote this above -
- to make the point that some of the attitudes of the left have their roots, for good or ill, in the Christian culture of the West; to say that Christianity teaches people to say to themselves "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Luke 6:41), and people apply that thought in odd and even hypocritical ways - not to themsleves as individuals but their own societies even when those societies are not at fault ... well, when I wrote that I hadn't yet seen the Archbishop of Canterbury had just commented on Islamic Terrorism.
Folks, it's not just Christian attitudes popping up in our post-Christian secularized society in odd and rather distorted ways. Christians can do it for themselves:
What a travesty of the situation!
The Telegraph notes:
What can one do against such obtuseness - against such wilful blindness, such callous obtuseness?
Here is the link:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams speaks in the Sudan
Speaks in Sudan - or rather doesn't. The dog that didn't bark in the night.
Infidel~ you asked 'why Ethiopia?'
Precisely because it has been Christian all this time. Taking it down would be a sweet victory. And think of all the heritage that would be lost...
There are Muslim demographic pressures facing Ethiopia. The nomads of the Ogaden region are largely Muslim. The Tigray are Muslim. The situation mirrors that of Europe.
I read recently that Russia's demographic slide towards a Muslim majority is eccelerating and may put that country on the road to being the first (I had previously thought Sweden to be the best candidate).
Pat Buchanon is wrong about alot of things, but he's spot-on when he says demography is destiny.
Infidel~ you asked 'why Ethiopia?'
i had once a replacement teacher in grade school,who was a black African, and during one of our classes, he told us that Christianity saved many Africans. l did not understand the his reasons, and actaully kind of thought he was off his rocker. but now as l am older and understand the way of Islam, l can now see this teacher's wise words.
Muslums in Australia have termed themselves the Aussie Mozzies.
PC posts, sigh. Ok, but let us go all the way if the academics feel we should be considerate of our muslim readers feeling then we should include “Peace be upon him” every time we use the word Mohammed. I have on occasion used the now derogatory term “muzzies” or worse but then again I have a life time of bad memories from my brief run ins with followers of Mohammed, Peace be upon him (I like this PC stuff, it’s a new me). I do agree it makes us (at times) seem like backward “rednecks” but as a southerner I draw offense to that term too. From now on I would appreciate being referred to as an unfortunate male southerner of low birth and education. Oh, yeah I want the word South capitalized to show respect for the down trodden. Ok, enough nonsense, it is not my board and if Robert adjusts what we can and can not say then I will follow his guidelines. I agree with the premise we should, when practical take the high road and stick to facts (verifiable) but I also strongly feel that sometime an insult is needed to make a point. Islam and the followers of Mohammed, Peace be upon him should realize the west is a mish mash of peoples.
Because I come from the unfortunate male southerner of low birth and education crowd, I will argue for them. We value family, God and country, we like to drink, drive too fast (sometimes at the same time) and live for time off from work. We are known around the world for being, backward bigots, unfairly I might add. We are also the ones who join the rank and file military in large numbers; we have face to face meeting with those who would harm our nation and our way of life. Not that there are not plenty of others in the military but I am the unofficial spokesperson for unfortunate male southerners of low birth and education. If on occasion we slip and break a politically correct rule and fail to use Peace be upon him when discussing the prophet Mohammed, (peace be upon him) or use a term such as “old mo” (my personal favorite). You should keep in mind, I have never considered him a prophet and do not mind offending his followers or defenders. I don’t hang with your academic crowd nor do I particularly like them. What I and my fellow unfortunate male southerners of low birth and education bring to this blog is simple. We are the most resistant to change, meaning islam doesn’t have much of a foot hold in my crowd nor will it have an easy time getting in. Just yesterday my t-shirt (Danish flag) offended some poor followers of Mohammed, Peace be upon him at my favorite store (Walmart) and she made a big scene as she changed lines. I took the high road and smiled broadly and said, “good morning Ladies, enjoy your shopping”. The last thing I would ever want is to offend a peaceful follower of Mohammad, peace be upon him.
In closing, if it means I am not welcome to comment because I sometimes forget to properly take the personal feelings of old mo’s followers into account, my only defense is “my bad”. I will try and be good. If I have offended anyone who follows old mo or an academic, get over yourselves, islam is the enemy not verbiage. Btw, in country we called them “Haji’s” they didn’t like that either. Another non PC term was called "trigger time" they really, really disliked that one.
Can I say I don't like Islam? I have a right to my opinion still, I hope. If anyone is offended by that remark, well, you can say you don't like me. Fair is fair, afterall.
Truth is undeniable.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, I wasn't going to comment. The topic didn't require any. But..the thread...
CAIR isn't concerned about toothless rednecks with mullets. No rednecks are in court. Rednecks tend to like themselves and are firm in their opinions (some would say bigoted). CAIR would much rather focus on the easy to sway types. The ones who can memorize and repeat the lines. The best at rote but the worst at crossing the street. Those in Boston and in DC. Harvard and Georgetown. And Hollywood. Those who don't like themselves and are willing to embrace any and all lifestyles.
AND, I'm sure the 7/7 bomber who taught kindergarten had lots of friends who thought he was a wonderful friend and would have defended him to the death, too. But, 20/20, would they now?
This was too easy for most: It was kindda like waiving a red flag in front of a bull just for the sport of it.
The idiotic, fanatic idea of blanket mass deporations of people SOLELY because they are Muslim
AND remarks like this:
----How do you tell when a Muslim is lying? Whenever a Muslim speaks.
Only lies and filth can come out of a Muslim's mouth for their souls are corrupted----
Do no one any good!
Sadly it is a minority of Muslims that are in anyway moderate, but some are indeed just that and are loyal to their countries and the Western way of life and to deport them would be obscene.
You want proof?
Who said this recently in the UK?
"Muslims who do not like living in the UK should leave".
"Muslims who refuse to obey UK laws and the values of British society should leave".
"Muslims who call for attcks on the UK and it's people should be arrested and deported".
"Clerics that preach Jihad should be expelled".
"Muslim women should not 'import' Husbands from Pakistan etc etc, who are in no way Westernised and know nothing of western culture - and are often only getting married to enter the UK - there are plenty of British Muslims men to marry. And plenty of non-Muslim men".
"I am proud to be British and take great pleasure in being part of British society".
WHO SAID ALL THAT?
It was a young, Asian Muslim woman!
Sadly she is a minority. But she does exist and others do too.
We should indeed get rid of Muslims who opnely call for Muslim law to be in a Western country, who call for attacks on their country, who support atatcks and murder on the people of that country etc etc.
but blanket mass expulsions are wrong. Simple as that. And the remarks above of that MUSLIM woman show that.
eduardo,
I would agree with you about the untenability of universal generalization. Now that we are on agreement on that, however, there remains a possibly considerable "fudge factor" with regard to --
"I have nothing at all against rational generalization, because rational generalization always will say, "yes, but..." and attempt to take into account concrete details that set limits to the generalization, thus stepping outside the realm of mere generalization."
The fudge factor pertains in two, closely related, respects:
1) you and I (as any two people) could disagree on where to draw the lines, and on what basis to draw them, of this rational generalization
2) there is a context where our actions based on rational generalization will bear structural resemblance to actions based on universal generalization: example, law enforcement, for a certain period of time, treating 100% of 40-something white male postal workers with suspicion (which suspicion could entail all sorts of discrimination, from frisking to surveilling to firing) -- simply because the risks of not treating them all with suspicion would be deemed too high. Behaving as though one were universally generalizing becomes necessitated by two factors:
1) whenever omniscience (or at least sufficient knowledge) is unavailable
2) the danger posed by not behaving that way is too high.
With Muslims who are loose and zealous cannons, easily blending in, possibly pullulating out of anywhere from Detroit to Timbuktu, any number of them determined to wreak mass destruction for eschatologically motivated grandiose goals by biological or chemical or radioactive means, and last but not least enabled in many ways by continuing PC myopia -- the dangers are too high (far higher than an epidemic of postal workers might be) not to ratchet up our rational generalization such that it might well resemble universal generalization.
I suppose, in terms of political rhetoric, it makes an important difference to say
1) "We know that not all Muslims are dangerous and that many of them wish to be our friends, but we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between the dangerous ones and the harmless ones, and the possible dangers are too catastrophic, thus we have to treat Muslim en bloc as all dangerous until such time as the danger level can be demonstrated to be lowered."
and
2) "All Muslims are dangerous and they are all our mortal enemy."
However, in terms of pragmatic action, many of the things one would do in case #2 would be identical to the things one would do in case #1 -- and those same actions are just as important to permit, as would be the different actions one would morally wish to restrain.
In the course of history, it has taken the great and the not so great to influence the world. We are at this point.
It is necessary at times to have deep felt discussions about where we are at and where we are going.
This past weekend demonstrates that Americans and the free people of the Western Civilizations have the ability to strenously and emotionally disagree with each other, yet come together on common ground.
Whereas, the Sunni's and the Shia's resort to violence and murder when they can not agree.
There is a chasm of difference between America and the Western Civilizations to Islam and the Muslims countries.
As the popular magnetic flag stickers states:
"United We Stand".
God gives us the strength and foresight to see this through to the end.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Re Islamist Conspiracy. There's no question that based on the undercover recordings obtained in investigations such as the Czech documentary (article posted on DW, Mar. 5) that there is conspiratorial activity going on inside Mosques. We've seen countless examples of this sort of activity, including in the Mohammad cartoon controversy.
But conspiracy is only one aspect of the problem. Much of the trouble with Islam throughout the world today can occur without much planning or strategy. Each individual Islamist (I use this term to refer to those who want sharia and who follow their Korans closely) possesses certain beliefs, tendencies, and biases that will affect his/her behaviour in relation to the coordinated group activity--without necessarily knowing or even agreeing with what the group as a whole is doing.* (I should add that this type of analysis can be applied to behaviour of human groups generally; I'm not saying Islamists' behaviour is totally unique in this respect). *We can see examples of coordinated group activity in the movement of a school of fish, a flock of birds, or a colony of ants. In these cases, the individual does not "know" anything about the planning and coordination of group activity. Each individual has a limited knowledge of its local environment and has a limited set of biases and stimulus-response sequences. (This type of dynamic group behavior has been modelled in computer simulations. The important point is that each individual "unit" is programmed with a few biases and input-output sequences, with no complex programming concerning group behaviour, yet complex corrdinated group behaviour occurs when the units are put together in an environment). In humans, the beliefs and behaviours are more complex, but coordinated group activity can still occur without a conscious strategy or goal that is agreed upon and understood by all group members.
The Islamist's basic biases can be described as follows:
What Muslims should know about disbelievers [non-Muslims] and how they should regard/ act toward them, according to the Koran:
28:86 never help them,
9:23 sever family ties with those who value disbelief over belief (Islam),
29:8, 31:14-15. Be kind/good to your parents, but do not obey them if they are unIslamic/non-Muslim
3:118 don’t take them for friends
3:28 don’t take them for friends, unless merely superficially, as a temporary precaution (taqiyah)
4:139-140 do not choose disbelievers instead of believers for friends
4:144 don’t choose disbelievers instead of believers as friends
5:51. do not take Christians and Jews as friends
5:57 don’t take as friends/guardians those who mock or jest Islam
8:73 join together, to defend yourselves and your religion, against their corruption
60:1 do not take them for friends
60:13 don’t make friends with those who disbelieve in the (Islamic) Hereafter
53:29 shun them
58:5 humiliate them
4:63 oppose them and admonish them (verbally)
66:9 strive hard against them and be stern with them
9:14 fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, bringing them to disgrace
9:73-74 strive hard against the disbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh against them (using verbal and physical fighting)
9:123 fight the disbelievers near you and let them find harshness in you
66:9 strive hard against them and be stern with them
5:54 be stern/mighty against the disbelievers, but humble with believers
48:28-29 conquer them all, and act hard against them, but be merciful to believers
68:8-10. do not obey and do not compromise with them
76:24 do not obey them
33:48 don’t comply with them/ don’t obey them
25:52 don’t obey but fight them
4:101 disbelievers are an open enemy to you
60:4 hate them forever unless they join Islam
31:7 give them tidings of a painful punishment/doom
45:7-8 give them tidings of a painful punishment/doom
84:24 announce to them a painful punishment/doom
To this we may add...
