British/Canadian Jihad. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to Granny Weatherwax:
AL-QAEDA terrorists considered using bombs and stun guns disguised as cameras and flash attachments to hijack an aircraft from Heathrow and crash it into the Canada Tower at Canary Wharf in East London, according to a report from the US Department of Homeland Security.The plot to strike London, and other world targets, is said to have been thwarted in the summer of 2003. This was shortly after Tony Blair was widely ridiculed for ordering extra security, including armoured cars, to Heathrow.
The plan to fly into the Canary Wharf Tower was uncovered in 2004, when computer files belonging to a key lieutenant of Osama bin Laden were seized in Lahore, Pakistan. Among the encrypted messages — all written in perfect English — were layouts of Heathrow and details of Canary Wharf, including the heights of tower blocks in the Docklands financial district.
The American report, obtained by ABC News yesterday, provides a further glimpse into what it describes as the “ingenuity” of al-Qaeda in attempting to convert camera equipment and other non-threatening items into deadly weapons that could be smuggled on to an aircraft. Such items could be used to “gain access to an airliner flight deck”....
In total, intelligence chiefs had learnt of nine schemes to hijack aircraft since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America. This, says the US Homeland Security Department, demonstrates “a continued commitment to attack aviation-related targets”.
And still we let them into the country to take flying lessons?
Granny W's personal reflections on Canary Wharf here.
Ridiculed, no doubt, by the same people who now call the Forest Gate raid "heavy handed". Over and over again we will have to mount anti-terrorist operations. Some will be based on false intelligence and therefore, with hindsight, a waste of manpower, time and money. But what else can we do? The more Muslims we have, the more anti-terrorist operations we will need. And one day we won't get there in time.
As Hugh says - over and over again, but it needs saying over and over again - Muslims make our lives increasingly unpleasant, expensive and dangerous.
I don't believe that there is any specific connection with terrorists working out of Canada (as in the next thread) as such. Although they do seem to get about a bit.
The tower is officialy named Canada Tower (most locals just call it Canary Wharf, or "that bloody great skyscraper"!), it sits in Canada Square and the next tube station to Canary Wharf which is immediately underneath it is Canada Water. When the Isle of Dogs was the home to London Docks these were the areas where ships from Canada and the Canary Islands respectively were unloaded. Likewise West India Quay (which was the dock, but Quay is nicely sanitised)
It is an obvious target. On 11 September 2001 Canary Wharf was evacuated and my friends husband who worked there said that as he left a phalanx of photgraphers remained, their cameras trained on the tower waiting for the scoop which thankfully never came.
Don't kid yourself, if Christians/or seculars or Jews etc were plotting terrorist attacks in Muslim countries, they would be rounded up and deported immediately or killed and they wouldn't care in the least about accusations of profiling or racism. They also wouldn't be allowed fly into Muslim countries or on Muslim airlines. Of course, Muslim countries wouldn't allow immigration of Christians/seculars/Jews or other foreigners in the first place. What the West needs to do is the same (with the exception of killing them). Of course this will never happen. The West would rather let 10 suspicious Arabs on board rather than be accused of "racial profiling." lol
Canary Wharf, the tallest building in Europe, is sandwiched between two new towers which are not much shorter. If one was blown up, it could crash into the others like a domino.
That's as may be. The problem is in no small part of Tony Blair's making, and if the UK retains its soul and survives the upheavals that are coming Blair's name will be mud in the history books for centuries to come. Serve him right for what he has done - and continues to do.
More bigotry being displayed here. corli, americaningermany in particular, your comments are insulting to ordinary Muslims who also abhor Terrorism. Indeed, americaningermany, your comments about Heathrow insult British Muslims and question their loyalities in the most demeaning manner. So much for this being a non-bigoted site.
Granny w,
I don't mean to start rumors (or rumours), but the thought crossed my mind that perhaps Forest Gate (and other suspected plots) was a Muslim deception operation intended to test and to study the emergency response capabilities of the government. Such a deception could also have been used to expose suspected informers within the Muslim ranks. I hope the police and anti-terror units are thinking about that possibility also. The Ummah sticks together, after all.
Mr. Howard,
Number one, comments are not moderated and do not reflect the views of the creators of this site. If I were to post objectionable material on the website of the Great Ayatollah Sistani, would that then discount the wonderful work he has done in the name of Islam?
Second, the truth hurts doesn't it? You are the bigot and the racist, throwing out labels rather than debate. You shall pay for your insolence, dearly. It is unfortunate that the rest of will along with you.
Now be gone ye of little value, insight, and above all, importance.
Having myself mentioned Canary Wharf as a probable terrorist target in a recent thread I feel that even without 'inside' information it is a pretty obvious target (and not far from the Stratford Olympic development). One of my friends works in Canada Tower - in theory it takes a minimum of an hour to evacuate the whole building during regular working hours although I don't know if this particular exercise has ever been done as my friend cannot remember it having been tried. It is very unlikely people evacuating the building would get out of the vicinity quickly as the escape routes away from the building are not condusive to facilitating a mass pedestrian exodus at speed. It seems to me that what will be needed as new buildings are built in congested areas are proper emergency routes to get people away in the course of terrorist actions. I am regularly in the US and was very worried to learn that the Texas legislature is planning to close Ellington Airbase in Texas on grounds of cost and claims that the terrorist threat to Houston cannot be countered by fighter jets when bombs may arrive in container ships. Perhaps the Saudi aero-students could do their studies at Ellington Field....
John Howard, I don't question muslim's loyalties to Non-muslim states. I already know that "real" muslims have none, nor could they. All I have to to is to go on a muslim website and they tell me that nationalism is strictly forbidden in islam, and that a muslim's loyalty can only be to the "ummah" and cannot be given to any non-muslim entity. Pretty straight forward really. That's the great thing about Jihad watch. Unlike most of the projectionist conspiracy theories about Jews and other perceived "enemies of islam" we are treated to hearing on muslim websites, all the ideologies and dogma represented here at JW comes straight from the mouths of muslims!
John Howard~ Palestinian terrorists have NO problems using ambulances for suicide bombings.
You don't think other muslim terrorists wouldn't believe it just Dandy to get a nice, paying job in the middle of a busy airport? And he or she wouldn't even care that they were blowing up other muslims in the process of achieving their goal.
Have you started beating your wife?
americaningermany, my definition of the word "Bigot" is the one commonly used:
bigot
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
How do you know that Muslims "sit idly by"? Considering that the Terrorists operate in secret and hide their activities from the authorities, you don't think they also conceal their activities from their fellow Believers as well?
When was the last time you handed in an American like Timothy McVeigh? Did you sit idly by and allow him to make his bomb and blow up that building in Oklohoma City?
Muslim Terrorists plan and act in secret. What was startling about the 7 July attacks in London was that not even the families of the bombers were aware of their activities. So, suggesting that Muslims are "sitting idly by" and watching these criminals as they plan and carry out their criminal acts is a bit silly but typical of someone who is prejudiced against Muslims.
Equally, it should be remembered that in all of the major Islamist Terrorist attacks in Europe, Muslims have also been their victims. It should also be remember that it was Muslim informants who helped the police track down whom the Terrorists were, both in Madrid and in London.
So, instead of attacking all Muslims and attempting to paint them as Terrorists, you should be thinking about taking each one, as I hope you do with everybody, on their individual merits.
"You don't believe that moslems are planning the takeover of the entire West and plan on forcing us to convert to islam?" No, I don't americaningermany. I believe SOME Muslims believe this. MOST Muslims don't. The very fact you appear to ascribe to ALL Muslims these beliefs proves my point that you, sir are a thoroughgoing bigot.
"John Howard~ Palestinian terrorists have NO problems using ambulances for suicide bombings.
You don't think other muslim terrorists wouldn't believe it just Dandy to get a nice, paying job in the middle of a busy airport? And he or she wouldn't even care that they were blowing up other muslims in the process of achieving their goal."
Gary, I don't doubt that some Muslim Terrorists would indeed like such a job. However, that doesn't mean all Muslims are Terrorists. Moveover, it raises the question how you identify a Muslim. Is it because of the colour of their skin perhaps? The shape of their eyes? The colour of their eyes? Oh, thats right they wear a rag on their heads and their women all wear Burqa.
I'm sorry, you're just demonstrating yet again how bigoted you are. Muslims come in all colours, shapes, sizes and races and ethnicities. Not all Muslims are though, supporters or in fact Terrorists themselves. To assume so is to display prejudice and bigotry. It also displays foolishness.
Slightly OT:
Attending a grad at a UVic Canada weeks ago and see a Saudi getting a PHD in Engineering.
Has anyone heard of A.Q. Khan ?
What blind idiocy.
Why did we allow this national in ?
It's called suicide.
Felt like standing up and shouting.
"So Mr. Howard, it is clear that they believe the West belongs to them.
There is no such thing as moderate islam.
Are you praying five times a day yet?
Are you going to the local mosque regularly yet?
Have you demanded that your wife wear a Burka?
Have you stopped drinking beer?"
americaningermany, you're merely displaying for all to see your bigotry. Some Muslims may believe this. They also want you to believe they are representative of all Muslims. It appears they have succeeded and won the biggest victory they could by taking control of your thinking. They have used your prejudices and your bigotry against you, just as a Judo wrestler would use your own physical strength against you.
The Terrorists are trying to portray themselves as the only legitimate spokesmen for Islam and most importantly are trying to make you believe that. They need the West to react aggressively and with bigotry, it reinforces their message to their fellow Muslims and drives them further into the fold of the Terrorists.
The moment we drop our standards because of something they do, we lose. The real object of terrorism is to change the nature of the society it attacks. A really successful terrorist changes the nature of a society to the point it continues to terrorise itself between attacks. Al Q'aeda seems to have achieved that in the US, the UK and Australia.
The only way to defend against such attacks is to refuse to change, to treat terrorists as criminals and deal with them within the rule of law.
While there are unsuspecting customers around, I have a bridge for sale. I hope someone does not fly a plane into it before I can sell it though. Well, I am sure that our security services will stop them.
"I'll have you to know that I am not a "sir"."
I'll bear that in mind.
"Call me whatever you want Mr. Howard."
What would you prefer I call you, "twonk"?
"I have seen so many like you."
Really? I suspect you haven't seen me, I know I haven't seen you.
"You probably know one or two moslems who you THINK like you. I'll tell you a little secret. They don't. Not really.
Maybe you are a convert yourself, in any case you've got your head deep in the sand dunes."
I actually have known quite a few Muslims over the years and travelled extensively in many Muslim countries. Some of the Muslims I've known have been bastards, the majority not. The majority have been normal, everyday people who just happen to worship their god a different way to you, thats all.
As I keep pointing out, all you do with message is display just how deep your bigotry is.
John Howard writes: "More bigotry being displayed here. corli, americaningermany in particular, your comments are insulting to ordinary Muslims who also abhor Terrorism."
That's not good enough, sir. For two reasons. First of all, I saw a poll that showed that some FORTY PERCENT of Muslims living in Britain want to see British law replaced by the Islamic law of Sharia. And sharia is antithetical to Western concepts of pluralism, tolerance and secular rule. The fact that they aren't engaged in violence is irrelevant. They are openly advocating the overthrow of our governments--in a time of war. That, sir, is sedition.
Secondly, in World War II, neither the U.S. nor Britain gave a damn whether the vast majority of Japanese or Germans living in America and Britain were loyal or not. If they were non-citizens, they were considered "enemy aliens" and summarily taken into custody. If we applied that policy today, we could nail hundreds of radical Muslim clerics who Saudi Arabia and Iran keep exporting to our countries. Have them summarily deported, without even asking them what their political views are. And that would help stop the radicalization of Muslim youth in our countries.
Do you support the concept of treating "enemy aliens" differently from citizens or don't you?
Timeline December 1941......
"We can't fight the Japanese or the Germans. Not all of those poor people want war with the United States. If we fight back we are subjugating our own principles. We should stand down."
Oh, PLEASE, Mr. Howard. If the Boy Scouts were blowing up people and threatening world domination with their ideology we would be leery of them too. If the Brownies were hijacking planes and mutilating our soldiers , we would feel the same. But it's not. It's muslims.
If you're not proud to have people know what you do.....STOP DOING IT!! And if you hang with criminals, people will think you are one too. Guilt by association.
Common sense.
"Then you are a fool,You own religion(puke here)commands you to convert all non-muslims.What excacly are "moderate muslims"(puke here)doing to fight terrorism?We see all the time,idiot rally's over cartoons,careing signs that muslim will rule,death to American.Why is there no counter protest?All we see is muslims dancing in the streets after a terrorist attack.Imams preaching that infidels should be killed.That it is for our own good to except islam.All you can kiss my American behind."
Patriot5, my "religion...commands you to convert all non-muslims"? You have no idea what religion I worship in or even if I have a religion at all.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself whether your religion is interfering with your thought processes. It appears you are, if anything a mirror image of the very people you have allowed to frighten you so much.
Again it seems that the bigots can't wait but trot out their prejudices for all to see. Patriot5 you appear to believe that by killing innocent people who have done you or your nation no harm is a good way to differentiate between you and the Terrorists. You don't think you've already lost the battle I've been talking about? The Terrorists control your thinking thats obvious.
Somewhere in America...1942 Son: dad why are we fighting nazi germany. Dad: Son Nazi means Peace, we are fighting Hitler he hijacked the Nazi party and made people think it was bad.Never think the Nazi party is not Noble son we must understand them. Son: Dad if people like you were right...THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD BE GOOSE STEPPING!
"Secondly, in World War II, neither the U.S. nor Britain gave a damn whether the vast majority of Japanese or Germans living in America and Britain were loyal or not. If they were non-citizens, they were considered "enemy aliens" and summarily taken into custody. If we applied that policy today, we could nail hundreds of radical Muslim clerics who Saudi Arabia and Iran keep exporting to our countries. Have them summarily deported, without even asking them what their political views are. And that would help stop the radicalization of Muslim youth in our countries."
Steven L., would you care to tell us who ended up paying reparations to whom over the matter of internment of "enemy aliens"?
Muslims often are full citizens of our nations. If we act toward them, in exactly the way the Islamists want us to and with the kneejerk reaction that bigots like yourself obviously prefer, who do you think will benefit in the long run? Us or the Islamists?
It appears that people here prefer to think with their knees than with their brains. They prefer to hide behind their white sheets and hoods, rather than actually see reality and accept that Islam won't go away and it cannot be destroyed.