-the belief that Muslims are the best people (3:110), and the non-Muslims are the lowest (58:20, 95:4-6) and the worst beasts/worst beings (8:22, 8:55, 98:6).
-the conceptualization of the world as divided into Muslims and non-Muslims, Land of Islam and Land of War
-praise and reward other Muslims for expressions consistent with Islam (i.e., promoting Islam and attacking that which is unIslamic), punish anyone (non-Muslim or Muslim) for expressions that go against Islam (but be harsh against non-Muslims but lenient with Muslims who transgress).
Through all of this, I have not once mentioned the goal of Islam. I have not mentioned an overall strategy or plan. (I did mention the practice of taqiyah, including feigned friendship, which is especially important when or where Muslims are politically or militarily weak). The concepts are generally quite simple. But by following some of the basic instructions and taking on the basic attitudes above, Islamists as a group will end up doing pretty much what they are doing throughout the world today.
___
Now, what about our (non-Muslim, modern westerners) group behaviour? What are our basic tendencies and beliefs toward others?
-be compassionate, feel empathy for others
-be tolerant
-be self-critical
-take personal responsibility
-don't discriminate against people based on religion, race, etc.
-you can criticize your own group, but must be careful in criticizing anyone in another group (you will be punished for the even slightest perceived misstep in doing so).
-help anyone in need, not just members of your own subgroup
-all people are equal in the eyes of the law
-give people the benefit of the doubt, people are innocent until proven guilty
-make friends with different people, be inclusive
-be accommodating to different lifestyles
-be forgiving
-seek compromise in order to solve conflicts
This is not a definitive list, but it captures some of the general tendencies and beliefs that I think most westerners have. These tendencies and beliefs in individual westerners, once instilled in them, obviously contribute to group behaviour that is quite different than that shown by Islamists.
General results (not true in all cases, but most):
In the west, we accommodate Muslims, and they accept that but they do not accommodate us.
We forgive them, but they do not forgive us.
We help them, but they do not help us.
We obey their demands, but their do not obey us.
We give them the benefit of the doubt, but they assume we're guilty (45:31, 83:29).
We're compassionate toward them, but they don't feel empathy for us.
We're tolerant toward them, but they're not tolerant toward us.
We're self-critical, and they criticize us too (and don't criticize themselves).
We take personal responsibility, and they blame us too (and deny responsibility themselves).
We're ultra-careful in criticizing them as a group (note my parenthetical remark, above, in addition to the qualifying term "general"), they criticize us with reckless abandon and with no regard for the facts (e.g., "racists"!).
We try to make friends with them (trying to win hearts and minds), and they don't make friends with us, or they merely pretend to make friends (as per taqiyah).
We include them in our societies, but they wish to exclude us from theirs.
We say all people are equal, but they say Muslims are the best people and non-Muslims are the worst beasts, and they treat the surviving non-Muslims very badly under Islamic Law.
.....and none of these results requires a conspiracy. Most Muslims do not need to be engaged in a conscious attempt to destroy us, and most Westerners do not need to be engaged in a conscious attempt to commit civilizational suicide. If present trends continue unchecked, the destruction of western civilization seems likely.
Note that the most influential members of the respective groups are most representative of the above-mentioned beliefs and tendencies (Islamists leading Muslims on the one side, and dhimmi-PC politicians and media organizations leading westerners on the other side). Moderate Muslims won’t stop the Islamists. Our dhimmi leaders won’t stop the Islamists. The Islamists are not going to have a change of heart and give up on their efforts.
Now, add back to this scenario the fact that there really are conspiracies, there really are people pushing for sharia, jihad, social apartheid between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the future of western civilization doesn’t look good. And did I mention the demographic jihad?
DaveyFreak
I was going to post a long rebuttal to your argument, but I refer you to Dr Peppers post above. The logical dictates of Islam are such that although peace loving individuals exist, the concept of taqiya, the aggressive proselytizing nature of the religion and its imams and the potential for destruction that can be caused by a relatively small number of ideologically driven easily concealed mujahideen means that the risk of accommodating your liberal guilt complexes about being unfair to the minority are a moot point.
This young lady of whom you speak, should she be such a patriot in this time of war be denouncing the religion of Islam in its entirety as being ideologically incompatible with her countries modern secular laws and Judeo-Christian past. Furthermore if she should need spiritual guidance during this time the UK has a whole raft of established religions that do not pose the security threat her current chosen religion does and she should be encouraging her fellow Muslims to think about conversion should religious practice mean so much to them.
I am afraid that the time for honoring cultural relativism has passed and Mohammedans should they wish to now live and take the benefits offered by western society should accept the fact that the wording of the Koran, Sura and Hadith are fundamentally flawed, reject the dictates as they currently stand and show through objective changes in behavior that they no longer pose a threat to the host country. For this to happen these changes should be reflected across the whole of the Umma and not just while those Muslims that are minority in a country maneuver themselves into positions of influence. Talk of ‘Muslim Manifestos’ in my opinion is just that talk and should be recognized for what it is an offensive tactic for Jihad.
Great post, Archimedes. Specifically the simple rules which can lead to complex appearing population wide behaviors. Computer models illustrate this phenomenon beautifully.
Leaving aside explicit calls for violence, or the ultimate goals of the Islamic instruction set, the abundance of rules pertaining to rejecting "non-believers" and encouragements to ally only with "believers" is a simple rule set which is sufficient to cause complex appearing actions of the collective Muslim ummah.
How else might this kernel be applied? I have often thought of the Islamic belief system as a kind of fatal enzyme for non-Muslim societies -- even if they are far more sophisticated and advanced. Islam seems to be a rule set which can ultimately break down the foundational basis of other cultures, reducing them to digested byproducts. (In this model, the entire Muslim dominated portion of the world is actually the waste-product of Islam).
Your hypothesis makes me further wonder: Do we have similar simple rule sets which are impeding our ability to identify the threat of Islam in our domain?
I can think of a couple, and they all represent admirable qualities it seems, but ones which may be exploited by an opportunistic enemy. For simplicity's sake I've boiled down some simple rules we agree to try in the West to play by:
Embrace "open" society, one in which all participants are welcome. (Be inclusive.)
Play fair.
Don't discriminate on the basis of beliefs.
These rules more or less make us vulnerable to enemies who are determined to erode our foundational premise and establish its own set of rules over us... If Muslims wish to 'game' our system by not playing according to our rules, and in the end are only interested in establishing Muslim rules of their own after first exploiting our rules to come here and remain unchallenged, then eroding our rule set drip by drip -- one can begin to understand the dangers our rule set places us in vs Islam...
Further, if our belief system first requires that we accept them wholesale, and discourages us from defying those same rules even if we're foundationally challenged, then I can imagine how the Islamic enzyme will eventually eat away until our system collapses.
Once we've worked hard as a sophisticated society to inculcate these simple rules as a foundation for our successful behavior, and understand that these rules actually the foundation of our success... it's easy to understand how these beliefs are hard for us to jettison. This may, in part, explain why so many refuse or are heretofore unable to comprehend the threat of Islam's rule set in our domain. These are also the exact rules which permitted a potential enemy into our midst, and now allow them to short-circuit our systems in order to undermine our foundational framework.
I guess the second part of my post is repetitive of your post -- really just a different way to the same conclusion...
The notion of the enzymatic action is interesting to me... I think we'll need an entirely new set of words and terms to first conceptualize Islam's threat, and then create a framework which most people can embrace.
Winston Churchill coined terms such as "Nazi" and "Iron Curtain" to encapsulate the larger aspects of those former enemies. We need similar terms in the West to summarize and encapsulate the Muslim Menace.
But for the longest time I've been suggesting that the parallels between "1938" and today, or WW2, Nazism, etc. and Islam only go so far.
This particular inimical enemy has been around longer, is far more diffuse and primitive, will be much harder to crush, and adheres to a quasi-religio-political belief system which is far more inculcated and deep than Nazism and Communism ever were. See how those ideologies (despite the smatterings of indolent believers still) came and went in the course of one or two human life times? Now see Islam - 40 or 50 generations later -- through periods of ebb and flow -- Islam shows a frightening persistence, and tenacity which Hitler Stalin and Mao, or their malignant ideologies lacked.
Primitive eating machine -- the shark of cultures -- the virus of human thought -- something based on simple rules and patterns which are time tested, and very hard to eradicate... Is Islam an ideology which we can eventually eradicate, or modify until it's simply a benign presence? Or is it more akin to bacteria and viruses? Things we will always need to fight and be vigilant against? Or is it more like strontium90, or plutonium -- something that's toxic, even in relatively low doses, and which will last 10,000 human generations, and which, if brought together in sufficient quantity will cause dangerous meltdowns and explosions? All of the above?
Islam is far worse than Nazism and Communism. Not least because it has 1+ billion adherents. And those adherents are evidence that it's far more effective as an ideology or rule set than prior scourges.
jsla l have come to the conclusion, that winning the hearts of most muslims is futile, and all we really need to do is encourage the Western democracies to unite and fight this common enemy. Educate our people, and get rid of this PC culture crap. If the few mulims wake up and see their cult is the problem help them get away from Islam, and or encourage them to make true reforms.. we need to elect politicians who can understand what laws need to be protected..just enforce the laws on the books now. keep our freedom of speech, etc. in schools when accomodations are made specifically for muslims, stop them immadiately, but become less PC will correct this.
Dr. Pepper said:
I applaud your pragmatism. You shouldn't believe, however, that "political rhetoric," is a small matter, pragmatically speaking. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Using smart political rhetoric will help one get the elites of society -- cultural, business, and political elites -- who pull some of society's bigger levers, to at least consider one's view, and perhaps even support it. Making mindless universal generalizations about Muslims, on the other hand, will cause you to lose a large portion of the very people you need to persuade to pass legislation against further Muslim immigration, for example.
Yet you seem to think that universal generalizations about Muslims will do a better job than qualified, intelligent evidence-based generalizations, in opening the way to pragmatic countermeasures against Islamic totalitarianism (measures like profiling and immigration limits).
Well, I won't claim your apparent belief in the rhetorical efficacy of universal generalizations is mistaken in every situation. The world is strange and complex, and perhaps even the use of bigoted, universal generalizations could, in some tragic circumstances, be morally and pragmatically justified. If I said they could never, ever be so justified, I'd be guilty of making a universal generalization myself.
But in the vast majority of cases, we are only going to hurt ourselves, hurt our fight against Islamic totalitarianism, and hurt innocent human beings, if we make mindless universal generalizations that just reveal our thoughtless, careless, lawless, and mob-like dark side. Apart from its immorality, speaking like a mob is just no formula for success.
We would do better to emulate Spencer, who never makes universal generalizations about Muslims. Spencer uses facts and logic to establish the existence of patterns, and based on continuing research and evidence, he makes rough estimates of the prevalence of those patterns.
----We would do better to emulate Spencer, who never makes universal generalizations about Muslims. Spencer uses facts and logic to establish the existence of patterns, and based on continuing research and evidence, he makes rough estimates of the prevalence of those patterns.----
Exactly.
To deport such a Woman as I mentioned is basically blind fanaticism.