You all should be directing your energies towards attacking Islamism and the Terrorists, than Muslims and Islam. However I suspect that is impossible for those that allow their prejudices and reactions to control their thinking.
"Mr. Howard,
I did not claim that I have seen YOU!
I said that I have seen many LIKE you.
There is a difference."
Americaningermany, you have never seen someone like me as I am unique, as are all humans. You however it seems prefer to work in stereotypes and base your beliefs upon prejudice. That definitly equates to bigotry.
Hi Moris, and Hi Stendec.
No Stendec, you are not pondering anything different to a lot of people with an interest in this area.
And Moris, you have also made a wise and valid point.
Gentlemen, thank you.
"john howard is either a muslim himself, or he is simply a liberal, love the world, culture tourist, which is what I suspect since he's mentioned visiting islamic nations."
Ah, you know, its said that travel broadens the mind but there are always exceptions to the rule and you are merely proving that, Americaningermany. Visiting Islamic nations has allowed me to *GASP* meet Muslims and see their countries. It would be terrible to actually get to know people before judging them, now wouldn't it?
As for being a Liberal, of course I am. Something you would understand if you knew who I was. ;-)
"Well, bully for him. He's probably a businessman who the moslems of course treated well as long as he has money."
Actually, I'm not. When I visited those countries, I did so as either a tourist or on official business for my nation.
In any case, he's full of it.
John Howard MORONS ARE NOT UNIQUE...they are all alike.
John Howard-given that 40% of British Muslims support Sharia instead of British Law (see the Telegraph), this distrust is warranted.
Did you happen to miss the signs during the Mohammed cartoon protests saying "behead those who insult Islam?". Those are your so called "fellow countrymen". Have you read the stickers being placed around London by another British Muslim group? Did you read the disdain and disgust they have for your "British values"?
You have a fifth column in your midst, one which is no less dangerous then the spies and traitors that infested England in WWII.
Wake up, or pay the consequences.
John Howard writes: "More bigotry being displayed here. corli, americaningermany in particular, your comments are insulting to ordinary Muslims who also abhor Terrorism."
Dear Mr. Howard,
Muslims are mandated by their religion to convert non-believers to Islam. They are also mandated to by their religion to institute Sharia law in whatever country they reside in. That is why 4 Muslim boys born in England thought it was a good idea to bomb the London subway system.
The majority of Muslims follow the rule of law in their host countries. However, while they may not support terrorism overtly, by planning and carrying out attacks, they do support terrorism tacitly by not speaking out against barbaric acts committed in the name of Islam.
When Muslims do speak out, it is usually because they are protesting their alleged
"victimization" by the host society.
It's 2006. When I go the grocery store in my suburban hometown, and I see young women veiled in black from head to toe, in 90 degree weather, with only an eyeslit to peek out of, I am gravely concerned.
Mr. Howard, when you visited muslim nations, did your wife don a burka? And how did she feel about becoming a fourth class citizen when she put it on?
"Well you either muslim,os somebody who is afraid of them,and your a kissing mo's behind.Either way i dont care,you are an idiot whatever religion you are.My religion,if i have one or not,is my bussiness.I'm not trying to force anything on anybody."
Forgive me but it appears you were, when you suggested you knew what my religion commanded me to do - perhaps you were guilty of what the Psychologists refer to as "projecting"?
"NO,NO,NO...i am am NOT affraid of the mo's,they only blow up kids,old people,people trying to work,the DO NOT scare me.In fact i am waiting for the mo's.Come i am ready."
No doubt with your gun, as guaranteed under the second amendment of your otherwise find constitution?
Now, it appears that in doing so though, that you are indeed giving into your fears. Do you crouch under your bed, holding your favoured gun, close to you as fitfully sleep at night, dreaming of your chance of glory, defending yourself against the dread Muslims?
In reality, only some Muslims do the things you describe. Perhaps you should get out and meet a few and find out something about them?
'Is it because of the colour of their skin perhaps? The shape of their eyes? The colour of their eyes? Oh, thats right they wear a rag on their heads and their women all wear Burqa.'
John Howard, YOU are guilty of profiling. No one else here mentioned the color of their skin, their eyes, or anything else.
Does this muslim look anything like that?
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/john-walker-lindh/
Mr. Howard-
Muslims, by definition, practice something known as Islam, a religion with all sort of sanctioned intolerance and "bigotry," which you claim to despise. Except in this case, the intolerance woven into the fabric of Islam is directed at non-Muslims.
Look. Any religion is bound to have its share of radicals and fanatics, but haven't you ever asked yourself what exactly inspires these terrorists to feel they are totally justified in killing non-Muslims? Why do we see this sort of thing carried out by no other practitioners of any major world religion? Perhaps you need to learn about the Koranic and Hadith-derived sources of their zeal.
If there is criticism here of Muslims who do not practice or condone violence, it is only because these Muslims refuse to confront the violent ideology contained within their own religious texts, preferring to shrug and say something like "It's not my problem." Like the adage says, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
John Howard.....You really are a Moron...the people that post here understand that Islam is not a race, it is not a country. Islam is a way of life..The koran is a book of war...you sir are indeed a Moron!
"Muslims are mandated by their religion to convert non-believers to Islam. They are also mandated to by their religion to institute Sharia law in whatever country they reside in. That is why 4 Muslim boys born in England thought it was a good idea to bomb the London subway system."
Christians also belong to an evangalical religion,
Lysistrata. They are "mandated" to spread their religion and convert non-believers, often at the point of the sword (or in modern terms, the bayonet). Should they be following the tenants of their religion?
As for Muslims, most don't want to go out and convert the world to Islam, they just want to be left alone.
As for Sh'ria law, its interesting how often I read right-wing diatribes about how soft the courts are on criminals and that stricter penalities, including corporal and capital punishment should be inflicted upon the perpetrators of crime. The similarities between Sh'ria and such views are often striking, yet often its the very same right-wing diatribes whom rail the most about this imposition of Sh'ria law. Ironic, don't you think, Lysistrata?
Sh'ria is a bogeyman. Its not going to happen in Western nations unless a majority of citizens desire it. Unless of course we allow the Terrorists to terrorise us into doing it. Is that what you want? I don't.
"The majority of Muslims follow the rule of law in their host countries. However, while they may not support terrorism overtly, by planning and carrying out attacks, they do support terrorism tacitly by not speaking out against barbaric acts committed in the name of Islam."
And why do you think that might be?
Of course, there have been quite notable attempts to speak out but the Western media which reports these things has usually downplayed and ignored them because it doesn't suite their agenda or the prejudice of their readers.
Perhaps we should be encouraging them and supporting them when they do speak out, rather than continually criticising them when they don't? Of course, that would mean we'd have to stop being bigoted and prejudiced against Muslims. I have no problem doing that, do you?
"When Muslims do speak out, it is usually because they are protesting their alleged
"victimization" by the host society."
You don't think their points are often actually well founded? I do. Islamophobia has reached new heights in most western nations. It has become the new anti-Semitism of the 21st century. This site is one manifestation of it and the views expressed here, all too often are as well.
"It's 2006. When I go the grocery store in my suburban hometown, and I see young women veiled in black from head to toe, in 90 degree weather, with only an eyeslit to peek out of, I am gravely concerned."
Why? What concern is it of your's? If you went to that same store wearing a bikini and someone suggested that you were inappropriately dressed, what would your reaction be? Agreement or resentment?
Feminists appear to have lost sight of what they were often fighting for - the right of women to be considered not for how they looked or dressed but for whom they were. Under that Chador or Burqa is a woman. Treat her as one and consider her feelings on the issue. She could well have chosen the veil herself.
Gary, perhaps you should reread my comment in the context of the message it was replying to?
Christians also belong to an evangalical religion,
Lysistrata. They are "mandated" to spread their religion and convert non-believers, often at the point of the sword (or in modern terms, the bayonet). Should they be following the tenants of their religion?
Now you are a liar and a moron....I read my Bible everyday....you know nothing...the lies you spread are indeed the same as Islam.
storagemanager, thank you for your comment. You realise that by resorting to ad hominem you have lost the debate already?
Feminism, Mr. Howard, is the right of a woman to not be defined in terms of her relationship to a man --- a concept alien in Islam.
John
You are glossing over the fact that all Muslims practise Jihad, which may or may not be terrorism. In countries where they have the upper hand, like Somalia or Malaysia or Indonesia, they don't practise terrorism; they simply persecute their Infidels. In other countries, where they have been shown to be disloyal, be it the Danish cartoons, the French riots, et al, they expect the local populace to believe that that's not rooted in Islam, but in race or cultural underpinnings.
Nobody can claim all Muslims are terrorists, but every Muslim, as long as one remains in that club called Islam, is a Jihadist. Part of the reason is that that ultimate total number - which Muslims keep twisting from 1 billion to 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion - is what they use to butress their claims for special privileges everywhere.
Out here, we don't reserve our opprobrium for al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, Lashkar-e-taiba, Jemmiah-Islamia, et al. We shower it daily on Islamic governments in countries like Malaysia, who practise their Muslim apartheid in the guise of Malay apartheid (as if the latter is okay), as well as on Islamic communities like in Canada, that not only don't speak out against such activities, but in enough cases, collude with their advocates.
Their advocacy is Islamic supremacy. If one were to advocate, say, Christian supremacy anywhere in the West - Canada, US, Australia, Europe, you know how long they'd last. I suggest you read this weblog some more and if you are going to slam us over our aspersions on Muslims, at least do it for the right reasons. Few here are accusing Muslims of being just terrorists.
I suggest that Mr. Howard would benefit from reading "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. Since Mr Bawer is gay, maybe Mr. Howard would be willing to take his arguments seriously.
treehugger, a fifth column? Hardly. We have a few criminals, a tiny minority of what is in most western nations, a small minority of Muslims whom seek the violent overthrow of our governments. Our societies have dealt with similar criminal elements in the past and we no doubt will also in the future. Allowing them to terrorise and control us is to give them a victory both undeserving and out of proportion to their numbers. Allowing them to flame the fires of prejudice and bigotry is to simply play into their hands and drive more moderate Muslims into their camp.
"Few here are accusing Muslims of being just terrorists."
Infidel Pride, I'll simply refer you back to Americaningermany's comments about Muslim workers in Heathrow airport. Then you have the comments of Patriot5. Perhaps you need to read a little more closely what other posters are saying?
John Howard...There is no debate...People like you are asleep..we cant wake you..you are sheep waiting for the slaughter...we wake those who listen!
americaningermany, my comments about what a Muslim looked like were rhetorical. They were directed at your comment that you saw "Muslim workers" at Heathrow. How did you know they were Muslim? Did they have a big flashing sign that stated it? Or were you acting on prejudice and bigotry?
Mr. Howard, I feel as if I need to raise my hand to be noticed... PICK ME...PICK ME!!
If you took your wife to the land of the muslims, how did she feel having to put on a burka?? ALSO, how did she feel in becoming a fourth class citizen?
We all know the pecking order in islam.
allah
sons
camel
wife.
Its interesting isn't, the torrent of abuse I have received for questioning the dominent anti-Muslim viewpoint expressed here. Pretty well has proved my point for me. One could hope its made a few people think but I doubt it.
Islam is Evil to the Core and must be pulled like a weed from the root.....Just like Nazi Germany...But then People like John Howard made excuses for Hitler too!
freewoman, I apologise for missing your question amongst the torrent of abuse. Tell me, why do you believe women are considered so low within Islam? Were you aware that two of the world's matriachical societies are Islamic?
Islam covers and overlays a vast array of cultures and societies. Unfortunately, all too many appear to believe that only desert Arabic culture is representative of Islam. Its like suggesting that Anglicanism is the only real Christianity. Islam isn't monolithic, a fact that appears to be misunderstood here.
storagemanager-
I fear you are correct about Mr. Howard. Just another Mobot who refuses to explore all sides of this nightmare facing humanity.
40% of British Muslims wishing to replace British law with Sharia is a "tiny minority"?
Your legal system is the cornerstone of your society.....crafted and honed over hundreds of years.
The fact that such a large segment of your Muslim population (including second and third generation muslims) do not buy into the present arrangement should be cause for alarm.
And the argument that the western conservative love of law and order is equivalant to Sharia is ridiculous. No conservatives I know want to see women buried up to their chests and stoned to death, hands cut off, or beheadings in the public square.
John Howard, you seem to be painting everyone on this blog with the same brush. Look most if not all of us know that not all muslims are terrorists or criminals. Obviously, with about a billion people accross the world identifying themselves as muslims, if that were the case, there would be all out war accross the globe, unlike the protracted one we face now. What makes us different here at JW is that we understand that there is a significant and well organized minority of muslims who have no problem commiting acts of genocide in the name of their faith, and that because of the concept of "ummah" that exists within the muslim community, many if not most muslims who might not agree on their tactics, are at least sympathetic with their goals, and can never really side with "infidels" against them. We recognize these issues that exist within the muslim community, and unlike much of the mainstream media and academia, we are not so hasty to make moral equivalency arguements like you have already done on this thread, and will not willfully try to ignore the only common thread that ties these terrorists together- their religion. People like you always bring up isolated incidents such as Tim McViegh, and say "See christianity is just as bad!" Let me ask you, how many years has it been since a christian terrorist bombed an abortion clinic? Now let me ask you, how many hours (or minutes) has it been since a muslim terrorist carried out an attack in Iraq or Israel or Chechnya or Thailand or the Filipines, or wherever else the global jihad network. I have no problem listing a dozen global islamic terrorist networks. How many global christian terrorist networks can you name?
Keep the insults flowing storagemanager, you're doing a great job for me. Perhaps you should remember what the 34th President of the United States once said about dissent, versus disloyality?
"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." Dwight D. Eisenhower.
You appear to not be able to make that differentiation.
Truth...Just keep telling the Truth of Islam.
"John Howard, you seem to be painting everyone on this blog with the same brush."
That isn't my intention but considering the torrent of abuse I am receiving from what appears all sides, it seems to me that you should be looking to your own house a bit Abu Allah.
John Howard - by your own definition of bigot, none of us here are bigots. Noone has indicated a preference for their own religion or race or country or political group. On the contrary, all races post here. All religions post here. All nationalities post here. All political groups here. What we have in common as a diverse group of races, nationalities and religions, is a common objection to MUSLIM bigotry.
I think what you are getting as is "prejudice", which is
"An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."
In order to demonstrate prejudice you would have to show that the people here have made a judgement absent of any examination of the facts. You would have to demonstrate that that these conclusions are unreasonable. You would have to demonstrate that the suspicion towards Muslims as a group is unreasonable.
We know what Islam as an ideology mandates to its believers (it mandates bigotry towards infidels - not to mention unending violent warfare against them). The fact that there are lapse, nonpracticing Muslims is irrelevant. It would be more fruitful to debate the question of whether such lapse Muslims are actually "Muslim". If a Christian denied the divinity of Christ but still chose to call themselves a Christian, would you think it proper to call such a person a Christian, no matter what they call themselves?
By all means, don't take our word for it. I suggest you find some British websites and message boards and READ WHAT IS SAID BY THE MUSLIMS THEMSELVES. It's an eye opening experience, to say the least. I'm sure some of our posters here could point you in the right direction.
Here's one example of "assimilated" Muslim opinion.
"And so we cannot follow the Arab traditions or the Asian culture or the western culture. The only Shari’ah we are obliged and indeed allowed to follow is the Shari’ah of Islam; and the only culture and identity that we follow is the culture of Islam. So make sure that your identity is pure and free from any other culture; not to be poisoned by the Jewish identity, or western or Asian or Arab identity.
So May Allah make us stick to our Islamic identity and save us from all British values, customs, culture and identities."
Perhaps John Howard shud contact CAIR to help him against all the abuse he has taken on this site. I am sure he is scarred for life.
Well, Mr. Howard, because the koran allows the man to beat his wife. The koran says to treat your wife as tilth. As chattel or property. It allows men to have many wives and that has to be heartwrenching to any woman. That in itself is detrimental to her mental health PLUS to the welfare of her children. It says to cover your women.
Oh, and there's the honor killing they practice. There is no justification any where on earth that a man's pride should lie between a woman's legs. A man should have pride in his OWN achievements. If these muslims cared for their women, they would only want the best for them. Instead, they so easily kill them.
Let's mention the lack of birth control. Do you realize the strain on women (beginning as immature girls) having children year after year? A girls body needs to be mature before starting childbirth. Just because they bleed, doesn't mean they are physically mature. Over time, child after child can make the womb drop. Gravity itself is good for other sagging and droppings. Can you imagine how hard it is on a body to be pregnant year after year?
And then there is the way they keep their women hidden in the home. I personally enjoy visiting with my husband's friends and yet these women don't get the chance. I don't believe they are even allowed to talk to other men.
Go to RAWA and visit the website and see for yourself how inhumanely women are treated. It's pretty much the way women are treated in All muslim lands.
I answered your question. Please answer mine.
Say, John Howard, we could use a comment from you here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011936.php
Seems some muslims were being bigoted towards Jews. Let us know what you think!
from treehugger's post: "And so we cannot follow the Arab traditions or the Asian culture or the western culture. The only Shari’ah we are obliged and indeed allowed to follow is the Shari’ah of Islam; and the only culture and identity that we follow is the culture of Islam. So make sure that your identity is pure and free from any other culture; not to be poisoned by the Jewish identity, or western or Asian or Arab identity.
So May Allah make us stick to our Islamic identity and save us from all British values, customs, culture and identities."
A fine example of Muslim BIGOTRY (in the real sense of the word). The attitude is common (even among those who do not engage in terrorism).
So Mr Howard - you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are concerned about bigotry - why don't you direct your efforts on a Muslim chatboard. And by the way - good luck getting your message across there....
"That isn't my intention but considering the torrent of abuse I am receiving from what appears all sides, it seems to me that you should be looking to your own house a bit Abu Allah."
What house would that be? Personally, I try to avoid using ad homenim attacks, but I don't think most of the posts directed at you on this thread have been exceptionally abusive or insulting, especially in comparison to other sites that deal with muslim-infidel interaction (most of which are muslim.) Try going to one of those sites and making statements which are contrary to the islamic line. You won't just receive mild insults such as those you have received here. Death threats are more likely. I know from experience.
Some posters have also assumed you to be muslim, and used that in their arguements. I also feel it is likely you are muslim, rather than a "left-wing" radical or an uber multi-culti nut, since the latter groups generally have no interest in sites like this, and actively retreat from any such discussions of ideas that inevitably lead one to realize that not all cultures and religions are equally benevolent or contributory to the furtherment of mankind. Generally, the only people who take interests in sites such as these are: those who desire to further the global jihad; and those who wish to defend against it. However, from my point of view, your personal background is of much less import to the discussion, than the ideas presented therin. The fact that you might disagree with my point of view does not automatically make you a muslim.
Is this the same "John Howard" who pretended to be the PM of Australia, initially, on this site several days back?
Liar, from word one.
Using the oldest rhetorical canard of "bigot" to begin a conversation, when such specious silliness only ends any possibility of real, rational debate.
Fly back to Cloud-Cuckoo Land, poseur.
Most here have done their homework and read the rambling revenge fantasies of the pedophile "prophet" and warlord of Islam, Mohammad, and his lunatic biographical details documented in the Hadiths, and know what the final game plan of the Islamic Imperialists is, -whether done by the slow conquest of demographic da'wa or the fast, intimidating terror of militant jihad.
Islam is a mind-death cult.
You're welcome to plant wreaths around its intolerant neck as its waits to slice yours.
"Useful idiots" are what enablers of the totalitarian Communists in the 1920's-1950's were called.
Mohammedism appears to have plenty of their own.
Suckers of the sinkhole of 7th century dogmatic theocratic terror and absolute intolerance.
Posing, for tactical purposes (until it gain enough strenth to strike) as a "religion of peace".
The scales have fallen from enough eyes in the West to see through this purulent propaganda.
Go whistle up the imams' skirts at Ummah.com, it won't work here.
("The Treason of the Intellectuals" might be a self-analytical work you could read, meanwhile, as you [unconsciously] abet the despotism of the homicidal warlord of Allah.)
Dear Mr. Howard,
John Howard wrote: "Christians also belong to an evangalical religion, Lysistrata. They are "mandated" to spread their religion and convert non-believers, often at the point of the sword (or in modern terms, the bayonet). Should they be following the tenants of their religion?"
You are right, there are followers of every religion who use the religion to fulfill their own agenda rather than follow a philosophy of love, forgiveness, non-violence, and salvation.
John Howard wrote: "As for Muslims, most don't want to go out and convert the world to Islam, they just want to be left alone."
I hope and pray that you are right about this! When I visit a web site such as http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ the situation sure doesn't look hopeful.
John Howard wrote: "Feminists appear to have lost sight of what they were often fighting for - the right of women to be considered not for how they looked or dressed but for whom they were. Under that Chador or Burqa is a woman. Treat her as one and consider her feelings on the issue. She could well have chosen the veil herself."
I wear mini-skirts and sing in a punk rock band. There are countries where I would be stoned to death for expressing my individuality in this manner. http://www.irandwr.org/english/english_down.htm
The following is from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/women_top_ten.htm
Quote: 'Jamal Karimi-Rad told the local press, "Being improperly veiled and not wearing a veil are no different. When it is clear from the appearance of a woman that she has violated the law, then the crime is obvious and law enforcement agents can take legal measures against her". "Crimes such as mal-veiling or other prohibited acts, which happen before the eyes of a law enforcement agent, are evident crimes and must be dealt with in accordance with the law", Karimi-Rad said. Sharia oppresses women because it offers them no freedom of choice. If a Muslim woman volunteers to wear a veil or head covering, then that is her prerogative. However, she should be free not to wear one, without being punished as a criminal.'
John Howard wrote: "Islamophobia has reached new heights in most western nations. It has become the new anti-Semitism of the 21st century. This site is one manifestation of it and the views expressed here, all too often are as well."
Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is alive and well:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12559
"In November, 2003, Sébastien Selam, a popular 23-year old Jewish DJ, known to his fans as DJ LamC, was murdered by an Arab neighbor. His throat was slit twice; his face was atrociously mutilated. The grisly crime was barely reported in the French press, the probable anti-Semitic motive was underplayed or denied, the affair has not been followed by Jewish or mainstream media with the notable exception of Rosenpress."
Lastly, Mr. Howard, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful individual who cares about the rights of others and will speak out against bigotry. Please try to understand why readers of web sites such as Jihadwatch are so concerned. I hope that you and the larger Muslim community will prove our fears unfounded! However, until the day comes that "infidels and crusaders" don't have to be fearful everytime they get on a plane or a train, I want people to be vigilant.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ - Edmund Burke
"It's 2006. When I go the grocery store in my suburban hometown, and I see young women veiled in black from head to toe, in 90 degree weather, with only an eyeslit to peek out of, I am gravely concerned."
Why? What concern is it of your's? If you went to that same store wearing a bikini and someone suggested that you were inappropriately dressed, what would your reaction be? Agreement or resentment?
Why bikini? Muslims very often use the burkha-bikini comparison, as if those were the only choices. I've seen plenty of women walking round London shops in chadors, but I have yet to see a single woman walking around a London shop in a bikini.
The opposite of weird is normal, not a different kind of weird. The opposite of chador, is normal clothing suitable for summer, not a bikini.
Anyway, John Howard is getting far too much attention.
"[unconsciously]"- above- should have had a question mark- i.e.: "[unconsciously?]", since I don't want to presume "John Howard" is naive, at all.
(I am discriminating, but not a "bigot".)
Mr. John Howard says that the mughals who invaded India were persians. So much for knowledge.
I asked him to go through the archives of May, and he said that he will read only today's postings. No reading of history for John Howard.
Lastly, I was labelled as a "Hindu racist". Anybody know of this race ?
Since John Howard keeps waving the 'bigot' card around, I'd like to ask him one question? Could anything be more bigoted than the Koran which asks for non-believers to be ambushed, killed and laid seige on?
arjun.sevak-
Aren't they "The Aryans"? Who inspired Tomothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy, notorious Christian terrorists?
These Aryans, the originators of both bigotry and racism, are also well-known for inventing the camel-dung-powered bamboo Stuka, in 200 B.C., used for strafing hapless dark-skinned proto-Bengalis on the rim of the Hindu Kush, as recorded in the Mahabarata? (Or was it the Rig Veda?)
As Der Fuehrer The Buddha said:
"Strike at their necks!"
(Oh, wait, that was Mohammad. Jeez- this history stuff is so confusing and complex!)
Mr. Howard, please point us to articles detailing how Christians today are converting people at the point of bayonets. Last I heard, all they were doing was handing out Bibles. And Medicine. And Food. And Shelter. And shall we compare the tsunami-relief donations of Christian countries, and muslim countries?
John Howard,
I am sorry if I sounded harsh. Point is buddy, most of the posters here have read the koran and the history of mohammad. We are simple, average people who are afraid of what the world faces in the form of islam. We all have spent lots of time studying and restudying, all the while watching the islamic threat unfold across the world. I was like you once.
Feel free to call me every name in the book for what I'm about to say:
Islam is the Enemy.
Deliver us from Islam.
Islam must be outlawed.
It's Islam, stupid.
I'm going out on a limb here, with, Mr. Howard is a muslim.
Ever notice how they can't answer direct, simple, logical and/or common sense questions?
I have read comments from americaningermany and storemanager for many weeks, and what has struck me is that they ARE bigots. But actually, I don't mind. We could not have fought the Germans without being bigoted against them. The Russians were indoctrinated with hate against the Germans in order to achieve victory..so it is an important element in achieving total victory.
What pisses me off about these posters, is that beyond 'Islam is an evil religion that is a 5th column in our western midst' they have no strategy. Well no strategy that wouldn't lead to world war. I agree with John Howard's attempts to inject reason, commonsense and the rule of law (which can of course lead to Marshall law).
I have previously stated on this site that:
1. We need to organize counter demonstrations to the radicals
2. We need a multimedia propaganda response that is as effective as the jihadists.
1.5 billion Muslims worldwide...are we just going to declare their religion is vile and export them? No, not if we want America to still rule the world. We must promote an alternative view of Islam that does not promote violence, suppress women etc. The great failing of the posters on this site is that they have a lot of venom for Islam, but they have no strategy for effectively combating it.
albion,
Do YOU have a strategy for combating islam ? What Mr. Spencer is doing, is spreading awareness about it. At least by being aware, we are one step ahead of the uninformed masses. We know the enemy. I do not think AIG is a bigot. And storagemanager is a religious person. Just my thoughts.
albion.....TOO FUNNY...Bigots....Islam is not a Race...Islam is not a Person...Was FDR a Bigot for fighting Nazi Germany?... Islam calls for the deaths of Jews...And the very trees will call out oh Muslim there is a Jew behind me..come and kill him...P.C. makes me puke...Islam is the Bigot...ISLAM IS WAR...WE ARE AT WAR....GROW UP!
How quaint to have the ever-ready 'bigotry' accusation tossed at the anti-jihad brigade - as seen above
"More bigotry being displayed here"
Well Mr. Howard, where is your outcry to the finest examples of bigotry practiced religiously in the name of all that is muslim?
To quote Archimedes [sincere thanks to Archimedes]
This is not a game. Islam is at War with us, they lie, sneak and cheat to get what they want.They kill us .. sigh...some just dont get it.
In battle two men meet and both think I may have to kill today. Its war and been that way since time began...Islam is slaughter not war......DON'T FORGET THE FALLEN
By Michelle Malkin · June 22, 2006 12:36 PM
Vent
On the day America learns two of its troops were butchered by jihadi barbarians, CNN hypes a sycophant interview with Angelina Jolie, who proceeds to criticize this country for its priorities.
Meanwhile, do you know who David Babineau is?
Do you know how and why Joshua Gutierrez lost part of his leg?
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
Albion:1.) moderate Muslims (if there are any) need to organize counter demonstrations to the radicals. I can't do it, neither can you unless you are indeed a moderate Muslim. 2.) No multimedia propaganda response is needed. We need to face the truth and demand that our MSM sources do the same. Identify the enemy by name for starters. The Islamists will be their own worst enemy given sufficient time. By their fruits shall ye know them.3.) 1.5 billion Muslims - If their religion is vile, then it is vile, and must be criticized and resisted. In my view America should not rule the world, and Americans should not have to put up with great heaps of multicultural nonsense from imperialists, globalists and one-worlders. George Washington had it right when he said that the U.S. should avoid foreign entanglements. I could not care less if folks in Pakistan have electricity, modern hospitals and Jesus.
I also believe we are at war with radical Islam. I also believe that the Koran declares hatred for non-Muslims. I do not however agree that we can manage 1.5 billion Muslims by declaring that their belief system is vile.
You asked about a strategy, yes I do have the making of one (which is more than you did in your response).