Do we deport all Catholics because we can't tell the ones who will blow up abortion clinics? After all they don't look any different.
We have to listen, look and then take action.
ALL who attack the country they are in (physically or verbally) or support an help those that do...Should be thrown out. Right away!
But quite frankly that is NEVER going to happen sadly and as such we actually need the tiny minority like that woman (who also criticised the Muslim community for not doing enough about the evil within)to have an inside voice and an inside influence.
Quite frankly women/people like her are no more unwelcome to me (as a secular person) than Catholics, Baptists etc etc who hold homophobic, oppressive, censorship supporting and sexist views!
She's certainly more welcome in my society than any lousy Jerry Falwell.
ALL of the remarks she made show a person totally and uterly against violence, totally and utterly against Islamic law being in The West and totally and utterly against traitorous acts, and she also called out to Muslims to hand over and deal with those Muslims who Do approve and take part in violence against The West.
Sorry...if you think Muslims like her should simply be deported for existing you're blinded by fanaticism. It sounds very much like a blanket attitude by Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists towards Jews actually!!
We need Muslims like her because sadly Islam will NEVER be completely thrown out from The West.
SIMPLE AS THAT! A FACT!
They could in fact be one of our greatest internal weapons!
We need to use logic,forward thinking and intelligence in the battle against Islam...
eduardo odraude -- I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, but I wonder if we'll ever be able to effectively 'fight back' against the onslaught of Islamic expansionism without resorting to some overbroad convictions about Islam.
Since we AND the Muslims have both shown a signal inability so far to successfully root out the terroristic components from the supposedly larger Islamic populations everywhere in the world -- I think it's becoming clearer and clearer (at least to me) that terrorism, hatred, and intolerance are part and parcel of the Islamic 'package'. In other words -- if it's impossible to differentiate between the benign and malignant portions of Islam's creed, and if every Islamic sector will provide a petri dish in which the viruses of hatred and violence will always find food to grow, flourish, and turn into epidemics if sufficient Muslims can feed the beast, then we can only conclude that Islam is a malignant growth medium in which the diseases of terrorism, hatred and totalitarianism grow --or that these malignancies are simply symptoms of Islam.
If such is true -- then rational conclusions which seem like immoral "universal generalisations" are actually not only justifiable, but imperative for survival.
If one believes, as I do, that Islam appears to pose a grave existential threat to our very existence, then conclusions rationally drawn from the collective and mounting evidence requires that we first draw general conclusions, and then act.
While I often say that comparisons between WW2 and Islam's Jihad fail to work, in this regard I think a comparison is apt. There were Nazis in WW2 who didn't subscribe to Hitler's creed, and there were Nazis who did. But all in all, had we spent any appreciable amount of time attempting to differentiate between so-called "good nazis" and "bad nazis" in order to maximize the morality of our actions against the Nazi state, then many MANY millions more would have died in WW2. Furthermore, being a close run thing, there would have been no guarantee that we would have prevailed!
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I posted the following yesterday:
There are several articulate individuals that post here that should be able to express this in a short and concise manner that will garner the attention of our Congressmen and Senators when emailed to them.
How about a group effort.
___
If we are going to be successful, someone has to take the lead on this and present different letters on the multiple points that the Western World needs to be made aware of about Islam.
We can debate among ourselves, but what good is preaching to the choir. It is the uninfomred that we need to take the messagtes to. My sledge hammer approach will not work for this undertaking, but I can assist.
I know that Hugh, Eduardo Odraude, Archimedes, Cornelius, Profitsbeard, El Cid, Frank, KJ, Yojimbo, JSLA, Shinolite, Frank, KM, Gary, Ken, Beagle, KM, Archduke, Bohemond_1069, Gary, Carolyn2, Tgusa, and many others have the eloquence to help guide this effort.
There have been multiple postings today that show the abilities of the indivudals that post on JW including a previous published piece provided by KM which follows and could be used as the basis for the first letter.
This is not a one time undertaken, but will take continous effort.
Ilsam and political correctness have grown by continuaslly reaching out and converting individuals to their cause.
What greater cause do we have than freedom for all men.
Who is willing to take this task on and do the first posting for others to review and comment on. The following letters will be much easier to accomplish.
"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.""
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
(above I should have said "Since we AND the Muslims have both shown a signal inability so far to successfully root out the terroristic components from the supposedly larger 'peaceful' Islamic populations everywhere in the world..."
In point of fact -- I accept that there may be peaceful Muslims, but their unwillingness to fight their violent brethren means they aren't effective allies. I also think there's plenty of evidence that these so-called "peaceful" Muslims may, in the main, simply tacitly support the goals of Islamic Jihad, and violence for the sake of Islam. Their near complete yawns when Muslims transgress, and the fact that the "radicals" seem to be in complete and unopposed ascendancy across the Muslim world -- convinces me that they are not even potential allies - and may done more to assist Islamic Jihad (even unwittingly) than anything we have ever done.
By the way -- how do you make comments in super bold?
AnneCrockett wrote, "You can be asked to leave at any time. You might get a note warning you to knock it off, but not necessarily. Try to mind your manners, and be aware when you are just beating a dead horse."
I am sorry if I offended anyone by the way I compared the Islamic agenda in America with the gay agenda. I assume it was my comment that started all this uproar and I assume that AnneCrockett is referring to this when she says, "you are just beating a dead hourse."
If I am the culprit, I hope to defend myself. That was the first comment I made on this site and it was not my intention to bring a different "agenda" up to get people off track. I truly believe in this website and agree that it needs to say on focus. I think that everyone missed what I was trying to say in regards indoctrination of prisoners in the prisons around the world.
I will no longer bring up any other agenda threatening the American way of life on this site. However, my point is well proven by the way the supporters of the agenda can make threats and literally close the mouths of those who have a different opinion. That is exactly the way it will go in the kind of dictatorship that the Muslim extremists want to have.
If anyone wants to ask me to leave, fine. I do promise to stay on track with the purpose of this site from now on, though. I will also take the time to read Hugh Fitzgerald's piece explaining what this site, and open comments, are for, and I will go along with his wishes. I hope everyone else does the same.
May the peace of Christ be with you all.
-----I also think there's plenty of evidence that these so-called "peaceful" Muslims may, in the main, simply tacitly support the goals of Islamic Jihad, and violence for the sake of Islam-----
Well that woman didn't. Simple as that.
You can THINK anything. Does not mean it is right.
I mean to say some people think that the World was mader in 6 days, is only a few thousand years old and that Adam and Eve danced around munching apples and talking to snakes.
And again...Why not ditch all Catholics to ensure abortion clinics and stem cell research facilities are far safer?
And hey! Best to ditch all those Catholic priests too.
After all there's an awful lot that like to rape young kids and they all look alike and we just can't tell which ones will and which ones won't.
And surely the safety of it's helpless children is the number one concern for any civilised society!?
Listen.
We need such Muslims to help us. As you can whine all you want...Islam is sadly not going to vanish all of a sudden from The West.
Moronic, blind mod mentality is in fact the huge battle cruiser trying to destroy the 'Death Star.
All very loud and oh so powerful but guess what???
Fucking useless.
The far more clever, pin point targetting use of the tiny X Wing fighter gets the job done though.
I guess we can all learn from "Star Wars!! See? American creations can be used effectively against Islam. LMAO
(We've been warned for so long -- Now see the above post to witness what happens when an annelid interfaces with a computer?!)
Do we deport all Catholics because we can't tell the ones who will blow up abortion clinics? After all they don't look any different. ~ posted above
Dear lusus naturae
Catholic is a religion not a country, where do you suppose they should be deported to, if they are Americans would we deport them to America?
It showed up yesterday... H5N1 variant?
BurgerBoy: The moon?
or how about The Vatican City? Shove them in The Pope's bed.
And i like that your only reasoning is that you can't think of somewhere to stick the loonies.
There are still enough wide open spaces. Build a Catholic nutter city for them. Shove in the Islamic nuters as well. Let all these idiots fight each other and wipe themselves out.
lusus naturae
Or maybe we should deport gays to the moon and beyond because of men like John Wayne Gacy or any other of the thousands of gay pedophiles? You know we cant tell them apart, so lets get rid of them all.
Burgerboy -- don't perpetuate the troll's rant lest you become one too!
Jsla
I was attempting to embarrass him by showing his own blatant hypocrisy.
Perhaps the embarrassment was already there?
jsla, is this what you meant by annelid?
Some annelid species (generally worms) are hermaphroditic.
The Texican.
Planaria don't feel embarrassment. Why -- you could slice it in half and it wouldn't stop. They just keep sqirming and squirming...
(any worm -- such posters are worms)
I would just like to add, rather belatedly, that to the readers and other posters here in the comments section it is of absolutely no interest whether or not you're a squirrel hunter, a spider killer or a "member of the American Tribe."
----Or maybe we should deport gays to the moon and beyond because of men like John Wayne Gacy or any other of the thousands of gay pedophiles?---
Really? So gays are pedos then?
You really are a sad fanatic fool.
Well for one..gays don't do any harm to anyone. Unlike rabib Catholics and Baptists.
And i feel that I have to educate you, you knuckle dragging yokel.
Being a pedophile has NOTHING to do with sexuality.
What about hetrosexuals who rape young GIRLS?
You see? There is no link and your posr was absurd.
DaveyFreak,
You raise valid points about the importance of the individual and the distastefulness of forced repatriation but your liberalism and touchy feely emotions towards not upsetting moderates among the Muslims is part of the problem. Your understanding of complex issues is clouded by your multicultural outlook, fostered by years of living under British left wing socialism no doubt.
You are unable to unplug your emotional brain from that which you really need, the rational one. You are unable to digest the facts without getting your feeeeeeelings all out of kilter. Archimedes & jsla lay out the logic of the clash of cultures in startling clarity yet you still worry about upsetting the feelings of the Muslim minority.
Your premise is that Islam is here and is here to stay so we should just learn to get along and enlighten them with our own benevolence and eventually they will come round to our way of thinking. This is so short sited as to be practically blind. You obviously have some idea of the dangers of Islam as you wouldn’t be here, but your thinking is distorted by idealizing the enemy as being rational in their approach to your world view.
Regardless of your interactions with the Mohammedans that you think are ok, not belligerent, not oppressively religious the fact of the matter is at its core the doctrine of Islam is totalitarian and fascist. Therefore there is no moderate Islam just Islamists who are not practicing the true doctrine of their religion. They are therefore all potential threats until Islam’s core teachings have changed.
You need to understand that we are at war and have been for centuries, Islam is no deathstar it is a primitive cult and often times with primitives you need a combination of positive and negative reinforcement to shape their behavior. Europe has been trying positive reinforcement for the last half century and this has failed. It is time for some negative type persuasion, once the reality kicks in amongst Mohammedans that return to Crapistan is inevitable we will start to see changes in behavior. And once all those moderates that have tasted the freedom of the west are back in said Crapistan you see how long the Mullahs maintain the power.
So sorry your multikulti sensibilities are offended but these are the facts and if you don’t wake up from your leftwing multikulti utopia your obsession with poop holes is going to make you one of the first to be swinging from the lampposts when the Jihadists sweep through Europe.
To others on this site don’t bait him about his fag like behavior it becomes tiresome and detracts from JW, listen to what Robert says and stick to the point in hand.
Jsla,
You raise a number of interesting points.
“The notion of the enzymatic action is interesting to me... I think we'll need an entirely new set of words and terms to first conceptualize Islam's threat, and then create a framework which most people can embrace.”