1. Education: from the military protecting girls schools in Afghanistan to the banning of radical Muslim dress in schools. One of the keys to the reduction of radical Islam is the Muslim woman.
2. A more effective multimedia response. The radicals are applying one person production techniques pushed to the web. The anti-radical Islam side must devote cash and resources to our own multimedia response (e.g. hidden videos of stonings etc)
3. Deportation of all radicals (irrespective of whether they may be tortured on arrival at their next destination)
4. Conviction of the 'British Brigade' in Iraq as traitors (put them in the tower of London)
5.Banning of forced marriages
6. Forced language and nationality classes for all new immigrants
7. The creation of a popular movement that is pan-European that would counter-demonstrate against the radicals at every opportunity. Actually, the formation of an anti-radical Islam movement that would attack the radical ideology at every point.
These are just some thoughts that came into my head....I am desperate to find an anti-Radical Islam movement somewhere in the west...our problem is that all we have are sites like this
MP: you do want their oil though, how do you square that circle?
"Over and over again we will have to mount anti-terrorist operations. Some will be based on false intelligence and therefore, with hindsight, a waste of manpower, time and money. But what else can we do?"
We can, among other things, begin to profile Muslims, which would unavoidably (if designed rationally) involve, as part of its methodology, racial profiling, if only because of the obvious fact that more than 90% of world Muslims are non-white.
Any rational profiling methodology will integrate disproportionate statistical information into its rationale. "Profiling", by its nature, is discrimination among the pool of total data.
If we could scan people with some machine that revealed the Islam in their brains, or if worldwide Muslims were perfectly equally apportioned among all races, we wouldn't need to use the data of racial physiognomies. We can't, and they aren't; so we must profile using racial data.
We must -- but we probably won't, because there is a disease in the world more prevalent even than Islam: PC multiculturalism.
The Enemy is Islam....Thank God our parents had the Guts to fight Nazi Germany...Many here dont!
We pay for oil. It is what is known a a fungible commodity. You do not know if the oil you use comes from Texas or Iran. Obviously we need to trade with people, and they need to trade with us. They can not drink their oil anymore than the Chinese can do much with all of the consumer goods they produce unless they have a market. We have become way too dependent on oil, and should make a concerted effort to develop additional energy sources. I'm old enough to remember the 1973 artificial oil shortage, and am sorry that not much was done to change our way of life afater that initial warning shot.
nice one storemanager, so whilst my soldiers (of britain) are fighting with your soldiers in Afganistan, all you've got is to accuse us of cowardice? I do not think many american soldiers on the ground would accuse the british of running. We are not running...you have no plan.
Our latest Tom Haidon, "John Howard", asks us:
"When was the last time you handed in an American like Timothy McVeigh?"
That's an amusing question, since there has been only one McVeigh, while the past few years have witnessed several, globally disparate, successful mass-murderous attacks by Muslims, and scores of successfully prevented, globally disparate, Muslim plots to mass-murder.
albion.....you are all P.C....My P.C. died with those poor boys the other day....I call Evil..Evil when I see it... I will post until Robert or Hugh say otherwise calling ISLAM EVIL.
albion:
I'm not a bigot.
I am an enlightened genius with plenty of books in my library.
You should try that sometime. It helps.
(Oh, and having the nerve to say the truth that others don't want to hear is also a big deal sometimes.)
"There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." - Ronald Reagan
I've given the simple answer as to how to deal with Islam in the United States (and the Western world). The trick will be, will we as a people do what we must do in time to avert disaster? Or will we continue down the road of PC tomfoolery and die slowly as nations and a culture.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln
Television ~ Our latest Tom Haidon.
~ More like "King Tolerance"
I do not think many american soldiers on the ground would accuse the british of running.
Indeed they are not.
Albion, call in sometime, you may find something soon to tickle your fancy.
albion,
Buddy, there is no easy solution. Like the posters above me felt, I feel. We are in a war, and we ain't gonna have no picnic until this is over. I face the grim reality. And I don't know if I am fortunate or unfortunate to see that.
When I first browsed Jihad Watch this morning, and noticed 100 posts were logged onto this story about a thwarted hijacking plot at Heathrow, I wondered why so many posts, so quickly? My curiosity piqued, I clicked and soon saw the explanation: this thread has been hijacked by a member of that tiny minority of extremists -- the moderate Muslim. Well, actually, the hijacking attempt has been thwarted by the many posters here who took the time and trouble to address his silly, disingenuously sincere, criticisms. I myself rarely have the requisite patience or equanimity to engage in such types directly and in sustained dialogue.
One of the many holes I notice with our new Tom Haidon, this John Howard character, is that he commits an elementary slip of logic: he presupposes an Either/Or: Either it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who are dangerous, or it is "all Muslims" who are imputed to be dangerous.
What this elementary infarct of logic renders him incapable of appreciating is the middle ground between these two extremes. This middle ground is complex: it runs a gamut of degrees, spanning the distance between the extremes. When one deals only in the polar extremes of John Howard's binary Either/Or, one needn't actually think and respond to the contours of data: one simply opts, out of a preconceived prejudice (all Muslims -- from which the anomalous fringe has been surgically detached -- must be good/all Muslims must be bad) for one extreme that depends upon the simplistic vilification of its mirror-opposite extreme.
The person who thinks, on the other hand, and who notices and assimilates the data, sees a field of reality out there characterized by the following features:
1) a large quantity of successful and successfully aborted terrorist attacks committed by Muslims
2) this large quantity, furthermore, occurring in widely disparate locales around the globe -- the global dispersion being a qualitative distinction that further indicates, beyond the sheer number of attacks, a widespread tendency emanating out of Islamic culture toward terrorism
3) this large and globally dispersed quantity, furthermore, too often involving Muslims who were heretofore indistinguishable from non-terrorist moderate Muslims -- with the single exception that many of them seemed to have become "more religious" (taking to heart what the Qur'an and Ahadith tell them to do) in the period of time before they mass-murdered or tried to mass-murder
4) a large quantity, also widely and globally dispersed, of sentiments supportive of the Muslim terrorists
5) a large quantity, also widely and globally dispersed, of sentiments that fall only slightly short of support for terrorism, and hover in the area of an anti-Western ambivalence characterized by one or more or all of the following features:
a) stubbornly anti-Israel with tacit or outright support of Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian Jihad and Palestinian suicide bombers
b) supremacist desire to see Shari'a become dominant in the world, with its corollary, a profound aversion to Western laws and Western cultural mores
c) supremacist and eschatological desire to see a revived Caliphate
d) sophistical rhetorical tactics that cannot unequivocally condemn Muslim terrorism but must entwine any condemnations in moral equivalency arguments, subtle appeals to Islamic "self-defense", and disingenuous use of terms like "innocents" and "suicide" (as in "Islam forbids the killing of innocents" and "Islam forbids suicide") without engaging in honest debate about how these are only true in an Orwellian sense
e) inability to engage in honest debate about how the Qur'an and Ahadith represent massive ideological justification and sanctification of an indefinite war against all non-Muslims until the world becomes Muslim.
(There are many more features that could be listed, but these are some of the more significant.)
The disturbingly massive and disturbingly increasing trends of the data characterized by features #1-5 above leads any rational person to conclude that there is a dangerous problem posed by Islamic culture today that renders the Infidel incapable of trusting any given smiling Muslim. John Howard's binary bifocals conveniently screen out the vast middle ground of data, so he doesn't have to think, and doesn't have to engage us on data that, to his eyes, isn't there.
Borg, or sort of a hybrid cross between Tom Haidon and King Tolerance.
A strategy for effectively combating islam, cartoons and more cartoons. This muhammad character was no-one to revere and his followers need to know that we miscreants (2:99, 24:55) dont have to submit to an ideology that belongs in the dark ages.
"It allows men to have many wives and that has to be heartwrenching to any woman. That in itself is detrimental to her mental health PLUS to the welfare of her children."
Freewoman, I would not have been able to says it all better. Just want to add that the "Apostle of Allah", married himself to at least 12 women (many of them widows who witnessed their husbands' slaughter) would not allow his favourite daughter's (Fatima) husband take another wife. He knew damn well how hurtful it could be to a woman.
As for women veiled in black from head to toe, in 90 degree weather, it has been observed that such a sight frightens ...even horses, let alone free (still) women like us. Not to mention the suffocating impact the heat enhanced by this type of clothing must have on these women's ability to think (not recommended in Islam anyway, particularly for the fair sex).
To the long list (so well presented here by Freewoman) of abuses inflicated on women in Islam I would add that the there is little hope for them even in the afterlife - Janna is said to be populated by disobedient wives. A truly appealling "religion" to any ...feminist!
122 postings - I havn't read them all. What's the record?
I would like to make a few comments about the subject of ad hominem statements. These are directed to Mr. Howard.
You have been called a moron and other dreogatory things, mosty questioning your intellegence. These are not attacks on you motives, or your character. These are comments about the content of your statements and how these statements make you sound. Indeed, they make you sound rather dimwitted to say the least.
If someone continues to claim that Islam is a religion of peace and continues to find equivalency with Islam versus Judaism or Christianity, we either must assume that that person knows the difference and is lying, or is really, really dumb. Instead of calling you a liar and impuning you character, we just assume that you are "as bumb as a box of rocks."
Insisting that you are an idiot, is merely describing the subject at hand. On the other hand, you might just be ingorant, and are trying to pretend to have an IQ over 100.
John Howard is the PM of Australia. The Mohammedan troll who posts here by that name is an insult to this man and should be banned.
Apart from that "John Howard", the Islamic troll , wastes everyones time by engaging in off-topic and worthless discussions.
"John Howard" is 'King Tolerance' reincarnate... with a coffee-filter properly screwed into the skull, with Jinns pissing in his ear and with satan sleeping in his nose...
Mohammeds cure for this was camel urine, and I suggest to "John Howard" that he drink plenty of it to cure himself of the Islamic disease..
For those who missed "John Howard"'s first posting here at JW/DW on June 14,2006
(to give a clue to his intentions and bona fides)- see:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011821.php
-and scroll to the near the bottom.
Two points - firstly, I agree with Albion's sentiments (and many of his other posts here since I started reading JW/DW) - to name the enemy and restate our defense as a war on jihad would indeed pit the West against 1.2 billion humans, which as far as I can see would only lead to unprecedented losses on a global scale. But the enemy's doctrines are the foundational tenets of their faith. I've read islamists actually saying "what do you want us to do, change our faith?" - they can't, it's not an option. So we're left with the options of either inevitably losing by atrittion or taking the fight to the enemy and having a proper sort out. Antibigotry can't be bigotry - I've had people tell me that to be anti-anything is to be bigotted, but what's the alternative?
I do agree with the seven options listed, these and others should be part of a coordinated strategy to curb islamist aspirations. But even this requires naming the enemy and admonishing them and their foundational ideologies. It's hard to see how such a movement could gain enough momentum to match islam's long-haul expectations and inshallah fatalism.
So we need zeal. Religious, political, whatever, as long as it's vociferous, tenacious and heartfelt. My ha'pennys worth anyhow. But please keep posting as I respect your points of veiw.
Secondly John H, I hope you'll talk more to moslems, the most moderate you can find, and after they've renounced terrorism and racism etc., get them to talk about economics and geopolitics. I find even the most reasonable moslems have some very peculiar, yet idiosyncratic beliefs about the real reasons for this conflict, all of which are based on denialism or out-and-out dishonesty. Moslems believe, like the Galloways et al, that commerce between east and west is tantamount to theivery. They'll believe there's no such thing as free market economics, that there's some shady, usually Jooish or "Neocon" cabals pulling the strings. They believe the trillions of dollars flowing east is all invested where it'll actually make returns - in the West - therefore moslem nations are somehow in a lose-lose situation, all of which denies their own ruling elite's corruption and incompetence. I'm sure that if you talk to enough moslems in enough detail you'll begin agreeing earnestly, until you get to these underlying issues, at which point you'll realise that such conversations will only end in heated debate, denialism of facts and responsibilities and outright untruths. Every moslem I know is anti-semetic, was told by their parents joos are the worst of people etc., just talk to moslems yourself. It may take a few years to get to grips with, but we cannot arbitrarily extend our values to these people without resolving these issues. Without reciprocation, altruism is suicide. I appreciate your goodwill, but please try practising it on those who regard you as kufr. Sorry for preaching.
...and incidently the real John Howard (whom I respect enormously) has stated unambiguosly that he understood Islam was the enemy before 911, that if the excuses weren't Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, they'd be East Timor or some previous conflict. Bali's victims died because Australians aren't moslem, they're decadent infidels who's fate was sealed by mohummad in the 7th century. Real Australians don't put up with this kind of BS.
aig: "If that makes me a bigot, then so be it."
Ditto.:-)
(Although instead of “so be it”, I am tempted to adopt valleygirlspeak and say, “Whatever”, in order to convey the precise bored tone of indifference that such a baseless charge warrants.)
In other words, fire away with every (liberal) bugaboo word one can think of (including “islamophobe) and it doesn't change the reality of what Islam teaches, what it has taught unchanged from the time of Muhammad some 1350 years ago, what its adherents have done to non-believers throughout history, what its believers have done to their own, and it doesn't change the facts about what they are doing today to non-believers all over the globe (and I don't just mean terrorism). Generalizations have their purposes. There is a reason people don't generally object to the statement, "Men are stronger than women", although one could no doubt point to many examples of individual women who are stronger than individual men.
(Nice post TV. You say that you are impatient but the analytic nature of your post in addressing Howards logic problem suggests quite the opposite.)
Would someone please explain to me how recognizing Islam as the enemy leads to the conclusion that we have to launch a global war against 1.2 billion people? Where does this idea come from? For centuries westerners understood that Islam was the enemy and that didn't lead to them launching a global war against Muslims. No - recognizing Islam as the enemy merely implies the conclusions that multiculturalism is dead (as long as Islam is) and that we need to stop and take steps to reverse Muslim immigration to the west. It also implies that among those Muslims already residing in the west, we would have to practice religious profiling. It's not a perfect solution because obviously Muslims can blend in to our societies but it still suggests a huge starting point.
How is this understanding worse than the current approach which does NOT recognize Islam as the enemy? Without that step, how does one go about stopping Muslim immigration to the west? It also prevents doing the obvious - which is profiling on a religious basis.
Without a large scale Muslim presence in the west - someone explain to me how Muslims could possibly WIN this?
How can they win, if we don't let them in?
They can't. It's impossible.
Ah, so many replies, so much more personal abuse and ad hominem. So much for tolerance of difference of opinion and dissent from the politically correct view that is normally expressed here. Now, where do I begin?
"By all means, don't take our word for it. I suggest you find some British websites and message boards and READ WHAT IS SAID BY THE MUSLIMS THEMSELVES. It's an eye opening experience, to say the least. I'm sure some of our posters here could point you in the right direction."
The opinion of SOME Muslims are distasteful, just as the opinions of SOME people are distasteful. Bigotry and prejudice are not just confined it would appear to Islamophobes. treehugger, are your opinions typical of non-Muslims? In my experience no. Indeed, the level of vitriol that has been directed towards me and Muslims in general appear to be completely atypical, yet increasingly I read more and more of this sort of thing on the internet. Why? 50 years ago, anti-Semitism was common, still is, unfortunately in many places but we saw what happened when those sentiments were allowed free rein. Well, I consider Islamophobia in a similar light. By all means, attack the perpetrators of Terrorism - the terrorists and their supporters but don't confuse all Muslims with that group. I suspect, in your case treehugger and a few others here, I am wasting my time but I will continue to try and enlighten you.
"Perhaps John Howard shud contact CAIR to help him against all the abuse he has taken on this site. I am sure he is scarred for life." - JanuaryMan
I am not scared for my life but I am scared for the lives of my Muslim friends if attitudes like those expressed here become common currency in our societies.
"Well, Mr. Howard, because the koran allows the man to beat his wife."
So does Christianity. The laws of nations however outlaw it. Just as the laws of most Muslim nations outlaw it. Whether they prevent it, is something completely different. Considering the levels of domestic violence in most Christian countries, how successful do think they've been?
[quote]
The koran says to treat your wife as tilth. As chattel or property.
[/quote]
So does the Bible. Forgotten ninth commandment?
"It allows men to have many wives and that has to be heartwrenching to any woman."
Well, personally I suspect any man who practices poligemy is crazy but I'm unsure why it would be "heartwrenching to any woman". Perhaps I'm just cynical in my old age but most women appear able to hand emotional matters reasonably well.
"That in itself is detrimental to her mental health PLUS to the welfare of her children. It says to cover your women."
It suggests it.
"Oh, and there's the honor killing they practice."
SOME Muslims practice. I'd also suggest that such killings are cultural rather than religious in their inspiration. Hindus, Sikhs, some Buddhists, many animists and even many southern European Christians also practice such killings. So why single out Muslims? Oh, thats right, none of here are bigotted, right?
"There is no justification any where on earth that a man's pride should lie between a woman's legs. A man should have pride in his OWN achievements. If these muslims cared for their women, they would only want the best for them. Instead, they so easily kill them."
SOME Muslims do. Not all do. As I pointed out, the position of women within Muslim societies is not uniform. There have been more Muslim female national leaders in modern times than there have been Christian ones. Strange don't you think?
"Let's mention the lack of birth control. Do you realize the strain on women (beginning as immature girls) having children year after year? A girls body needs to be mature before starting childbirth. Just because they bleed, doesn't mean they are physically mature. Over time, child after child can make the womb drop. Gravity itself is good for other sagging and droppings. Can you imagine how hard it is on a body to be pregnant year after year?"
A common problem across most societies and religions. Catholicism, for example still doesn't allow birth control. Many Muslims do practice birth control - one reason why Muslims in the west are having falling birth rates BTW.
"And then there is the way they keep their women hidden in the home. I personally enjoy visiting with my husband's friends and yet these women don't get the chance. I don't believe they are even allowed to talk to other men."
Some Muslim societies keep their women in Purdah. Many do not. You've obviously never visited Indonesia - the most populous Muslim country in the world - where the president before the present one was a woman, where women are not kept in Purdah. Perhaps you need to broaden your viewpoint and look at the diversity within Islamic societies?
"Go to RAWA and visit the website and see for yourself how inhumanely women are treated. It's pretty much the way women are treated in All muslim lands."
Excuse me but I will now use a naughty word - BULLSHIT. Its obvious you've never even visited a Muslim country if you believe this.
"I answered your question. Please answer mine."
Which one? Oh, what my wife wore when I visited Muslim lands - normal western clothing. What do you wear? Have you even visited a Muslim land?
"Say, John Howard, we could use a comment from you here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011936.php
Seems some muslims were being bigoted towards Jews. Let us know what you think!" Gary, I welcome your invitation, if and when I am finished in this thread, I'll visit that one.
"So Mr Howard - you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are concerned about bigotry - why don't you direct your efforts on a Muslim chatboard. And by the way - good luck getting your message across there...."
Caroline, I have and I do. Some Muslims are bigotted, just as it appears some people here are. Are you one of those when you mount your unqualified attacks on all Muslims?
"What house would that be?"
This one.
"Personally, I try to avoid using ad homenim attacks, but I don't think most of the posts directed at you on this thread have been exceptionally abusive or insulting, especially in comparison to other sites that deal with muslim-infidel interaction (most of which are muslim.)"
Abuse and insult are like beauty somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Are you suggesting that civilised discourse should be forgotten and open warfare be declared? How would succumbing to the level of some posters here and on other boards improve communication? Unless of course we're not interested in communication and only seeking an outlet for abuse?
"Try going to one of those sites and making statements which are contrary to the islamic line. You won't just receive mild insults such as those you have received here. Death threats are more likely. I know from experience."
As I have already pointed out, I have. However, the claim on both sides is that that side is morally superior. How is lowering one to the level of the opposition a means of proving it? If moral superiority is claimed, surely it should have to be proved. Remember, we cannot control what our opponents do, we can only control ourselves.
"Some posters have also assumed you to be muslim, and used that in their arguements. I also feel it is likely you are muslim, rather than a "left-wing" radical or an uber multi-culti nut, since the latter groups generally have no interest in sites like this, and actively retreat from any such discussions of ideas that inevitably lead one to realize that not all cultures and religions are equally benevolent or contributory to the furtherment of mankind."
My religion is unimportant. I am a student of many different religions and cultures though. Indeed, the almost automatic labelling of me as Muslim was so laughable. Why is it not possible for someone to defend those who are being unfairly chastised?
"Generally, the only people who take interests in sites such as these are: those who desire to further the global jihad; and those who wish to defend against it. However, from my point of view, your personal background is of much less import to the discussion, than the ideas presented therin. The fact that you might disagree with my point of view does not automatically make you a muslim."
Abu Allah, thank you, its quite refreshing to have a civilised discourse here. Keep the good work up.
"Most here have done their homework and read the rambling revenge fantasies of the pedophile "prophet" and warlord of Islam, Mohammad, and his lunatic biographical details documented in the Hadiths, and know what the final game plan of the Islamic Imperialists is, -whether done by the slow conquest of demographic da'wa or the fast, intimidating terror of militant jihad."
I would suggest that reading the Q'oran out of context is about as useful as reading the old testament out of context, Profitsbeard.
"Islam is a mind-death cult."
All religions could be described that way. They are the opiate of the masses as Marx so famously quipped. That doesn't mean however they and their followers should not be respected.
"You're welcome to plant wreaths around its intolerant neck as its waits to slice yours."
Muslims that I have met have never indicated any desire to do me harm, Profitsbeard. Perhaps the problem is the way you act towards them.
"Useful idiots" are what enablers of the totalitarian Communists in the 1920's-1950's were called."
As against just plain idiots like those who supported Facism and intolerance?
"Mohammedism appears to have plenty of their own.
Suckers of the sinkhole of 7th century dogmatic theocratic terror and absolute intolerance.
Posing, for tactical purposes (until it gain enough strenth to strike) as a "religion of peace".
The scales have fallen from enough eyes in the West to see through this purulent propaganda.
Go whistle up the imams' skirts at Ummah.com, it won't work here.
("The Treason of the Intellectuals" might be a self-analytical work you could read, meanwhile, as you [unconsciously] abet the despotism of the homicidal warlord of Allah.)"
profitsbeard your attitudes are the exact mirror image of those you claim to oppose. Silly really.
"You are right, there are followers of every religion who use the religion to fulfill their own agenda rather than follow a philosophy of love, forgiveness, non-violence, and salvation."
Exactly, Lysistrata. One should be careful not to confuse the actions of a minority with those of the majority. The majority of Muslims are peaceful people who just seek to be left alone, both by the bigots and hatred of the west and the bigotry and hatred of the Islamists.
"I hope and pray that you are right about this! When I visit a web site such as http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ the situation sure doesn't look hopeful."
If I was to create a similar site which condemned Christians for their excesses or Hindus or virtually any other religion, it would be possible to give them as equally bad an image. Don't assume the actions of a minority represent the views of the majority,
"I wear mini-skirts and sing in a punk rock band. There are countries where I would be stoned to death for expressing my individuality in this manner. http://www.irandwr.org/english/english_down.htm
The following is from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/women_top_ten.htm
Quote: 'Jamal Karimi-Rad told the local press, "Being improperly veiled and not wearing a veil are no different. When it is clear from the appearance of a woman that she has violated the law, then the crime is obvious and law enforcement agents can take legal measures against her". "Crimes such as mal-veiling or other prohibited acts, which happen before the eyes of a law enforcement agent, are evident crimes and must be dealt with in accordance with the law", Karimi-Rad said. Sharia oppresses women because it offers them no freedom of choice. If a Muslim woman volunteers to wear a veil or head covering, then that is her prerogative. However, she should be free not to wear one, without being punished as a criminal.'"
I can point you to the comments of many Christian fundamentalists in modern society who would condemn you for wearing a miniskirt. Then there are merely the socially reactionary and conservative. How many times have you heard the comment about a rape victim, "she was asking for it by the way she was dressed"? Personally, I find the viewpoint stupid, just as I find the viewpoint of SOME Muslims stupid. However, just as those people within our societies are allowed to hold those views, no matter how ignorant or stupid they are, so are SOME Muslims allowed to hold comparable views in their societies.
"Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is alive and well:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12559
"In November, 2003, Sébastien Selam, a popular 23-year old Jewish DJ, known to his fans as DJ LamC, was murdered by an Arab neighbor. His throat was slit twice; his face was atrociously mutilated. The grisly crime was barely reported in the French press, the probable anti-Semitic motive was underplayed or denied, the affair has not been followed by Jewish or mainstream media with the notable exception of Rosenpress."
Yes, Anti-Semitism still exits. You appear to recognise that as being wrong but are quite willing to accept Islamophobia. Why?
"Lastly, Mr. Howard, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful individual who cares about the rights of others and will speak out against bigotry."
Thank you. I try.
"Please try to understand why readers of web sites such as Jihadwatch are so concerned. I hope that you and the larger Muslim community will prove our fears unfounded! However, until the day comes that "infidels and crusaders" don't have to be fearful everytime they get on a plane or a train, I want people to be vigilant."
I also want people to be vigilant. However they need to be vigilant towards the criminals who perpetuate these sorts of outrages, not to inflict upon innocent people who have committed no crime, other than in the eyes of the posters here, to be born into or chosen a religion they find distasteful. We have a saying in Australia, "be alert, not alarmed". Unfortunately all too many posters here appear to be alarmed and terrorified.
"‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ - Edmund Burke Lysistrata, Burke actually didn't say that. Its a misquotation. However, I agree with the sentiment. The problem is defining what is evil and what is good. Further, what action should be taken. I'd suggest continual and unfounded attacks on ordinary, everyday Muslims merely for their religion, isn't it,
"Mr. John Howard says that the mughals who invaded India were persians. So much for knowledge."
Funny, Wikipedia also believes they were (originally, as I pointed out) Persians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughals
"I asked him to go through the archives of May, and he said that he will read only today's postings. No reading of history for John Howard."
The opinions being expressed today are the opinions of today and the ones I'm reading. I have no need to go back through "the archives" to express a counter opinion about an opinion expressed today.
"Two points - firstly, I agree with Albion's sentiments (and many of his other posts here since I started reading JW/DW) - to name the enemy and restate our defense as a war on jihad would indeed pit the West against 1.2 billion humans, which as far as I can see would only lead to unprecedented losses on a global scale. But the enemy's doctrines are the foundational tenets of their faith."
Are they? There appears to be some dispute within Islam on that, with Fatwas having been issued which condemn Terrorism for the Nihilism that it is. Of course, such comments from within the Muslim community appear not to be noticed here.
"I've read islamists actually saying "what do you want us to do, change our faith?" - they can't, it's not an option. So we're left with the options of either inevitably losing by atrittion or taking the fight to the enemy and having a proper sort out. Antibigotry can't be bigotry - I've had people tell me that to be anti-anything is to be bigotted, but what's the alternative?"
Perhaps working with those within Islam who are working for change? Islam is not static. It is a dynamic religion, just as Christianity is. It has been subject to schism before, it more than likely will be again. My personal viewpoint is that Islam is very much in need of a counter-reformation. The Islamic fundamentalists represent an equivalent to the Reformation which swept the Christian church in the 16th century. The result was the 30 years war which rent Europe and killed up to 30 million dead, according to some estimates. It wasn't until the Counter-Reformation that an equiliberium was found. We should be working to help create an equivalent to the Society of Jesus, not merely blanket condemning all Muslims as people here do.
In doing so, we would be working to influence moderate Muslims. To move them away from supporting the radical Islamists and to deprive the Terrorists of their support base and recruits.
"I do agree with the seven options listed, these and others should be part of a coordinated strategy to curb islamist aspirations. But even this requires naming the enemy and admonishing them and their foundational ideologies. It's hard to see how such a movement could gain enough momentum to match islam's long-haul expectations and inshallah fatalism."
What albion basically suggested is correct and apart from the details I agree with him (althought I don't necessarily believe the US should rule the world!). Indeed, he's to be commended for coming to a similar conclusion. Its a shame that more here prefer the simplistic condemnation of bigotry and prejudice than to actually utilise their brains to think for themselves.
"So we need zeal. Religious, political, whatever, as long as it's vociferous, tenacious and heartfelt. My ha'pennys worth anyhow. But please keep posting as I respect your points of veiw."
Thank you.
"Secondly John H, I hope you'll talk more to moslems, the most moderate you can find, and after they've renounced terrorism and racism etc., get them to talk about economics and geopolitics. I find even the most reasonable moslems have some very peculiar, yet idiosyncratic beliefs about the real reasons for this conflict, all of which are based on denialism or out-and-out dishonesty."
I'd suggest that many on the otherside also have some what you describe as "idiosyncratic beliefs about the real reasons for this conflict". The degree of chauvanism in the West and in particular the US, rather astonishing.