The word “meme” is sometimes used for ideas that are passed on culturally from one generation to the next; and “memeplex” for more complex combinations of memes. These terms come from Richard Dawkins, and geneticist and evolutionist. Of course, these are just different names for concepts and conceptual systems. But Dawkins’ variation shows that ideas/concepts/beliefs are passed on from one generation of people to the next. Imagine that seven memes are passed from the Muslim to non-Muslim, along with the usual memes needed for day-to-day survival:
1.“I am a Muslim and will remain so (entails acceptance of 1-7).”
2.“Preserve and protect other Muslims before anyone else.”
3.“Invite non-Muslims to accept memes 1-7, giving them a warning. If they refuse (don’t state meme 1), then kill them whenever it is possible.”
4.“Have large families.”
5.“Kill those who say that any of these memes, 1-7 are wrong.”
6.“Marry/mate with Muslims only (also see meme 3).”
7.“Teach your young children to be Muslim (i.e., memes 1-7).”
These seven memes come from the Koran and Hadith. This is a slightly comical version of hard-line Islam, but it is a useful example. As you can imagine, a group of people that has this set of memes, all else being equal, will eventually leave more offspring to pass on this meme set than others. There is nothing intelligent or good or valuable about the meme set. It just happens to be more likely to survive than the others. It will replicate not like a gene, but rather will replicate through teaching, coercion, killing of those without memes 1-7, and by the production of large families who possess the memes 1-7. It is due to these memes, and only these memes, that Islam (moderate, hard-line, the whole thing) survives with such a large population today.
The meme is like a gene in that it really does not care, and can’t care, about the well-being of the organism. In a metaphorical sense, the meme “uses” the host organism so that it may replicate. This is simply a variation of natural selection; those organisms which don’t have this meme are killed off or are coerced into accepting it.
“Winston Churchill coined terms such as "Nazi" and "Iron Curtain" to encapsulate the larger aspects of those former enemies. We need similar terms in the West to summarize and encapsulate the Muslim Menace.”
Islam and its host ummah is difficult to define and this makes it difficult to defeat. The Islamists who are giving us trouble are not all in one location. And they are mixed in with moderate Muslims, merely-nominal Muslims (i.e., those who just say they are Muslim to avoid persecution), and non-Muslim civilains. Many people here complain about the term “Islamist,” but I think if we want to get the idea established in the general population that Islam itself is a problem, the term Islamist may be the best way to go. It distinguishes itself from moderate Muslim, and prevents the writer from being attacked on superficial political correctness. It’s the simplest way that I know of, which is already partly in use by some mainstream pundits. We can mix that usage with Muslim, Islam, etc. I don’t think there is one term that will capture it. But our think our language use overall should capture elements “cult,” “coercion,” “brainwashing,” “deprogramming,” “death,” “threat,” etc.
“This particular inimical enemy has been around longer, is far more diffuse and primitive, will be much harder to crush, and adheres to a quasi-religio-political belief system which is far more inculcated and deep than Nazism and Communism ever were. See how those ideologies (despite the smatterings of indolent believers still) came and went in the course of one or two human life times? Now see Islam - 40 or 50 generations later -- through periods of ebb and flow -- Islam shows a frightening persistence, and tenacity which Hitler Stalin and Mao, or their malignant ideologies lacked.”
Those three grandiose narcissistic psychopaths had personalities similar to Mohammad’s and developed variations on ideologies that were remarkably similar in many respects to Islam. At least with Hitler, eventually we faced him head on and destroyed him and destroyed almost all of Nazism. We’ve never dealt with Islam in that way. The Crusades were always limited and were not designed to wipe out Islam. The Mongols never wiped out Islam entirely and some of them became Muslims (not much of stretch, really).
What the previous battles with Islam have lacked were (a) totality—as in going after the whole thing and trying to wipe it right out, and (b) targetting for destruction the belief in the ideology itself.
“Primitive eating machine -- the shark of cultures -- the virus of human thought -- something based on simple rules and patterns which are time tested, and very hard to eradicate... Is Islam an ideology which we can eventually eradicate, or modify until it's simply a benign presence? Or is it more akin to bacteria and viruses? Things we will always need to fight and be vigilant against? Or is it more like strontium90, or plutonium -- something that's toxic, even in relatively low doses, and which will last 10,000 human generations, and which, if brought together in sufficient quantity will cause dangerous meltdowns and explosions? All of the above?”
I think all of the analogies capture some of it, but I don’t know of a single analogy that captures the whole problem. This is something that we need to attack through military, security, educational/psychological, social, economic, and political methods. It needs to be an attack on multiple fronts, all at once, to overwhelm the enemy. So far, we’ve only used the military and security means. With regard to education, our politicians have done nothing except give a few ignorant statements that are complicit with the enemy. Our politicians themselves are not educated viz the Islam problem.
I think we can disable Islam by first zeroing in on the key problematic elements. Islam contains two elements which I’ve been harping about, namely the very harsh penalties (including death or threat of death) for critics and apostates. These two rules preserve themselves and are the main reason why Islam survives with such a large population today. Without those two rules in place, Islam as we know it will wane. But the most immediate problem is demographics (the “have large families” meme) and brainwashing (the “teach young children to be Muslims” meme).
Once criticism is opened up, all of the various problems within Islam can be attacked. Once apostacy is permitted without penalty, even more people will be leaving Islam, in far greater numbers than they are leaving it now. They will be leaving it publicly, and this will have a big impact in terms of social influence. The realization that Muslims are leaving Islam in droves will weaken the faith of the remaining Muslims. Islam itself, as a belief system, doesn’t stack up well against other religions, so there will be many Muslims switching to other faiths, or becoming agnostics or atheists.
In order to attack the death-to-critics and death-to-apostates rules, we have to go after those who regulate and enforce these rules, and that means going after the Muslim governments, clerics/imams, scholars, and teachers. For one thing, we can, according to our existing laws, refuse entry to or deport from our countries any cleric who advocates the “death to critics and apostates” rules. All clerics should be required to speak the language of the host country in their sermons and agree to the rejection of the criticism and apostacy penalties. Their mosques should be monitored by observers to ensure that there is no incitement to violence or killing.
We should cut off all ties and should accept no immigration from countries that will not comply with our educational demands. Obviously, we cannot allow the anti-western, anti-non-Muslim hate propaganda to continue, because as long as this continues, we are going to have jihadists for the next 25-35 years who are programmed to attack us.
Archimedes,
A Very nice piece of work and interesting solutions; however I wonder as to the effectiveness of those solutions in the long term. There would be a high probability that monitoring of Mosques either overtly or covertly will only switch the hate sermons to another venue. This would enable the propagation of the psychology and perhaps will strengthen it due to perceptions of victimization. We also need to take into account the population dynamics that are already underway across Europe, 25-35 years will see establishment of Muslim majority populations, this has already happened in some cities on the European continent.
I agree with your premise that specific doctrines need to be challenged at the source but the only viable solution I can see is expulsion of all those and their immediate & extended families who practice traditional Islam. We have to define Islam as a totalitarian political movement akin to communism/Nazism and label it in its current form as an enemy to the constitution of the US.
I stand by my earlier statement that once the reality of Crapistan hits home to those that have lost rights and treasure in the west, change will be rapid. It could be facilitated as well by the use of military force to topple a couple theocratic regimes, Iran and Saudi Arabia for example. Let the dust settle and see how things change over the next 50 years. Should we see the correct changes we then should consider some limited forms of repatriation/immigration.
It is also probable that my solution would not work but at least then the problem will have been contained somewhat. But I certainly agree in your approach, we should be using science especially biology as a yard stick to measure the threat from them and any changes we maybe capable of inducing.
Archimedes - I concur with others in thanking you for such long thoughtful posts. Re the conspiracy issue, I see your point about "coordinated group activity" and also about the survival value of the "memes" you listed, but you also rightly note re Nazism and communism,
"See how those ideologies (despite the smatterings of indolent believers still) came and went in the course of one or two human life times? Now see Islam - 40 or 50 generations later -- through periods of ebb and flow -- Islam shows a frightening persistence, and tenacity which Hitler Stalin and Mao, or their malignant ideologies lacked.”"
Which seems to me to make it all the more puzzling, given that Islam has wiped out giant civilizations and has been the west's mortal enemy for 1300 years and has persisted for dozens of generations - to account for the fact that most westerners knew nothing whatsoever about islam until after 9/11 and apparently the vast majority of infidels are STILL ignorant about it. I suppose it's there where I wonder about "conspiracy". A conspiracy of "silence" about Islam. Of course we know about taquiyya but the west until 20 or so years ago was not subject to the kind of political correctness it is today. On the whole it was pretty tough-minded. How has even the truth about Muhammad been kept so secret from so many westerners? One would think that an ideology which has been as dangerous as this for 1300 years would have been very widely and openly discussed in the west, taught in the schools, understood and taught by the clergy, clearly understood by the Israeli's and so on. Especially considering that it is only fairly recently that there would have seemed to be sufficent numbers of Muslims in the west to silence such discussion. I wonder how that happened.
I suppose the simplest answer to my question is probably that Islam is a "religion". That's what's so brilliant about this totalitarian system that accounts for its persistence relative to Nazism and communism. Perhaps there was a reluctance even when westerners WERE relatively more tough-minded, even in the pre-PC days, to be completely blunt about anything calling itself a "religion". That would seem to be the best explanation for a sort of self-imposed silence. Maybe it was sort of "embarassing" for civilized people to broach it in polite company. And we've merely replaced that sort of old-world "politeness" with a new more militantly imposed PC, which has utterly different aims of course, but still results in the same silence.
Caroline
"the west until 20 or so years ago was not subject to the kind of political correctness it is today."
It's been longer than that. In 1983, the French philosopher Jacques Ellul wrote, "you can't criticze Islam anymore!" And one can bet that such a cultural disease of which he described one glaring pustule didn't happen the weekend before Ellul wrote that. This PC irrationality in the West did not happen overnight; it has taken a while to gather steam, slowly, layer by layer. The overarching process was the crisis of thought in the West, reaching a culmination with World War One and the global pandemic of Communism from the late 19th century through to the middle of the 20th, with Fascism and Nazism erupting along the way, and the profound loss of confidence in Western Imperialism which resulted in a widespread self-recrimination on the part of Western people, deeply doubting the beneficence and progress their own civilization had, unprecedently in world history, brought to Mankind; a deep doubt infecting throughout our culture, from the intelligentsia on down (such that you will find American soccer moms who take it for granted that American history has a lot of evil in it, not to mention Western history in general ("look at the witch burnings, the Inquisition, the Crusades," etc. ad nauseam). The 60s Revolution was one major inflammation that was part of that syndrome, and in turn helped to carry the disease further.
Many good social changes resulted. But some terribly bad things ensued as well -- to wit: our predominant inability to critically condemn Islam. It is our biggest flaw, our biggest Achilles heel. And it is mostly our own fault, not the Muslims' fault. They are merely, when clever enough, capitalizing on it. Without that major flaw of ours, the critical condemnation of Islam and the practical measures needed to take
of that problem would be a slam dunk now, not the insanely prodigious difficulty it continues to be now.
Once again, some very intelligent and interesting analysis from Archimedes! Your suggestion of deporting clerics who advocate “death to critics and apostates” is definitely implementable. The monitoring of mosques is also technologically and politically feasible in the US. Anecdotally, many american mosques already assume they are being monitored by the government.
Cutting off imigration altogether is going to be difficult, due to the aforementioned demographic trends, along with the general trend of increased global migration.