"Moslems believe, like the Galloways et al, that commerce between east and west is tantamount to theivery. They'll believe there's no such thing as free market economics, that there's some shady, usually Jooish or "Neocon" cabals pulling the strings. They believe the trillions of dollars flowing east is all invested where it'll actually make returns - in the West - therefore moslem nations are somehow in a lose-lose situation, all of which denies their own ruling elite's corruption and incompetence. I'm sure that if you talk to enough moslems in enough detail you'll begin agreeing earnestly, until you get to these underlying issues, at which point you'll realise that such conversations will only end in heated debate, denialism of facts and responsibilities and outright untruths. Every moslem I know is anti-semetic, was told by their parents joos are the worst of people etc., just talk to moslems yourself. It may take a few years to get to grips with, but we cannot arbitrarily extend our values to these people without resolving these issues. Without reciprocation, altruism is suicide. I appreciate your goodwill, but please try practising it on those who regard you as kufr. Sorry for preaching."
Animus, no need to apologise. Its refreshing to read something other than personal abuse. Keep the good work up and don't lower yourself to the same level as your opponents (something which I have to admit I occasionally do).
"...and incidently the real John Howard (whom I respect enormously) has stated unambiguosly that he understood Islam was the enemy before 911, that if the excuses weren't Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, they'd be East Timor or some previous conflict."
Actually, I said that it was radical Islam, not Islam itself. If you read my speech to Parliament on 14 October 2002, you will discover that.
"Bali's victims died because Australians aren't moslem, they're decadent infidels who's fate was sealed by mohummad in the 7th century."
Bali's victims died because they were convenient. Their status as infidels was fortiutious, from the viewpoint of the Terrorists. It wouldn't have mattered if they were American, British, German or any other group, that they were Australian was primarily a mistake, the Terrorists by their own admission were actually aiming to kill Americans.
"Real Australians don't put up with this kind of BS."
I don't buy into trying to determine who is or isn't a "real Australian", animus and I'd suggest you shouldn't either. It is too easy to start McCarthyist witchhunts. I'd suggest that perhaps the only "real Australians" are the Aborigines, if you want to start applying definitions.
Caroline, "You say that you are impatient but the analytic nature of your post in addressing Howards logic problem suggests quite the opposite"
I can only maintain patience when adverting to the opinions of posters of Howard's ilk using the third person. I'm no longer usually capable of engaging in actual one-to-one dialogue with such perversely logical ideologues who will quibble, equivocate and cherrypick until the world ends.
His recourse to Noachic sources of Western Christianity and -- by extension -- of the modern West -- is based upon an imbecilic myopia both to the dynamic changes which the West has gone through over the past few centuries and to the comparatively static and therefore regressive temperment and institutionalization of culture in the Muslim world: there is no worthwhile comparison to be made between these two worlds.
To make such a comparison, as he does, in the interest of leveling the equivalency between the West and Islam and with an eye to sugarcoating the obstinately and zealously pre-modern mentality of culture in the Muslim world today -- which is directly nourishing the alarming levels of terrorism, oppression, social pathologies and inhumane laws wherever Muslims congregate (levels that become worse proportionate to their increased power) -- is either either dangerously naive or lucidly Revolutionary in the Leftist sense. That is, if he's not Muslim. If he is Muslim, he's just another "moderate" Muslim waging scurrilously deceptive jihad in the War of Ideas.
Not all mohammedans have (fill in your charge). SOME have.
Not all Nazis (fill in your charge). SOME did.
It is not the case that all Nazis planted a jackboot into the small of the back of a Jew, kicked him/her into a trench and shot him/her. However, I would neither invite a Nazi to my son's Bar Mitzvah (if I were Jewish), nor invite one to my Passover dinner (if I blah, blah).
It is not the case that all crocodiles have eaten a human being. However, I would neither go swimming with one nor have one in my living room.
I must be a crocodilophobe.
Oh, yeah. And a bigot.
There, saved anyone the trouble.
'Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition'-1983
(italics mine)
Calling someone a bigot is an ad hominem attack.
Anti-Semitism is a problem in the world. Only in the koran and ahadith is it mandated.
Unless you want to count "Mein Kampf".
We have a large, industrious Aussie & Kiwi community here in W. London, mostly white-collar, hard working (and partying), who contribute far more to the local economy in terms of employment opportunities and revenues than the much larger moslem community. Living and working alongside them, their differences couldn't be more stark. The same differences are manifest amongst the Lebenese communities in Oz; it would be reassuring to think such factors are soley due to inequalities intrinsic to Western societies but the truth is that moslems are indoctrinated with a fallacious belief in their religious and political superiority leading to a malcontent attitude to the obvious successes of secular capitalism. Our social and economic prosperity is an affront to Islam in much the same manner as it is to communism. I hope some kind of equillibrium will result from the current escalation, but the more I learn the less likely such an outcome seems.
Caroline - my line of thought was that we'd end up defending an all-out war against "defensive jihad". Imagine if say, the G8 leaders announced that even such a concesionary term a "Militant Islamism" was the real enemy - this would only fortify the perceptions - and dogma - of islam that the infidel, led by the joo, is at war with them, even though it's obvious the reverse is true. I'd like to see it happen anyway, get down to the nitty-gritty and all that, but I'm just an ignorant hack, a dillitante, talking about a war against 20% of humanity and my opinions should be regarded as such...
I'd much rather hope that some kind of non-confrontational climb down was still possible. An evil ideology must be annihilated before it does the same to us, no question. But as for how to minimise the cost to both parties, I don't know. I talk to Moslems. I don't get very far. I receive thinly-veiled threats to my life and I feel vulnerable. But like Naseem says, there's too much at stake not to take an active interest... I dunno.
Gems from above:
"quoting the Koran out of context is the same as quoting the old testament out of context..." Typical Mohammedan claptrap! Will there ever be ONE Mohammedan who doesn't claim 'out of context' when an infidel quotes from the Koran???
"...Muslims that I have met have never indicated any desire to do me harm, Profitsbeard. Perhaps the problem is the way you act towards them..."
Perhaps you are not a cartoonist. Perhaps your Koran didn't flush when it fell in the toilet... maybe you like their company because you agree with them, or because you are one of them???
"All Muslims don't do this or that..."
If they ALL did what THEY do, they would be roasted already. Many of us are still deluding ourselves that "they are not ALL bad, or they are not ALL terrorists..." it took only 19 to bring down the WTC and all of the ummah Islamiyah went ape-shit dancing in the streets! Worldwide!!!
I'm not interested to find out 'how the REAL muzzies are'- I have seen enough, too much perhaps. I have seen Indonesia ruined entirely over the last 35 years, I have seen the mess they are causing in the south of Thailand, I have travelled extensively in the ME, there are NO excuses and no equalizers for Islam and the fanatical fools who are born into this belief-system.
They can do what they do best, like head-chopping, terrorizing, blowing each other up, in the Arabian desert. If they have nothing better to do, let them do it there, not here among generous, unsuspecting and naive infidels...
Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience."
Posted by: americaningermany
Now that we know that we are dealing with a brainwashed moslim, we need not bother trying to educate him. He has had all his education from the koran, all the answers. He is enlightened. Go ahead jihadi John Howard.
John Howard: "Perhaps working with those within Islam who are working for change? Islam is not static. It is a dynamic religion, just as Christianity is. It has been subject to schism before, it more than likely will be again. My personal viewpoint is that Islam is very much in need of a counter-reformation. The Islamic fundamentalists represent an equivalent to the Reformation which swept the Christian church in the 16th century. The result was the 30 years war which rent Europe and killed up to 30 million dead, according to some estimates. It wasn't until the Counter-Reformation that an equiliberium was found. We should be working to help create an equivalent to the Society of Jesus, not merely blanket condemning all Muslims as people here do."
Pardon my french but what the f***? Are you actually suggesting that we westerners are under some sort of obligation to put ourselves in the middle of a 30 years war in Islam? The sort of war which you admit "RENT EUROPE AND KILLED UP TO 30 MILLION DEAD"?
And our obligation to invite these folks by the millions onto our lands so that we can fulfill our apparent obligation to get in the middle of this 30 year war that killed millions when WE went through it is - WHAT? Where is our obligation here?
If Islam needs a 30 year war that has the capacity of killing 30 million people then someone needs to explain to us westerners WHAT THE HELL THIS HAS TO DO WITH US AND WHY WE SHOULD KEEP IMPORTING THESE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CARRY OUT THIS WAR AMONGST US NON-MUSLIMS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!.
I certainly agree with you that Islam is in need of a counter-reformation (UBL and his ilk already representing the equivalent of Christianity’s reformation) but so what? What does this have to do with us. How do you even know what a “counter-reforomation” would look like? There was never an organized church body in Islam like the Catholic church to “reform” in the first place so to whom would this “counter-reformation” look anyway?
And in any case, to suggest that Islam is need of a counter-reformation is to suggest that Islam’s actual texts ARE the problem!
The solution here isn’t rocket science.
We could solve this problem in a heartbeat without any "interfaith dialogues" or bleeding heart whatever crap that you’re posting here.
As you have inadvertently admitted, Islam IS the problem (else why the need for a counter-reformation)?
You have also pointed out that it took 30 years and millions of lives to solve a (somewhat) similar problem in Christianity.
Now explain why we shouldn’t right now:
1.Declare islam to be the problem.
2. Stop Muslim immigration to the West pronto.
2. Religiously profile the Muslims that are already here (that would be those who haven’t progressed through the “counter-reformation” yet – whatever that is to entail)
4.Let Muslims fight for the modernization of their religion in their own damn lands rather than playing out their religious "issues" on our soil!
You may deplore this as "bigotry" and "islamophobia" but it is the only thing that makes sense if one DOESN'T care to repeat a 30 years religious war that could kill millions on our soil. And what have we westerners, who have already shed so much blood to move into the modern era - done to deserve having to have this entire history replayed here because Muslims don't have the fortitude to work this all out and shed their own damn blood in their own lands? Or because apologists and obfuscators like yourself confuse people about the right course of action by hurling baseless claims like "bigot" at them?
You will also note that what I suggest doesn’t involve killing one single Muslim either. You can't seriously expect to invite Islam to undergo a counter-reformation on western soil and not expect that a whole lot of westerners AND Muslims are going to die - and in the most gruesome manner possible, can you?
sheik yer'mami please keep posting, you're merely proving my points for me.
Animus - "I'd much rather hope that some kind of non-confrontational climb down was still possible. An evil ideology must be annihilated before it does the same to us, no question."
By all means we should combat and destroy Islamism but Islamism is not Islam nor are all Muslims Islamists. We have to be careful to differentiate between the two. Failing to do so, is of course as I've already mentioned, falling into the hands of the Islamists and doing what they want us to do.
"But as for how to minimise the cost to both parties, I don't know. I talk to Moslems. I don't get very far. I receive thinly-veiled threats to my life and I feel vulnerable. But like Naseem says, there's too much at stake not to take an active interest... I dunno."
Of course there is. Which Muslims do you talk to and perhaps more importantly, how do you talk to them? Do you start out from the premise that their religion and beliefs are illigimate and deserve disrespect as so many here appear to or do you actively seek to build a bridge of understanding between themselves and you?
"Pardon my french but what the f***? Are you actually suggesting that we westerners are under some sort of obligation to put ourselves in the middle of a 30 years war in Islam? The sort of war which you admit "RENT EUROPE AND KILLED UP TO 30 MILLION DEAD"?"
Oh, dear, Caroline you appear to have misunderstood what I was saying. No, that is not what I am suggesting. I am using the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the 30 Years War as something which are called "examples". Examples of a comparable situation which the World has already experienced.
"And our obligation to invite these folks by the millions onto our lands so that we can fulfill our apparent obligation to get in the middle of this 30 year war that killed millions when WE went through it is - WHAT? Where is our obligation here?"
None because I didn't attempt to suggest there was.
"I certainly agree with you that Islam is in need of a counter-reformation (UBL and his ilk already representing the equivalent of Christianity’s reformation) but so what? What does this have to do with us. How do you even know what a “counter-reforomation” would look like? There was never an organized church body in Islam like the Catholic church to “reform” in the first place so to whom would this “counter-reformation” look anyway?"
Excellent questions. What does it have to do with "us"? Well, I thought that was rather obvious. We are involved. We have been involved for over 100 years, interfering in the internal affairs of the modern Islamic world. We have especially been involved over the last 50 years since the end of WWII. The Islamists are using that involvement to further their agenda and gain increased influence and power.
As to what a Counter-Reformation would look like, I have no idea. It would, because of the non-heirachical nature of Islam have to come from the grassroots, don't you think? We can influence those grassroots but we cannot control them, any more than the Islamists can, which is one reason why they seek to provoke a massive over-reaction from the West - it drives those grassroots Muslims into their arms. They are, as Mao put it, fish swimming in the sea. We cannot control the sea but we can influence where it goes and what fish it supports. Perhaps we should be directing our energies towards influencing moderat Muslims? Bit hard to get them to come onside though when we are blanketly condemning them and their religion.
"And in any case, to suggest that Islam is need of a counter-reformation is to suggest that Islam’s actual texts ARE the problem!"
No it is not. No one suggested that the Bible was the problem when the Reformation/Counter-Reformation occurred. It was the interpretation of the Bible which was considered suspect, just as we should consider suspect the Islamist interpretation of the Q'oran.
"The solution here isn’t rocket science.
We could solve this problem in a heartbeat without any "interfaith dialogues" or bleeding heart whatever crap that you’re posting here.
As you have inadvertently admitted, Islam IS the problem (else why the need for a counter-reformation)?"
No, one, literal interpretation of the Q'oran is the problem, Caroline. Just as the corrupt Papal interpretation of the Bible was the cause of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation for Christianity.
"You have also pointed out that it took 30 years and millions of lives to solve a (somewhat) similar problem in Christianity."
Yes it did however, we are far more knowledgeable and understanding, well some of us are, than they were in 16th century Europe. Zealotry on both sides caused that war, we can avoid that, well at least some of us can.
"Now explain why we shouldn’t right now:
1.Declare islam to be the problem."
Because Islam isn't the problem. It is interpretations of Islam. Just as Islam itself has many sects, each offering different interpretations of the Q'oran.
"2. Stop Muslim immigration to the West pronto."
Why? We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and this would merely demonstrate prejudice, betraying the very principles we claim to be upholding.