Secondly (km),
I see a number of logistical problems that could occur with the currently suggested solutions of mass deportation, bombing countries and leaving them alone for 50+ years.
a. Deportation: Countries such as the US, Canada, and France operate under the law of "jus soli", which means that citizenship is a right of birth in that country. Legally, isn't it a little difficult to extradite birth citizens? add to that issue the afforementioned demographics issues, successive generations, and marriages where one parent is not a foreigner, and you have a very tricky legal kettle of fish.
b.Bombing + 50 years abandonment: This is much too long and a very dangerous proposition. The attached fictional letter from a CIA analysis of future scenarios highlights some of the problems with this approach:
http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s3.html#scen
From my perspective, it seems most likely that suitably rapid progress would be attained by introducing new memes to propogate within Islam using its actual structure. But I need to analyze this situation further to make any useful commentary here..
caroline:
A recent National Geographic poll found that only 1 out of 7 Americans age 18-24 can actually locate Iran or Iraq on a map:(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/download/RoperSurvey.pdf)
This may be due to major failings in the US educational system rather than a "conspiracy", since this information is readily available to those who have interest in intelligence.
Further information about the political regimes and history of Islamic countries can be obtained by regular referral to the CIA factbook, which is published annually and can now be found conveniently online:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
It is not always completely accurate but usually provides enough information to put the puzzle pieces together.
Growing up, my parents often played a game after dinner where they would name a country or city and have us kids race to identify it first. You may want to consider playing such a game with your children, or perhaps engaging in it yourself.
-km
I would respectfully disagree with you in naming Saudi Arabia as a theological regime. Seems to me that the Saudi ruling elite realized that in order to replace the oil income they keep to themselves for palaces, Rolls Royces, and junkets to Monte Carlo, they gave the masses an austere hardline religion. By putting themselves at the top of this construct, they thought they could control and direct it away from themselves and their own corruption. Unfortunately for them, maybe good for us, their "Frankenstein's monster" is turning on its creator (witness the recent A.Q. activities in the kingdom). They're being hoisted on their own petard, as it were.
"I would respectfully disagree with you in naming Saudi Arabia as a theological regime."
Meant to say theocratic regime.
-jehana
While I agree with you in pointing out the failing in the U.S. educational system in regards to world goings-on, there seems to be another problem at least as large. PC culture is in no small part to blame, but equally as culpable is the "bread and circuses" static that busies up the thoughts of a sizable portion of the general population. Hollywood, NBA, NFL, MLB, NCAA, American Idol, etc. (anyone out there likes those things, sorry, but I think you see my point), not to mention 99¢ cheeseburgers. Pop stars and pro athletes act as a sort of psychological heroin that distracts too many people from the rats nibbling at their fingertips.
It's not merely a matter of communicating information about Islam to people. Between the receiver and the information stands a filter -- a PC filter. For those minions infected by PC, no amount of damning information will be received rationally: the PC filter will alter the information. There's no solution to this gargantuan problem, other than to wait another three or four decades, at best. (And that's assuming there will be a trend in our favor. I don't see any evidence yet of such a trend; in fact, I see the dominant PC culture getting more stubborn about "Islamophobia", "Islamo-sensitivity", and excessive Western self-recrimination. But there also seem to be amorphous indications of a grass-roots groundswell tipping toward rationality, so perhaps, at least, we won't have to wait a half century or more.)
In the meantime, let's hope the Muslims don't mass-murder too many more people.
To Archimedes --
I very much admire the post above where you enumerate a number of the rules that animate Muslim culture on the one hand, and Western culture on the other, and then you show how the rules interact, and attempt to draw conclusions on that basis about likely outcomes of the interaction -- I found that all extraordinarily creative. Do not lose that post. Polish and publish it somewhere some time.
Not sure if I agree with certain of your conclusions, however. Perhaps you left out of your account a number of rules that could lead to a different outcome than the disturbing one you proposed as likely.
And I'm not sure I completely agree with your espousal of the upward causation idea -- that complex wholes are determined by their "parts." I rather think that reality shows both upward and downward causation, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes with one or the other form of causation predominating, depending on what phenomenon one is examining.
In another post above, you also mention that like the gene, the meme exploits and uses organisms to propagate itself. Two responses to this.
First, the "gene" seems to have gone the way of the particle in physics -- at any rate many biologists are apparently no longer sure what a 'gene' is, and it doesn't seem to be a normal object of any kind. Whatever it is, if it is anything, it is apparently so influenced by context, that some responsible scientists have even proposed abandoning the very concept of the gene.
Second, there is truth in the notion that "memes" or, if you will, ideas, can sometimes exploit people as mere means of propagation. But you will perhaps agree that not all memes dominate their hosts. For example, if one begins to understand the limitations of any and every meme, one is thus liberated from any closed, pre-existing rule-set or meme-set, and can instead act freely out of direct insight into the unique present. This I suppose is the difference between a programmed machine (or a machine-like being) on the one hand, and a creative being on the other. But all these statements invite debate, and I am digressing too much from our main topic here.
Jehana,
Point well taken and I understand your concern; the issue of citizenship by right of birth is indeed a tricky issue, but I think an argument could be made that being a practicing Muslim negates these rights as their allegiance is really to the Umma, not to the host nation state. As I stated earlier Islam needs to be recognized as a political movement and one that is recognized as an enemy to the US constitution. The US interned and deported many Germans and Japanese during the Second World War, we are not setting any new precedents here.
A more realistic solution than a blanket deportation scheme would perhaps be phased repatriation and internment, something that in theory has already been started in the UK and France. Take Archimedes point that we initiate and act on surveillance of Mosques and vocal Islamists. We then use this information to justify deportation to the nearest Islamic state or home country should the individual have recognizable ties to an alien country. We do this for any preaching or distribution of Koranic texts that we recognize as being inherently hateful towards non Muslims and or propagates Islam to the detriment of the host country (this being a good part of the later Koran, Hadith and Sura) would pretty much ensure that those that continue to worship and proselytize Islam would be subject to deportation or imprisonment at some point, due to treason/sedition. With increasing numbers facing the threat of action I am sure we would see more pressure put on reform in the bastions of Islamic power.
I am not sure that I take the same conclusions you do from the ‘Caliphate letter’, the scenario outlined in the document argues for me at least that a Caliphate should be stopped at all costs. We should be paying close attention to the demographic changes that are occurring across Europe, the figures posted on the site you recommend I think underestimate the current numbers of Mohammedans in the EU substantially. And the projections do not include the possibility of Turkey joining the EU within the decade. Therefore I believe it is imperative that adaptive measures be taken now rather than wait, because to wait is to hand the advantage to the Jihadists.
Some tough choices are going to need to be taken in the next few months about how we proceed, but it is obvious to me that sitting back and hoping that the current courses of action will work will be a disaster. I am predicting a serious escalation in this war within the year that will precipitate the necessary legal changes that I am suggesting. This will most probably be triggered by military action being taken against Iran by Israel and the US.
The idea of using meme constructs to try and influence Islamist teaching has merit although I believe it is limited by the small time frame in which we have to operate before Islam reaches critical mass and forms the Caliphate, never forget the demographic bomb which is ticking away right now across Europe and Asia.
Eisenhund it would indeed be a strange twist of fate if the Saudi rulers were consumed by their own monster, couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch if you ask me.
To Jsla
The only two ways I know to bold text here are:
1. <b>bolded text</b>
2. <strong>strong text</strong>
In the above two examples I have used a trick to make the html code (e.g., <b>) visible to you. But of course when you use these html codes in typing your posts, these html codes won't appear when you preview or post -- only the bolded text itself will appear. But I guess you know all that.
I enjoy your posts as well, Jsla. I found your dialogue with Archimedes very thought provoking and entertaining -- enzymes, waste products, sharks, and your other stimulating metaphors exploring ways of seeing Islam's interaction with non-Islamic social orders.
In some ways I think your metaphors were unintentionally evocative of Islam as a sort of pattern or archetype of the psyche, one of the innumerable creatures or characters that live there and in dreams.
I would go further than someone like Jung, though, and see this through the lens of a sort of mobilized Platonism (sans Plato's notion of changelessness in the realm of Ideas and non-physical beings), and conclude the whole world of Islam is in some sense and degree motivated by a living non-physical being whose characteristics and intentions toward humanity are shown in the Islamic ethos. I propose this notion not as some doctrine I believe, but as a hypothesis I think can to some extent be confirmed by non-physical experience. Metaphors and images like yours, provided we keep fully alert to where they break down in contact with facts -- and metaphors always break down at some point -- can be a way to gradually approach a perception of the non-physical being "behind" Islam. A current working hypothesis for me is that one of the main intentions of the said being is to devour what Piaget might have referred to as a "structure" of the human mind -- or what Freud might have called the "ego" -- but what I would call the human core, the individuality of the individual.
As to your most recent objections to what I was saying about generalization, Jsla -- I'm pretty sure I have already answered your objections in a couple of posts I wrote in response to Dr. Pepper's objections. I don't necessarily disagree with your objections -- but I think perhaps you formulated them in response to things I never said, and didn't notice certain particulars in what I was saying. But if you did miss my points, I can't say I blame you, as they were expressed both long-windedly and abstractly, a soporific combination -- and they were maybe not that interesting anyway. Certainly I have become a little tired of them, having beaten the issue to a dried out pulp with Dr. Pepper.
The biggest pain is waiting for it to happen. I already have my beer in the cooler by my t.v. chair. I just hope the Arabian peninsula doesn't go up in smoke while I'm watching 'Stargate SG-1' or 'Aqua Teen Hunger Force'.
b.t.w. - Still waiting for my Letter of Marque and Reprisal in the mail. Guess Congress is busy worrying if Joe Blow was wiretapped talking to Granny.
The above was directed to km, I should have mentioned.
km:
you do realize I'm a practicing Muslim, right?
-jehana
I think we all realize that. However, reasonable postings such as yours often garner reasonable answers. Strident posters who act like Kruschev banging his shoe set themselves up for derision. Including me, at least in the opinion of a couple of not-to-be-named habitual topic derailers.
Hi Jehana -
It causes a bit of cognitive dissonance to hear you saying some of the things you say, while yet you are a practicing Muslim --
It almost sounds as if you might agree with substantial parts of the criticisms made here of Islam.
May I ask do you believe in secularism and do you reject Islam's fusion of politics and religion? And do you agree with efforts to bring about a "Reformation" within Islam, one that would reject the totalitarian aspects of Islam?
Just want to put a brief comment to this very important comment-message about the need to keep focus on the issue of jihad. It is good to have this gentle reminder to why we have a website such as this one. I have seen a number of threads in which posting would go off subject to go into subjects that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand. So it is good to warn the posters to keep it to the subject of jihad.
Just want to put a special appeal to some of the posters who post comments that are anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. Please, no more attacks on those who profess faith in Christ. These are not just personal attacks, but also promotes tensions between Christians and those who are not Christians which are not needed here. Let us stay focus on the real issue at hand, the Islamofacist jihad issue.
Mr. Spencer's message does seem to have had an effect akin to turning the garden hose on the dogs fighting in one's front yard.
Folks, I appreciate all those thoughtful comments. I’ll try to respond to certain points (apologies in advance if I miss anyone)…
Eduardo,
You’re quite right that top-down influence (originating as top-down influence) is important. Some top-down influence does emerge dynamically when the simple units are put in the environment and the program is run. I mainly described this as an exercise to show that conspiracy was not necessary. I certainly left out a lot of considerations to illustrate my point in the thought exercise. Though at the end of my post, I said:
“Now, add back to this scenario the fact that there really are conspiracies, there really are people pushing for sharia, jihad, social apartheid between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the future of western civilization doesn’t look good. And did I mention the demographic jihad?”
There is clearly top-down influence (chiefly: clerics, teachers, governments) conscious awareness of group behaviour, specific goals (not the least, to spread the mission to all mankind, 34:28, to conquer all the non-Muslim religions and disbelief 9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9), and so on. I believe that it is necessary to deal with both the “constituents” and the “leaders.”