"2. Religiously profile the Muslims that are already here (that would be those who haven’t progressed through the “counter-reformation” yet – whatever that is to entail)"
I'm unsure what you mean by this. If you mean sorting the wheat from the chaff and isolating or removing those who adhere or preach a violent Jihadi Islamist interpretation of the Q'oran, sure, I'd agree to that. However, this should be just one part of our effort to influence Muslims and a last resort, rather than a first.
"4.Let Muslims fight for the modernization of their religion in their own damn lands rather than playing out their religious "issues" on our soil!"
They are citizens of our nations. They have rights to religious freedom here. Therefore that should be respected. Christians "play out their religious 'issues' on our soil" all the time. You appear to be rather willing to ignore that, why?
"You may deplore this as "bigotry" and "islamophobia" but it is the only thing that makes sense if one DOESN'T care to repeat a 30 years religious war that could kill millions on our soil. And what have we westerners, who have already shed so much blood to move into the modern era - done to deserve having to have this entire history replayed here because Muslims don't have the fortitude to work this all out and shed their own damn blood in their own lands? Or because apologists and obfuscators like yourself confuse people about the right course of action by hurling baseless claims like "bigot" at them?
You will also note that what I suggest doesn’t involve killing one single Muslim either. You can't seriously expect to invite Islam to undergo a counter-reformation on western soil and not expect that a whole lot of westerners AND Muslims are going to die - and in the most gruesome manner possible, can you?"
I'd suggest that promoting a Counter-Reformation on Western Soil was in fact the absolutely best place for it to occur, surrounded by the examples that Western Democracies provide of pluralism, tolerance and religious freedom, Caroline.
"Now that we know that we are dealing with a brainwashed moslim, we need not bother trying to educate him. He has had all his education from the koran, all the answers. He is enlightened. Go ahead jihadi John Howard."
I am not brainwashed in the slightest, nor am I a Muslim, Mr. Sevak. I'd suggest that your resort to such a claim merely shows your own closemindedness. I have put forward points which you are obviously unable to answer.
Television, you raise some interesting points. However, you are far wide of the mark. My attempts to make any sort of similarity between the West and Islam is to point out, more than anything, that Islam seems to come in for a great deal more opprobrium. It is a case of people ignoring the good advice provided in Matthew 7:5 I would suggest.
how do you talk to them?
As freinds and equals. As decent, righteous people. I listen to them too, and acknowlede the good, the alms-giving, their community, family values and other virtues. Using much of what I've learned here, as well as elswhere. Most of all, from the Islamic texts (of which my Moslem freinds - and I think most Moslems in general - are almost entirely ignorant). I was reading here and following up on links for a good six months before I began posting.
The problem as I have come to understand it is that the distinction between Islam and Islamism is one of convenience for both us and them - it gives Islam "plausible deniability" while delaying - though bottling up - our inevitable attempt at some 'final solution'. Whether that'll be a wall or a war I don't know, but I think both parties need to address the scriptures being applied by the terrorists. Download a Koran - grab a few different ones if possible - and do some key-word searches like "jew", "infidel", "unbeliever" etc. and you'll quickly get a flavour of what seem to be the core values of this "faith". Allah hates us, and the faithful are his soldiers who will be victorious against us (especially the Jews). Inshallah.
The failure thus far of both the Islamic world and the West to face this horrible truth is the main reason for the intractibility of the conflict - going right back to its inception, and not least concerning the issues of Israel and "palestine".
For most posters here, the problem is that the terrorists are simply the pious, and the moderates are Moslems-in-name-only who bat for the same side but haven't actually studied their "religion". The ones that have realise that Jihad - whether defensive or offensive - is obligotory and not optional.
Howard has reversed the problem diametrically:
"By all means we should combat and destroy Islamism but Islamism is not Islam nor are all Muslims Islamists. We have to be careful to differentiate between the two. Failing to do so, is of course as I've already mentioned, falling into the hands of the Islamists and doing what they want us to do."
He's right and wrong -- we do indeed need to keep differentiating the two:
1) the small minority of Muslims who are not authentically rooted in upholding the cultural matrix that is the vehicle for reviving the supremacist imperialism of General Mohammed per the Qur'an and Ahadith
2) the vast majority who are either
a) zealously pursuing Islamic authenticity based on a fidelity to General Mohammed's timeless goals per the Qur'an and Ahadith
or
b) passively enabling the triumphalist trans-national matrix that hides, covertly supports, nourishes and emboldens the Muslims of 2a.
“Bit hard to get them to come onside though when we are blanketly condemning them and their religion.”
Wrong. The moderates will only have the courage to step up when enough westerners make it very clear that there is a serious problem that we won’t tolerate anymore. You, with your moral equivalence crap, are actually making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to reform islam.
“Yes it did however, we are far more knowledgeable and understanding, well some of us are, than they were in 16th century Europe. Zealotry on both sides caused that war, we can avoid that, well at least some of us can.”
You insufferable, liberal elitist (or Muslim – haven’t figured out which yet).
“Because Islam isn't the problem. It is interpretations of Islam. Just as Islam itself has many sects, each offering different interpretations of the Q'oran.”
You need to re-read about a thousand of Spencer’s posts here about all the mainstream interpretations of Islam.
“Why? We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and this would merely demonstrate prejudice, betraying the very principles we claim to be upholding.”
So tolerance is the God you worship? That’s all the west comes to – don’t show any prejudice or intolerance, even if what one objects to is intolerant and evil?
“They are citizens of our nations. They have rights to religious freedom here. Therefore that should be respected. Christians "play out their religious 'issues' on our soil" all the time. You appear to be rather willing to ignore that, why?”
Your absurd moral equivalence is showing and making me realize that I’ve been wasting my time.
“I'd suggest that promoting a Counter-Reformation on Western Soil was in fact the absolutely best place for it to occur, surrounded by the examples that Western Democracies provide of pluralism, tolerance and religious freedom, Caroline.”
“promoting a counter-reformation on western soil”? You haven’t heard a word I’ve said. I try very hard here not to resort to ad hominum attacks and I think I have a pretty good track record but to tell the truth – you make me sick. You literally make my skin crawl.
"As freinds and equals. As decent, righteous people. I listen to them too, and acknowlede the good, the alms-giving, their community, family values and other virtues. Using much of what I've learned here, as well as elswhere. Most of all, from the Islamic texts (of which my Moslem freinds - and I think most Moslems in general - are almost entirely ignorant). I was reading here and following up on links for a good six months before I began posting."
I've been reading off and on, for many months as well, Animus. I've been generally repelled by what I've read here - the bigotry, the prejudice and the general level of bitchiness, nearly all directed towards Muslims and their faith. Hardly a sparkling example of the Western ideals many proclaim here to be upholding.
"The problem as I have come to understand it is that the distinction between Islam and Islamism is one of convenience for both us and them - it gives Islam "plausible deniability" while delaying - though bottling up - our inevitable attempt at some 'final solution'. Whether that'll be a wall or a war I don't know, but I think both parties need to address the scriptures being applied by the terrorists. Download a Koran - grab a few different ones if possible - and do some key-word searches like "jew", "infidel", "unbeliever" etc. and you'll quickly get a flavour of what seem to be the core values of this "faith". Allah hates us, and the faithful are his soldiers who will be victorious against us (especially the Jews). Inshallah."
I have read the Q'oran, extensively and in several translations. What many don't remember though, is that like any work, it must be read in context. It must also be remembered that it is a rambling, sometimes incoherent work, riddled with contradictions and rambling. Just as the Bible is in many places. So, therefore, just as in the case of the Bible, it is possible to, if one desires, find justification for often the most heinous acts. What is clear though, from the general thrust of it, is that it is, like most religious works, one of advice.
"The failure thus far of both the Islamic world and the West to face this horrible truth is the main reason for the intractibility of the conflict - going right back to its inception, and not least concerning the issues of Israel and "palestine"."
I'd suggest that there is no "horrible truth", Animus other that you have decided to place the same interpretation that the Islamists want you to, on the Q'oran.
"For most posters here, the problem is that the terrorists are simply the pious, and the moderates are Moslems-in-name-only who bat for the same side but haven't actually studied their "religion". The ones that have realise that Jihad - whether defensive or offensive - is obligotory and not optional."
Jihad is but Jihad takes many forms from the personal to the public. Attempting to claim that all forms of Jihad boil down to one type is short-sighted of you.
how many more murders of innocents before the cult of islam is outlawed as was nazism and destroyed.
there are no innocents in the cult of islam only filth that follows the pedophile mo.
"Wrong. The moderates will only have the courage to step up when enough westerners make it very clear that there is a serious problem that we won’t tolerate anymore. You, with your moral equivalence crap, are actually making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to reform islam."
How so? If anything I am attempting to help them. You appear to believe that condemning them will make them more willing to change when in fact as it always had when an outsider attacks the group, they will tend to side more with the group.
"“Yes it did however, we are far more knowledgeable and understanding, well some of us are, than they were in 16th century Europe. Zealotry on both sides caused that war, we can avoid that, well at least some of us can.”
You insufferable, liberal elitist (or Muslim – haven’t figured out which yet)."
Oh, dear. I appear to have upset you, Caroline. Do you dislike me suggesting that the world has changed since the 16th century?
Are you really so much of a zealot that the worst you can do is call me a "liberal elitist"? I actually embrace the term but then I live outside the USA where the term "liberal" is not considered an insult but a compliment. As for being an "elitist", I see nothing wrong with striving to be the best.
"“Because Islam isn't the problem. It is interpretations of Islam. Just as Islam itself has many sects, each offering different interpretations of the Q'oran.”
You need to re-read about a thousand of Spencer’s posts here about all the mainstream interpretations of Islam."
I have and I have usually disagree with them because his viewpoint is not based on anything except his own bigotry.
"“Why? We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and this would merely demonstrate prejudice, betraying the very principles we claim to be upholding.”
So tolerance is the God you worship? That’s all the west comes to – don’t show any prejudice or intolerance, even if what one objects to is intolerant and evil?"
Tolerance is an ideal we should be aspiring to, Caroline. Stopping migration from Islamic countries on the basis of prejudice against Muslims because of their religion is, excuse me, bloody stupid. I wonder what would happen if I substituted the word "nigger" for Muslim in your original statement? Would you then see just how bigotted it is?
"“They are citizens of our nations. They have rights to religious freedom here. Therefore that should be respected. Christians "play out their religious 'issues' on our soil" all the time. You appear to be rather willing to ignore that, why?”
Your absurd moral equivalence is showing and making me realize that I’ve been wasting my time."
I suspect I too am wasting my time. Your zealotry has taken you so far away from the possibility of seeing your bigotry that it seems that it will be impossible for any compromise to be reached in our understanding of this issue. However, you seem to believe, I suspect that Christianity is somehow morally superior to Islam, despite all the sins you ascribe to Islam also being committed by Christianity. If that is "moral equivalence" then so be it. However, I'll advise you to remember the great, late, Spike Milligan's advice, "those that live in glasshouses should not drop their trousers!"
"“I'd suggest that promoting a Counter-Reformation on Western Soil was in fact the absolutely best place for it to occur, surrounded by the examples that Western Democracies provide of pluralism, tolerance and religious freedom, Caroline.”
“promoting a counter-reformation on western soil”? You haven’t heard a word I’ve said. I try very hard here not to resort to ad hominum attacks and I think I have a pretty good track record but to tell the truth – you make me sick. You literally make my skin crawl."
So, you don't believe that Western Democracies should be providing the examples I've suggested? That they could show by example a better, a more positive way?
However, you seem to believe, I suspect that Christianity is somehow morally superior to Islam, despite all the sins you ascribe to Islam also being committed by Christianity.
Posted by: John Howard at June 23, 2006 12:09 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Another intolerant Christian hater raises his head.
there is no comparison between the actions of modern day Christians and the murderous cult of islam and it murderous followers the mos.
your comparison only pales to your ignorance and intolerance.
The Texican.
Caroline,
Capital post, your last one. I hope for the sake of your sanity and digestive health, you make good on your realization that you have been wasting time with Howard. He's a sophisticated sophistical robot. He won't change. Your posts and the posts of the many others who've tackled him aren't a waste, though. He is of one use to us, at least, in motivating us to marshall counter-arguments to his programming -- since that programming is part of an ideological nebula out there that is, sadly, quite common. I don't think all who breathe the noxygen of that nebula are as hardwired as Howard here; and so, the blades we sharpen in striking back at his obstinately impervious titanium scutes will help with our attempts to awake the ones whose flesh and blood have not completely succumbed to the machine.
"Another intolerant Christian hater raises his head."
How is recognising the real history of Christianity make me an "intolerant Christian" hater, Texican?
This smacks to me of you yourself being rather intolerant of any alternative viewpoints, am I correct?
You choose not to address my point and instead resort to ad hominem attack.
"So, you don't believe that Western Democracies should be providing the examples I've suggested? That they could show by example a better, a more positive way?"
The examples of western democracy and the ideaas that underly it - including Christianity - have been available to Muslims for centuries. It's called books and libraries. And those things called books are available for anyone around the planet should they choose to read them or be open to their ideas. Your notion that we are obligated to bring Muslims to live here in the west, in order to learn, I presume by some "direct" example - was a noble experiment which has obviously failed. Polls show that a very large number of Muslims living in the west utterly reject our values and are completely turned off by what they have witnessed through this first-hand "example".
"However, you seem to believe, I suspect that Christianity is somehow morally superior to Islam, despite all the sins you ascribe to Islam also being committed by Christianity. If that is "moral equivalence" then so be it."
Yes of course I believe that Christianity is morally superior to Islam. And that isn't because I'm a Christian because I'm only a "nominal" one. On a previous thread you claimed to be a Christian yourself. If you don't understand the difference, though, between Muhammad and Jesus, I would suggest you stop referring to yourself as a Christian altogether.
"Tolerance is an ideal we should be aspiring to, Caroline. Stopping migration from Islamic countries on the basis of prejudice against Muslims because of their religion is, excuse me, bloody stupid. I wonder what would happen if I substituted the word "nigger" for Muslim in your original statement? Would you then see just how bigotted it is?"
What a fool you are to draw some parallel between prejudice against people for their skin color - something which they didn't choose and have no control over (and what did blacks ever do to warrant being captured as slaves and transported here and treated like s**t? Nothing) - and prejudice against an ideology. You willfully ignore 1350 years of history of violent islamic expansion and you willfully ignore the history of dhimmitude (not to mention cleansing off all infidels out of any territories with large Muslims populations) of non-Muslims both historically and NOW throughout the world in all Muslim majority countries.