As to your point about different rules leading to different and possibly more optimistic outcomes than the one I proposed, you’re right. And I am more optimistic than my thought-exercise would have let on. For the purposes of the exercise I downplayed the positive aspects of Islam (it really isn’t monolithically bad) and left out the rules in the West which allow us to be irreverent, skeptical, to test for validity and evidence, to engage in moral thinking independently of appeal to divine commandments, etc. I also did not mention the basic tendencies toward survival and self-preservation.
“But you will perhaps agree that not all memes dominate their hosts…”
Yes. In the case of Islam, there are memes that demand that Islamic law be set up, and once that happens, the external social environment (the implementation of the rules in the society) enforce the memes’ continued existence. The privacy of one’s own thoughts is subject to some different internal conditions. One can question one’s own thoughts. Of course, Islam has a meme for this, e.g., warnings about penalties for tendencies toward disbelief. But even so, privacy of thought, and self-analysis in the safety of that privacy, permits one to question certain practices and beliefs. I think that certain Islamic memes go fundamentally against certain concepts that arise naturally as a result of basic properties of the human neural system and its relation to the body and the environment. The two bad memes that I later focussed on (penalties for criticism and apostacy) do require the imposition of external rules in the society. I believe that changing certain key conditions like allowing free apostacy and public criticism (with no penalties) will lead to the abandonment of Islam for many and the radical reform/modernization of it for others. At the same time, emphasizing certain belief systems developed mostly by the west (in ancient Greece) including independent moral thinking and scientific empirical testing and logical analysis will tend to dislodge the problematic memes in Islam. (Islamic governments and Islamist political movements know this, which is one of the reasons why they want to block influence of the west—they stand to lose power. This threat backs them into a hard-line position). It’s not that Islamic societies don’t have those memes; the main problem is that those memes are not given as much weight and are not as well-developed as conceptual systems. The emphasis in Islamic societies is on authority and tradition.
“…For example, if one begins to understand the limitations of any and every meme, one is thus liberated from any closed, pre-existing rule-set or meme-set, and can instead act freely out of direct insight into the unique present. This I suppose is the difference between a programmed machine (or a machine-like being) on the one hand, and a creative being on the other.”
Indeed, the human conceptual system is highly flexible, subject to learning and self-correction. We use neurons and synapses, and the relative strengths of the connections that support our beliefs and ideas are, inherently, subject to modification. Not completely flexible (e.g., memories and factual knowledge endure), but certainly religious or political beliefs can be knocked out, including by believers themselves. Note that when a belief is knocked out, the person does not suddenly lose all that knowledge. Rather, they have understood it according to a different conceptual system, a conceptual system that changes certain elemental beliefs (e.g., Allah exists, Mohammad was a true prophet, the Koran is literally the words of Allah, everything that Allah says is correct and must be followed, etc.), as well as changes in interpretation of the very same elements of the Islamic. This leads some to reject the whole edifice, and others to some degree of reform in their views.
“But all these statements invite debate, and I am digressing too much from our main topic here.”
Well, we are talking about defending civilization from Islamic imperialism!
___
Eisenhund,
We definitely need to try and pull people away from all those superficial amusements (“bread and circuses”)…nothing wrong with a little entertainment but our society is way overboard on that kind of distraction, and it is preventing us from tackling the problem of defending western civilization with more passion and involvement. I was thinking if we could get Hollywood’s Brad and Angelina to take up the cause, we might make some more progress.
Seriously, though, getting some well-known and influential people in the media to pursue this cause seems to be a key ingredient we are lacking.
___
Jehana,
Quite right about introducing new memes. That’s something I didn’t address in my initial exercise. Introducing new memes or modifying or giving greater weight to previously-weak ones is needed for outright rejection or else modern reform or Islam.
___
Km,
Yes monitoring mosques is not an air-tight solution because fire-and-brimstone clerics would self-edit to some extent and the hard-core Islamists would be driven underground, out of our reach. But I think they already have additional venues for organizing and discussing various traitorous activities (or they use the mosque at times during the week when there are less people around). I think what monitoring the mosques would do is take away a major venue for the dissemination of the jihadist and sharia-activist ideology to large numbers of people. This would reduce significantly the Islamists’ outreach to a large number of young people in the Muslim community. (Closing down Islamic schools is also important). And the likelihood that the fire-brand rhetoric would probably be reduced quite a bit is obviously a good thing (and if it isn’t, then we may have grounds to deport, and the public will be exposed to what’s going on). Certainly, what goes on in mosques needs to be more open to public scrutiny.
Re the need to deal with this problem quickly, I think if we had begun to implement the entire project that Bush, Blair, et al were talking about shortly after 9/11, namely a “war” on several fronts--educational, economic, political, not just military--we would be a lot farther ahead today. But as I said, they have not done much on these non-military areas. If we pursue the battle on all of these fronts, we will get results. If we need to abandon the U.N. and the E.U., cut their funding, and form a new organization, then we should do it. This problem of Islamic imperialism is at least a large and may last longer than the Cold War, so big moves must be made, and the longer we delay the worse it gets.
Re Islam as a totalitarian political movement. I believe that’s chiefly what Mohammad created. The fact that Islam is classified as a religion is a major stumbling block, gives it a kind of untouchable status among politicians and the majority of the public.
I’m not against stepping up deportations, but in doing so we need to distinguish between Islamists and peaceful Muslims. I know how problematic the concept of “moderate Muslim” is. I realize that having Muslims of all stripes in our presence in the west is at lot like being forced to play Russian roulette. And weighing deportations against the possibility of another major terrorist attack, surely we must see deportations as the lesser of the two evils. But I think there are other less harmful options on the table that have not been fully exploited, such as the use of a massive propaganda campaign. There must be a massive effort to educate the general public about the problems of Islam. The problem is that we (actually, our politicians) don’t have the strength of conviction to do that. There are people crying racism, there are others saying don’t attack religion, and there are always people telling us we have no business telling others what to believe. But all of these objections need to be defeated. If we can get people to understand that Islam is a totalitarian political movement, containing major evil elements, then it can be eradicated in a similar manner as communism was eliminated from the U.S. Islam is definitely a subversive element that seeks to overthrow government and rule of law, and therefore must be defeated or reformed to remove the negative and political elements.
The main knock against mass (total) deportations of Muslims of all stripes is this: We have a responsibility to protect all decent law-abiding citizens, and deporting moderate Muslims with the Islamists will put the former in danger of being persecuted, brutally controlled, and/or killed by the latter. Lots of Muslims come to the west to escape the Islamists. Islamists, yes, kick them out, but not all people who call themselves Muslims.
Another point: Some radical and ultra-PC leftists are significantly more dangerous to western societies than are moderate Muslims, but we don’t deport them (where to?), and I don’t think deportation would be an effective solution, because we would be just shifting these people off to bring grief upon somebody else. Let’s make them face the music right here. Let’s document their evils and excesses and make them answer for them publicly.
___
Caroline,
I think there has been a conspiracy of silence about all matters Islamic, in governments, in editorial meetings at media organizations, and so on. But I think, in this case, also, it is not just conspiracy to keep quiet (as in the cartoon controversy), but also the mindless collective behaviour that results from the individuals’ biases and beliefs. I think the truth about Mohammad and Islam has been kept secret for so long because, as you say, it is treated as a religion. This is a persistent taboo, a superstition if you will. We need to reframe it as a cult and a subversive political movement, and thereby force either radical reform or rejection of the whole ideology. To get there, we need a massive educational/propaganda project. And in the same way that a person’s individual vote makes a difference, we need to do what we can at the individual interpersonal level. If more people are doing this, educating people about the problems with Islam, we will gain the social and political influence. I understand from your posts and from others such as Mentat above that even presenting the ugly facts about Islam leads to an “attack the messenger” response. What’s surprising is that these responses would come from people who know you well; they should know better. I think we need to just keep talking, keep pushing our case, without being over-the-top such as to turn people off (not that you strike me as being over-the-top). There are non-rational aspects to information presentation and persuasion techniques that I think we are not yet fully exploiting. There is a whole “human factors” aspect to this project that we have been overlooking.
Pepper,
I think some form of PC filter has always existed in societies. It begins with the individual person generally being averse to criticism, and can become implemented through the use of force and social pressure. In the Islam problem, we have radical post-modernist leftists wielding considerable influence over the mainstream media and in certain academic departments, essentially forbidding criticism of Islam as a racist imperialist act. Another contribution to the PC filter viz Islam is the insistence by the more religious members of the society that Islam as a religion should not be criticized. I suppose I am more optimistic about dealing with the PC filter because of the possibility of modifying it at the grass-roots level, in the minds of individuals. Show the facts, use valid arguments, educate the public, thereby allowing the reframing of Islam as a cult and political movement. The PC filter is subject to social pressure; it is subject to non-rational influence; it is malleable.
___
Texican,
That declaration signed by the 12 writers is effective in part because they are well-known pundits, celebrities, most of whom are recognized as authorities on Islam. That power of fame something that we don’t have (unless there are some famous people behind these pseudonyms. But I do think we could put together a brief information package, just getting right to the point showing the highlights of Islamic ideology (e.g., quotes from Koran), history (cite the slaughter of 100,000 Hindu POWs), and present-day Islamic mayhem and violation of human rights. I’ve been working on a pamphlet for some time, but haven’t completed it yet.
Otherwise I refer people to this site or faithfreedom or Islam-watch. There is also a good introduction to the problems with Islamic ideology by James Arlandson in Article “Why I don’t Convert to Islam.” (3 parts)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5197&search=arlandson
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5258
----fag like behavior----
'fag'? Dear me. Do you hate Black men with White women too?
Moron.
So ALL Muslims, even those that have made declarations that are utterly loyal, utterly against violence, utterly in favour of arresting those that help and do violence, and who has said that radicals should leave The West.....Should all be deported too?!
You're a fucking fanatic. You act NO BETTER than Nazis and Islmaists towards Jews. THEY would also agree that the only good Jew (Muslim) is a dead Jew (Muslim).
If you start deporting Muslims that are loyal to their countries and it's Laws and values, and who are GENUINELY moderate (hey! a genuinely moderate Msulim is NO DIFFERENT than your average Catholic quite frankly) and who call for other Muslims to inform on radicals, and who want radicals got rid of and who have explictly declared that they are Westernised and love it that way....You are simply going to
A) Make enemies out of people who were not your enemies (hell they were in fact your allies on the inside!)
and
B) Make yourselves look like the bad guys in the eyes of the rest of the World!
Congratulations idiots...you just shot yourself in head.
Well done. You've really helped the cause there!
Thye enemy is the fanatic, the hardliner, and the hard 'moderate' Islamist! THEY are the ones we should be dealing with (which is something realy moderates do agree with as well!), not wasting resourcers elsewhere and making new enemies.
And that's not being PC (I'm ANYTHING but PC beleibe you me!!) that's being logical, sensible and morally right.
Some of you idiots are as bad as what you fight and you can't even see it!
Hitler hated the Communists, but man...You wouldn't want the lousy communists ruling everything either!
Stalin and Hitler were hated enemies and yet shared a common fanaticism. LEARN from that.
Would you like a big wheel of cheese to go with that aphasic whine?
Archimedes,
"If we can get people to understand that Islam is a totalitarian political movement, containing major evil elements, then it can be eradicated in a similar manner as communism was eliminated from the U.S."
The Academy Awards just honored arguably on of the top stars of Hollywood, George Clooney, with an award for a film that basically communicates the message that the communism-eradicating fight was ill-conceived, irrational, unfounded and dangerous. And Clooney is far from alone. Too many Americans now take it as a given that "McCarthyism" is bad, worse than any Communist threat was. The West, with America at the helm, only managed to defeat Communism because of 8 years of Ronald Reagan. His success, surely, speaks to a groundswell of rationality in American society, but the sea change of the modern West is not static; it is ongoing, and shifting under our feet as we speak. The inability to critically condemn Islam is only one of its many features. Without a Ronald Reagan type leader against Islam, we small minority of Jihad Watchers will be talking about memes in little nooks and crannies in the interstices of the Internet for decades to come.
Archimemes:
Yes, new memes would increase the possibility of Muslims actually practicing _Islam_ as opposed to fanatacism.
I would suggest taking a closer look at the memes of Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect. This name keeps coming up again and again when I talk to Muslims about how popular practice of Islam has changed in the past 10 years, both here in America and in South Asia. A number of the Imams with long residencies in the US have been kicked out of mosques in the past few years to accomodate the Wahabis, who receive major funding from Saudis. In my family, we've switched mosques more than once to get away from their "fire and brimstone" type preaching at Jumah.
Their militant philosopohy is not promoting any kind of healthy adaptation for Muslim immigrants to the US. I wish I had access to better statistics to emphasize the magnitude of this problem, and the rapid pace at which it has grown.
Robert, can you accomodate with some sort of relevant post?
This is proving to be one of the more interesting and informative threads I have read on JW for a while. I honestly believe that the way to propagate the message we are trying to develop here is to use rational scientific constructs to define the threat and devise policies on the home front. Thanks to all who are taking part!
Jehana,
I would never have guessed that you were a practicing Muslim, logical deconstruction of arguments is something that I come across rarely from those that profess to be servants of Mohammed and Allah I hope you can continue contributing with the same reasoning, your input and perspective would be useful. I would just like to put some of the propositions I have been saying in context. I understand full well how extreme they sound and how unpalatable the consequences would be. They would if instigated directly affect my family as my wife is from the ME, although a non practicing Muslim, an apostate if you like. So I don’t put these arguments forward without lots of forethought. But the reason for doing so is to raise the issue as a topic of debate so that hopefully we can develop ideas that could be put in place to stop the escalation to the more drastic end of the spectrum. PC attitudes should not cripple the debate, everything needs to be put forward to try and understand and defeat the Jihad. It is for this reason that Hugh should be congratulated for highlighting the Benes decree on this site.
Archimedes,
Your points are well taken and I agree with all of them. A major issue that we have to deal with is the 5th column of supporters that exist amongst us that enable the Islamists at every step. I think it is very telling how the left is seen to be aligning its self with Islam since the fall of communism i.e. Red Ken, the Mayor of London and G. Galloway, the Respect MP in the UK. Yes an effective propaganda campaign needs to be instigated that highlights the issues we are trying to deal with. It needs to focus on redefining Islam as a political movement and removing from it the special status accorded to religions. The place to start is here with well thought out scientifically based reasoning as to why Islam in its current form is so subversive, the final goal needs to be rewriting and interpretation of Islam’s holy texts . You are right that we can each play a part by raising the issue with friends and relatives when we get the chance and engaging them in a way that makes them reassess their own schema regarding Islam’s influence and goals.
I also think though that by bringing concepts like deportation and internment to the forefront it will help mobilize those moderates who through their silence tacitly support the extreme elements through their inaction. At the moment there is no motivating factor for them to contribute in anyway, however the threat of direct action (even through just talking about it) I believe will cause them to speak up with increasing veracity as the realization that they do have an important role to play hits home. This would also cause the ultra PC leftists to begin showing their true colors, you are right that deportation would be inappropriate for these people but prosecution for sedition/treason would be enough. Perhaps another good place to start would be to form a dedicated military unit composed of Muslims, a similar thing was done for the Japanese in the Second World War this would go along way to establishing the credibility of the Muslim community within the west. My own view is that ties to the Umma in the majority of Muslims are far stronger than ties to the Nation state but an avenue should be opened for those that do genuinely wish to show their support for the nation state above the Umma.
DaveyFreak,
There you go again letting your emotions get the better of you, the enemy is not the hardliner, the enemy is the doctrine of Islam in its current form. Maybe you believe W. Churchill was a fanatic and a hard liner, but in times of war you need to take a hard line. I don’t see anyone here being a fanatic, I see people being concerned for their own heritage and nationality and trying to come up with effective strategies to counter the dawa and jihad. Feel free to contribute as you have raised, I think some important points, but you do not seem to be thinking logically. There are specific objective reasons as to why we should be wary of “moderate Muslims” but you seem to be ignoring those in favor of trying to make yourself feel better about the fact that you are running against your multicultural programming. Your outbursts of emotion and foul language indicate a degree of cognitive dissonance that should you be able to reconcile will allow you to fully understand the problem at hand.
My guess is that you are maybe new to a lot of the concepts that are pushed on this forum about the nature of Islam and it is right that you should hear alarm bells ringing when you see what looks like to you fanaticism. However you need to understand that taken in the context of Islamic teaching hardly anything that is said on this forum is fanatical. It is just merely the logic of trying to deal with a medieval ideology which is fanatical, in the 21st century. You raise the issue of being morally right and I congratulate for this so I will ask you one question.
Do you think it is morally right to allow Islam in its current form be allowed to propagate across Europe with the current demographic changes that are taking place, while sitting back and hoping that we can weed out the fanatics.
If you answer yes to this question then you greatly misunderstand the nature of the teachings of Islam and the role they play in Muslims lives. I would suggest some extracurricular reading; look through this site there are many articles and books which may help. Roberts P.I.G and Bat Yeors, Eurabia are good places to start.
Their militant philosopohy is not promoting any kind of healthy adaptation for Muslim immigrants to the US. I wish I had access to better statistics to emphasize the magnitude of this problem, and the rapid pace at which it has grown.
Posted by: jehana at March 7, 2006 01:25 PM
That is indeed worrying, is there any chance of you actually being able to go back to those Mosques and get recordings of these sermons. If people could see what is going on under their noses it would be a big help.
Jehana,
Robert doesn't read a lot of these posts. He can be contacted by email on the "contact us."
Steve Emerson estimates that approximately 80% of mosques in the U.S. have been radicalized. Exactly what this means in terms of a definition, I'm not sure, but I would gather that fire-and-brimstone Imams would fit part of the criteria. (Emerson was looking into terrorist-related activity and connections).
There's no question that the Wahhabis are up to no good, and they are a big part of the problem, but there's more to it than that. (I won't get into a discussion about that here).
Anyways, regarding your and your family's experiences with having to avoid radical imams, may I suggest you write something up for publication on this? I've read stories about this type of problem before (i.e., complaints from Muslims about radical imams). If Emerson is right, this is a widespread phenomenon across the U.S. and elsewhere (certainly Britain, France, Australia). Why should you and your family have to make the adjustments? If the imams cannot adjust to a modern or progressive view that is consistent with the majority of people attending the mosque, the moderates/progressives need to step up and put pressure on them. Surely they cannot completely disregard the views of the community?
...lots of questions arise that seem worth pursuing...such as who decides which imam will be at which mosque, what criteria are used, do they consider the compatibility between the imam's views and the constitution or charter of the country in which they will be preaching, how are complaints dealt with, etc.
Jehana
This publication by Freedom House my have some answers for you.
SAUDI PUBLICATIONS ON
HATE IDEOLOGY
FILL AMERICAN MOSQUES
http://freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
km...You are a hypocrite.
You say that every single Muslim, no matter how genuinely moderate and loyal to their country and totally against violence and oppression, should all be deported.
And yet you then say THIS to Jehana... A PRACTISING MUSLIM:
-----I hope you can continue contributing with the same reasoning, your input and perspective would be useful.----
So you want this no hope, lying, enemy within Muslim to 'stick around'?
But you wnat him deported as an enemy of YOU.
And don't insult me and my country. People like Churchill were a million miles away from out and out fanatics like you.
Daveyfreak,
Still a little hot under the collar I see no matter.
Let me try and explain to you again, what countless other people have been trying to tell you. All Muslims regardless of their current spiritual outlook have the potential to become radicalized; maybe it takes a couple of generations e.g. the 9/11 & 7/7 bombers but the risk is always there due to the teachings of the Koran
Islam as a doctrine is totalitarian in its current form and has found through the pretext of religion a means of propagation that encompasses many generations, this is something on a scale that we have never had to deal with before. The point has been made that our most recent interactions with such ideologies has been Nazism and Communism. Yet these were ideas which only propagated through a handful of generations.
In order to combat these ideologies we developed within our social, legal and scientific systems means for identifying these behaviors and dealing with them. Some more unpleasant than others however these responses when taken in the context of the time can be seen to just be rational acts to identifiable threats.
I am arguing that internment and repatriation are an accepted use of strategic military warfare that is all and this option should be as free to talk about as say invasion and suppression of sovereign states that advocate and support terrorism. I personally would rather see Islam make the necessary reforms to operate successfully within the 21st century, but as I and many others have stated the window of opportunity in which to do something is rapidly shrinking. This therefore constitutes a very real threat and no matter how nice a person Jehana maybe it doesn’t get round the core fundamental issues I have outlined above. It would be interesting to hear what Jehana’s views are on the possibility of rewriting the words of Mohammed.
You don’t have to agree with this and that is your right to do so. But until you come up with concrete examples about how we deal with these very fundamental issues you are going to have a hard job convincing me and I am sure others that at some stage internment and repatriation are not viable solutions. What should be the threshold for action, do we wait for a WMD attack on our or Europe’s soil? I am not sure I want to do this; maybe you do, but don’t delude your self into thinking this isn’t going to happen. Infact if you were thinking clearly you would already see that the demographic wave of Islam unleashed across Europe is already a WMD!
In reference to you telling me who I can and can not insult, I am afraid buddy that I unlike you in the dhimmified UK have freedom of speech and cherish the fact that I can call you out any point that pleases me. Were it not for Europe’s left wing socialism, welfare state system and worshipping at the alter of multiculturalism we wouldn’t even have to have this conversation. However your mind is addled with socialist collectivism and worrying about the feelings of others to see the facts how they really are and how they relate to your survival.
And I think most people here would agree that my line of reasoning is very close to that of Winston Churchill I refer you to the quotation below from the man himself.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Winston Churchill
From the River War
I look forward to your response!
Johnathan wrote:
"romantic entanglements"
Is there some hanky panky going on here at jihadwatch that I am not aware of?
I know that you say that you don't read the threads on this site very often but there are no soap operas that I can see on jihadwatch".
Johnathan, YES ! I will admit it to you: I LOVE YOU ! I HAVE ALWAYS LOVED YOU AND I USE JIHAD WATCH AS A PRETEXT !!!!
I do think we could put together a brief information package, just getting right to the point showing the highlights of Islamic ideology (e.g., quotes from Koran), history (cite the slaughter of 100,000 Hindu POWs), and present-day Islamic mayhem and violation of human rights. I’ve been working on a pamphlet for some time, but haven’t completed it yet.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 7, 2006 08:46 AM
___
Archimedes, how about posting what you have accomplished to date.
This will get the ball rolling and as much as this group likes to comment, the task will undoubtedly go quicker.
The Texica.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
----I unlike you in the dhimmified UK have freedom of speech and cherish the fact that I can call you out any point that pleases me.----
Then I guess so can I!!! So no more telling me to lay off Bible thumping fanatics! It's the free speech I cherish, 'buddy'.
-----trying to make yourself feel better about the fact that you are running against your multicultural programming----
You don't even have any idea what you're saying do you?
You keep bringing up multiculturalism as bad thing and a weak and foolish way to think.
Well you may not know it but being against multiculturalism means you are against EVERYONE.
Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Jamaican, Spanish, Mexican, French, British, Dutch, Greek....You may be shocked to learn that Islam is not the only multicultural aspect of a country!!!!
And I really have to laugh when you totally fail to see that America is NOTHING BUT multicultural!
And it has NEVER been any different!
How stupid do you have to be not to grasp that the only time America was not multicultural was when the fucking Indians (oh, sorry, 'Native Americans') were there!
America is NOTHING BUT an immigrant society!
If you want a truly non-multicultural, 'pure' America I'm afriad you won't exist (oh! what a loss!) and nor will anyone else...except the Native Americans.
Chritisanity is as Alien to the original peoples of America as Islam!
You want a 'pure' American religion...go worship some water spirits!
What a joke!
Texican: I never said I was 'caught up' in 7/7. I said I could have died just as easily as anyone else. I have spent plenty of time in London and used the tube. Only fate decreed i happened not to be in London on those specific trains.
Blind terrorist attacks can kill anyone. From Satanist to Pagan to a Pope fanboy, Falwell groupie, or a non-religious person full stop.
Ans attack on a country is just that. an atatck on everyone.
So you can go on about God this and God that and wave your little crucifix around...but the consequences of such attacks have nothing to do with your religion.
Britain is a secular country. Sorry about that.
personally i think all those Iraish Americnas should have been kicked out as well. HUGE amounts of support and monry there going to civilian killing, child killing terrorists...In MY country. Catholic as well.
Damn to hell this multiculturalism!
Archimemes:
I know you enjoy trying to play jenga with my Islamic memes, so I'm going to challenge you: prove your optimism! I would like to see 7 strong positive memes taken from your understanding of Islam. Reliable references respectfully requested.
DaveyFreak,
I am not the one asking you to lay off bible thumpers, Robert Spencer the man that owns this site asks that you stay on topic that is all and as he owns it, he can say what he likes.
Again you are little bit confused about your terminology, you say that I must be against Chinese, Japanese, Jamaican etc etc. I am not against any nation in fact I am for all of them, I believe a country can be multiethnic but I don’t believe a country if it is to be successful can be excessively multicultural. I believe in language, borders and culture as being the bed rock of a stable society
This is an important premise you need to learn, here is a definition of multiculturalism for you:
Multiculturalism is a policy, that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural
This policy is one that has dominated European politics and has led to the sorry state of affairs we now see afflicting the EU today, European integration has taken endless years and countless wars to get the notion of the EU. The elevation of all cultures to being as important as the host culture is the reason you have the problems you see today with Islam.
Multiculturalism and its protection by the PC mafia combined with Islam’s aggressive tendencies create a dangerous combination. America is not so multicultural but is multiethnic, bound by the ideals defined in the constitution, a common spoken language and defined borders.
Robert states:
"those with agendas" and "other causes" that detract from this site....
like those who have a Christ-hating "Secular Humanist Agenda"; and let me add one more requirement for expression on this site: that profanity be off-limits as well.
Some of the choice words I've read from a few of you are completely unnecessary, and quite frankly, do nothing but make YOU look bad. Plus -they only eclipse anything of value you might be hoping to convey, because at that point, you've lost your audience. Stick to the topic, and reserve the 'sweet talk' for the locker room.
Also...Robert states:
"refrain from Christian evangelism"...
by definition, Christian evangelism is sharing the gospel, but with one key objective in mind: to convert someone to Christianity.
And in order to convert someone, they must be asked to make a decision; there must be an invitation made.
If a member of this site is simply sharing their own faith, as it relates to a particular topic, then that isn't "evangelising" at all, but sharing; because there isn't a point at which the reader is being asked to MAKE A DECISION for Christ.
I think we have to be careful how we interpret what someone is saying when they share their point of view - or share their faith - because intentions can be easily misunderstood.
Texican,
Re Letter About Islam
Thanks for trying to jump-start something here. This is getting to be an old thread. If we do this, and the invitation is open to everyone, I think we should carry this forward to new threads (say, the first thread of a new day). This should not be disruptive to Robert's site, but if it is, we can find other places to post.
First, though, let's not overlook the fact that some good, brief, introductory letters have already been written. E.g.,
About Islam: Read this first http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm
And this http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/ProphetCartoons.htm
If you want a brief letter that captures the essence of the problem, and which is convincing and has the ring of authority, I suggest you use that letter signed by the 12 (Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, et al), which you have already cited.
Here is the outline of what I suggest we do on this site: A one-page (8.5 X 11") letter designed to familiarize citizens with the main problems with Islam and why it is a threat to our physical security and way of life today.
Outline:
___
Title (suggested): Islam's Threat to Modern Civilization.
1.The Goal of Islam
(a) Islamic Imperialism
(b) The Means to the Ends: Violent and Non-Violent Jihad
2. Policies Toward Non-Muslims
(a) Non-Muslims Generally
(b) Christians, Jews, and Others Specifically.
3. Treatment of Women
(a) Muslim Women
(b) Non-Muslim Women
4. Slavery
5. Muslims Must Follow Strict Rules
(a) Criticism of Islam
(b) Apostacy from Islam
Concluding Statement
Suggested readings and web-sites
___
Each of the five headings should be highlighted in bold and underlined.
There should be reference to
-Koran's policy
-history
-present-day problems
In order to get this all onto one page, it will be necessary to use either a bullet- or point- format to condense the information, or make very economical use of prose.
Jehana,
Before I respond, let me encourage you once again to write up for publication an article that deals with the radical imams problem. I also encourage you to coordinate with other like-minded moderates to try and deal with that problem in your city or district, and then perhaps expand from there. (Of course, be careful--as you know, progressives such as Irshad Manji have received threats).
"Archimemes:
I know you enjoy trying to play jenga with my Islamic memes, so I'm going to challenge you: prove your optimism! I would like to see 7 strong positive memes taken from your understanding of Islam. Reliable references respectfully requested."
Generally, Jehana, I'm not really playing. It's serious business. But I'd be driven crazy if I didn't try to make entertainment out of it once in a while. I know even some Muslims who joke about certain aspects of Islam. And, on this site, I know Robert has posted humorous comments in response to death threats here. Most of the regular posters here also have a pretty good sense of humour.
I would have thought you would provide the positive memes--concepts, rules, beliefs (can we drop the word "memes"? I don't think we need to use that term outside of the inheritance context). If you are a progressive reformist, you must be well-versed on all of the good stuff.
Anyways, to respond to your request, here is a link for some of the good stuff in the Koran.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/good/long.html
There are about 64 verses listed as good. Many of them are repetitions, or overlap considerably in meaning, but you can probably extract about 7 good propositions from those.
If you click back to the main quran site there, you'll see that the skeptical annotator has organized a number of the problematic verses into categories. I believe the total annotation is still incomplete.
I am more skeptical than that annotator. For example, many of the verses refer to what is "good" or "fair." Well, what are the Islamic conceptions of those terms, according to the whole Koran? Over 250 verses condemn disbelievers to hell simply for being disbelievers. And you've seen some of the negative verses I've cited in the previous posts. So those verses illustrate the Koranic conception of what is good and fair. But is all of this "good and fair" according to modern conceptions of fairness?
Let's look at an example of a good verse:
41:34 "The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend."
Sounds good, but wait. "As though" he was a bosom friend? (Other translations have a similar wording..."as if," "as it were," etc.) Why is it not worded to say "become (a genuine) friend with."
It says repel good with evil, but disbelievers and disbelief are evil. Indeed, the Koran says that disbelief (rejecting/denying Allah and Mohammad's revelations, or joining partners or assigning rivals to Allah) is the worst sin/crime and disbelievers are the worst beasts.
What does this verse allow? It allows feigned friendship at least. It also, one assumes, allows Muslims to use this verse for the purpose/duty of calling non-Muslims to Islam through friendly means (convert to Islam = convert from evil to good).
Anyways, even if we were to interpret this verse as permitting real friendship with non-Muslims, how do we reconcile it with that block of others that I cited earlier, which order Muslims not to be friends with non-Muslims? One answer is in verse 3:28, which says don’t take them [non-Muslims] for friends, unless merely superficially, while keeping to the final goal of Islam, as a temporary precaution (taqiyah: strategic deception for self-protection). This would account for why 41:34 says "as if" or "as though". In Mecca, Mohammad and his group were politically and militarily weak, so they practiced taqiyah to protect themselves. In Medina, when verse 3:28 was revealed, there may have been additional reasons for some Muslims to practice taqiyah (e.g., protecting Islam).
We should also note that this verse 41:34 is in the 61st revealed Sura (revealed in Mecca), and the verse is regarded by many scholars as having been abrogated by 9:5 (from the very last or second-last Sura), e.g., see Al Araby's discission. The doctrine of abrogation comes from the Koran itself:
“And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything?” S. 2:106 Arberry
“And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.” S. 16:101 Arberry
Because abrogation tends to favour the later-revealed harsh and intolerant verses, some progressive reformist scholars have tried to argue for the rejection of abrogation. However, some of these reformists have either been threatened or killed by hard-liners for expressing these views.
Even if we reject abrogation, though, and assume Allah did not change his rulings, this does not remove all of the above problems and limitations with the verse.
I have addressed two of the most famous "good" verses (5:32 and 2:256) at these links:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_compulsion.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_peace.html
I'm not all that optimistic about the prospects for a full reform in Islam. The main problems arise in the Koran itself, plus the fact that the hard-liners (Islamists) still hold sway. Moderates need to seize power from them, and this hasn't happened yet. If moderate Muslims can make the best out of their religion and bring it in line with modern values, as Christians have done, that's fine with me. In other words, I'm optimistic that moderate Muslims can ignore or explain away the nasty stuff in the Koran, as Christians did with the Bible. But I think a major stumbling block for Muslims is the Koran itself. Muslims do not have the New Testament Gospels to work from (they view them as corrupted), and they do not have the same interpretive history to build upon. And Muslims are stuck with certain doctrines such as imperialism (9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9) with the obligation to use force if necessary (Sura 9; also 2:193, 8:39; 4:66-77; 5:32-33) to implement Islamic law.
Islam is now in the process of going through major changes with some Muslims pushing toward moderation and modernization, and quite a large percentage of others (about 35% in Canada, over 40% in Britain, and higher percentages in predominantly Muslim countries) pushing for or striving to maintain sharia--which is consistent, no less, with the objective of Al Qaeda, Hamas, et al. Whereas moderates are moving toward positive reform, Islamists are resisting this and are seeking to drive Islam back to its traditional imperialist and totalitarian form.
----Whereas moderates are moving toward positive reform, Islamists are resisting this and are seeking to drive Islam back to its traditional imperialist and totalitarian form.---
Which means we should help the true minority moderates. Not shove them all in a big truck and deport them along with the extremist majority.
That 'they are all the same' mentality is EXACTLY the same mentality shown by Islamic nutters and the Nazis to all Jews.
Or the KKK to all Blacks.
"There be no good nigger but a dead 'un" Yeehaw!
Hardly the attitude to have. Sure moderates are a minority. But they do indeed exist and they can get to places in communities non-Muslims can't.
DaveyFreak,
Nowhere in my above post, from which you quoted, did I address the issue of deportation. You may or may not have been intending to refer to me; I'm not sure.
Anyways, I don't advocate the deportation of moderate Muslims, nor of any law-abiding citizen. I made my position clear on that in an earlier post.
Archimedes: I know. I never said you did, I just used your remarks to show one of the reasons why blind deportations of literally every Muslim are a mistake.
No worries.
I agree that we should move to a diiferent thread: 'Spencer Tarheel Jihad' would be an appropriate one
Archimedes:
Thanks for the encouragement! Truth be told, I often organize other people to do my research for me. I will get out there and gather the material for an article on the activities of the Wahhabis in my area.