You have made it quite clear that you have no problem with westerners being forced to endure a massive religious war on their own soil, merely in order to demonstrate their liberal bona fides. There are simply no words for that sort of idiocy. You may call me a bigot all day long but at least I have the common, not to mention the moral sense, to wish to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Prejudice be damned. You on the other hand, are so insufferably morally superior, that you would willfully invite massive bloodshed just to prove your so-called "tolerance". That is utterly and completely perverted. I would rather be called a bigot any day of the week than sacrifice myself, my friends, my community, or my civilization, on the alter of your liberal God of "tolerance".
TV: "I hope for the sake of your sanity and digestive health, you make good on your realization that you have been wasting time with Howard"
TV - Oviously I'm a slow learner. But you're right. I simply don't have the digestive fortitude to stomach what he's dishing out. And when my skin literally crawls to boot, it's definitely time to call it quits.:-)
How is recognising the real history of Christianity make me an "intolerant Christian" hater, Texican?
Posted by: John Howard at June 23, 2006 12:42 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have dealt with your ilk for over fifty years and you all have the liberal intolerant stench.
We live in today's world, not the world of 1,000 years ago.
Modern day Christians do not wantonly kill non-belivers as the filth of islam does in the name of satans whore allah.
Modern day Christians do not treat females as the filth of islam does.
The list can go on for pages, but you are of the same ilk of the filth in islam and Christians are at fault for every problome in the world.
If you do not like a Christian America, leave.
The Texican.
"The examples of western democracy and the ideaas that underly it - including Christianity - have been available to Muslims for centuries. It's called books and libraries. And those things called books are available for anyone around the planet should they choose to read them or be open to their ideas. Your notion that we are obligated to bring Muslims to live here in the west, in order to learn, I presume by some "direct" example - was a noble experiment which has obviously failed."
Well, I've never said that we are "obligated". I have stated that we should, if we seek to wish to remain true to the very principles we claim to be upholding, not bar Muslims from seeking to migrate to Western Countries on the basis of their religion. To do so, would, I'd suggest merely play into the hands of the Islamists and undermine the very principles we claim to be upholding and which are central to Western Liberal democracy.
To which I will also add, all nations are experiments in progress. Some Islamic nations have been more successful than others at attempting to emulate and implement the concepts of Western Liberal Democracy which we claim to believe are superior to all other forms of government. It is impossible to claim that all Muslims have failed to learn from our experience or our example, Caroline.
"Polls show that a very large number of Muslims living in the west utterly reject our values and are completely turned off by what they have witnessed through this first-hand "example"."
Polls can be misleading. I'd suggest that one should treat with caution such data. Their results have been worrisome but I'd also point out that peoples' attitudes are not necessarily set in concrete nor should we claim that the rejection an d alienation many Muslims have experienced has not contributed to that rejection of our values.
"Yes of course I believe that Christianity is morally superior to Islam. And that isn't because I'm a Christian because I'm only a "nominal" one. On a previous thread you claimed to be a Christian yourself. If you don't understand the difference, though, between Muhammad and Jesus, I would suggest you stop referring to yourself as a Christian altogether."
I understand the difference but I suspect the differences I perceive are not the same that you do. I'm also aware that "Jesus" is very much a construct, whereas Mohammad was not. Jesus has had a very carefully constructed PR machine working to improve and guard his image to the masses, Mohammad has not.
As to the moral superiority of Christianity, as I keep pointing out, all the "sins" ascribed to Islam, Christianity has committed itself, so don't you think that it might be a good idea to be careful about casting that first stone?
"Tolerance is an ideal we should be aspiring to, Caroline. Stopping migration from Islamic countries on the basis of prejudice against Muslims because of their religion is, excuse me, bloody stupid. I wonder what would happen if I substituted the word "nigger" for Muslim in your original statement? Would you then see just how bigotted it is?"
What a fool you are to draw some parallel between prejudice against people for their skin color - something which they didn't choose and have no control over (and what did blacks ever do to warrant being captured as slaves and transported here and treated like s**t? Nothing) - and prejudice against an ideology. You willfully ignore 1350 years of history of violent islamic expansion and you willfully ignore the history of dhimmitude (not to mention cleansing off all infidels out of any territories with large Muslims populations) of non-Muslims both historically and NOW throughout the world in all Muslim majority countries."
I draw your attention to the nearly 2,000 years of violent Christian expansionism. The reason why I made the point of suggesting we substitute the term "nigger" for "Muslim" in your statement was to make it very clear just how prejudiced it is. Obviously, by your reaction you're hurt by suggesting that such prejudice is wrong. You can recognise it in the matter of race but not in the matter of religion. Let me guess you attack Islam because some Muslim countries don't allow Christians to migrate there. Gee, I wonder therefore how you can justify your personal ban on Muslims if you consider those nations' bans on Christians to be wrong?
"You have made it quite clear that you have no problem with westerners being forced to endure a massive religious war on their own soil, merely in order to demonstrate their liberal bona fides."
Errr, actually, I claimed no such thing. In fact, I actually refuted your claim that I did. Please, stop erecting strawman arguments. If you cannot be intellectually honest, then what hope is for you to be able to honestly debate such issues as this?
"There are simply no words for that sort of idiocy."
I agree, so why do you engage in it?
"You may call me a bigot all day long but at least I have the common, not to mention the moral sense, to wish to avoid unnecessary bloodshed."
Unless of course, its Muslim blood being shed, right?
"Prejudice be damned. You on the other hand, are so insufferably morally superior, that you would willfully invite massive bloodshed just to prove your so-called "tolerance"."
Again, another strawman. Can you please provide a quote where I said that?
"That is utterly and completely perverted. I would rather be called a bigot any day of the week than sacrifice myself, my friends, my community, or my civilization, on the alter of your liberal God of "tolerance"."
Then you don't understand what the civilisation you claim to be protecting actually stands for.
"I have dealt with your ilk for over fifty years and you all have the liberal intolerant stench."
As compared to your right-wing intolerant stench, I take it?
"We live in today's world, not the world of 1,000 years ago."
Yet you appear to still be applying the thinking of the Medieval period to today's problems, Texican.
"Modern day Christians do not wantonly kill non-belivers as the filth of islam does in the name of satans whore allah."
Really? Mmmm, some do. Seen any Abortion Clinics bombed lately? What about a few Rememberance Day marches in Belfast?
"Modern day Christians do not treat females as the filth of islam does."
Realy? What about Koresh and Jim Jones? What about the Mormans who believe in Polygamy?
"The list can go on for pages, but you are of the same ilk of the filth in islam and Christians are at fault for every problome in the world."
No, they are not and I've never claimed that. Perhaps you have me confused in your mind with some other "filthy ilk"?
"If you do not like a Christian America, leave."
Why? I don't live there. The fact that you assume I do merely shows how parochial you are, Texican.
damn gald that you do not live in America.
Christainity is not perfect, but damn close in comparison to islam.
get over you problems with Christanity.
Even you can be saved if you just ask God for forgiveness. I will pray for your lost soul.
The Texican.
I must admire Jack's endurance. I used to shoot pistols competitively, and even my finger would get tired if I spent as much time self-righteously waggling it at everybody as he does.
Hey, we have a muslim troll who actually is able to argue in English. ;)
John Howard, what of the honor killings in Europe or Pakistan? What of the endless waves of suicide bombers in Israel, Iraq, and elsewhere? I've heard it said by moderate Muslims that the issue is one of violent acts caused by 'oppression of Muslims.' Is this true? Are Muslims oppressed in Kashmir or Israel or France?
Hateful comic strips defaming Jews are still read throughout the world, but only defaming the Islamic Prophet causes violent protests. Why is that. There are sects of extreme ultra-orthodox Jews who are opposed to the state of Israel, yet they don't resort to killing. Why not? For every Timothy McVeigh, are there less or more Islamists who resort to killing? and why?
Is there a HIndu or Jewish or Christian exhortion to kill the unbeliever? behind a rock? Do such statements occur in the Koran? Are they to be read literally or as metaphor?
Why did Jews and Christians evolve, moving away from killing and war? Has such a transformation occured in Islam? Do the events of the past 100 years suggest such a transformation is occuring within Islam? If not, why not? or is it going in the wrong direction?
I don't expect you to be able to answer the bulk of these questions, but answer me this: is McVeigh worshiped in 'red state' America? Our the sons of patriots in Arkansas or Alabama who oppose abortion naming their son in his honor? Why is Osama such a popular name in Pakistan? and do the moderate governments(relatively speaking)in Jordan or Rabat reflect the will of the people? If not, what is the will of the people in such countries?
John Howard, one last issue: you mentioned that Islamist terrorists operate in secret, using stealth, their families and friends are not aware of what is happening. Do you believe that? Is that the case in Canada where Muslims pondered the motives and extremists actions in the press (after) the arrests. M. Atta openly revered UBL when trying to purchase a plane. Was the lady from the agriculture department who visited with him not telling the truth? If she is correct, one might argue they were not so secret in their ideology--but perhaps were secret in their 'planes plot.'
Fine, your point of distinguishing between Islam and Islamists is well taken. But should our country be concerned that the well from which Islamists arise(again and again and again)is from Islam? Or should we console ourselves that Islam means peace, that it is one of the great faiths, that there are equal amounts of potential terrorists in all great religions? Do you believe this?
The troll:
"..They are citizens of our nations. They have rights to religious freedom here. Therefore that should be respected. Christians "play out their religious 'issues' on our soil" all the time. You appear to be rather willing to ignore that, why?.."
"...Really? Mmmm, some do. Seen any Abortion Clinics bombed lately? What about a few Rememberance Day marches in Belfast?"
".. Realy? What about Koresh and Jim Jones? What about the Mormans who believe in Polygamy?"
There it is: All the claptrap from the Mohammedan Agit-prop-mill, the crusades, the inquisition, the KuKluxKlan, McVeigh, everything in one potty without sense, without understanding but with enough hate, to somehow make it "you too..."
Tell me Johnny Coward, do you learn that s*#t in the mosque or do they clone you guys from birth to imitate each other?
No Johnny Coward:
Allahs murdering soldiers and their brood-sows are not 'citizens of our nations', they are infil-traitors. We don't need to respect them for ripping us off and distroying our welfare system. They deserve to be spat on and rounded up and shipped out to Arabia, thats all...
John Howard, you invoke racism towards Islam by some of us. Is there racism against Islam. Of course. Hatred exists in this world, and only a fool would deny that it exists.
But your use of hatred towards Islam ignores the whole story, doesn't it? What about Pakistan and India? Is the thriving civilization of India based mostly on Islamic businessmen or Hinidus? Is there a difference between the economy in Pakistan or India? GDP's? patents? literature? Are not both Muslims and Hindus in this region derived from the same genetic stock? The answer is yes. Their ancestors before the Islamic conquest were mostly Hindu. Yet their are profound differences today. Why?
Critics of Israel will use the example of Israeli persacution for the poor economy of the Palestinian, for the terrorism, for the poor economy, for the hatred. Yet, what is the exuse of Pakistan. Obviously the Paks and the Indians have fought wars over Kashmir, but why does one economy shine? why does one culture shine?
How about Nigeria? They are all mostly blacks. You have a mostly Muslim half and a Christian half. Which has a better educational system? economy?
Now, you can call me racists for inferring the Muslims always seem to be on the short end of the stick, but might it be traditional implementation of Islam itself that is the problem? If so, then it transcends race or country. This is my central point. I could go on and on and on with such examples. Can you give me an example of a country with different religions where Muslims produce the most literature, generate patents, prosper via GDP ect? Excluding the OPEC countries?
Mr. Howard, I eagerly await your take on these issues.
sheik yer'mami, another excellent post displaying your vitriol, bigotry and prejudice. If you cannot perceive the beam in your own eye, what hope is there for you in criticising others?
"John Howard, you invoke racism towards Islam by some of us. Is there racism against Islam. Of course. Hatred exists in this world, and only a fool would deny that it exists."
Biorabbi, it exists but is it something to be admired or encouraged in your view?
"But your use of hatred towards Islam ignores the whole story, doesn't it? What about Pakistan and India? Is the thriving civilization of India based mostly on Islamic businessmen or Hinidus? Is there a difference between the economy in Pakistan or India? GDP's? patents? literature? Are not both Muslims and Hindus in this region derived from the same genetic stock? The answer is yes. Their ancestors before the Islamic conquest were mostly Hindu. Yet their are profound differences today. Why?
"Critics of Israel will use the example of Israeli persacution for the poor economy of the Palestinian, for the terrorism, for the poor economy, for the hatred. Yet, what is the exuse of Pakistan. Obviously the Paks and the Indians have fought wars over Kashmir, but why does one economy shine? why does one culture shine?
"How about Nigeria? They are all mostly blacks. You have a mostly Muslim half and a Christian half. Which has a better educational system? economy?
Now, you can call me racists for inferring the Muslims always seem to be on the short end of the stick, but might it be traditional implementation of Islam itself that is the problem? If so, then it transcends race or country. This is my central point. I could go on and on and on with such examples. Can you give me an example of a country with different religions where Muslims produce the most literature, generate patents, prosper via GDP ect? Excluding the OPEC countries?"
Many factors explain the differences and relience upon one, as you're attempting to imply, is not going to tell the full story, now is it Biorabbi?
Perhaps you'd care to explain the differences within Islam, between say Malaysia and Nigeria or Indonesia and Egypt? You might understand that with the variety within Islam between its various cultures and as such, you cannot ascribe it as the sole cause for the differences between Islamic and non-Islamic cultures.
Further, you cannot ignore those other factors which I alluded to. Out of a matter of interest, have you read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"? While I don't necessarily subscribe to his entire thesis, its central core holds as true for the Islamic/Non-Islamic divide as it does for the Old/New World divide.
Further, I will also point out, I don't come here to defend Islam as perfect. I am quite willing to recognise its faults. However, I am not willing to sit back any longer and read the vitriol directed towards Muslims which I see displayed here, page after page.
Take the last month. Jihadists plots in America, England and Canada uncovered? Some Muslims by birth, some by conversion, but all with the same Jihadist mentality? Are they just a few bad apples. Ok, how many? Is this anything to worry about? A percent. A tenth of a percent? Can moderates 'turn' to extremism? I know thats an unfair question, because it transcends Islam . . . and can be applied to any religion, but is it racism on the part of the media, or does it appear that such 'turning' occurs much more often within Islam? Why? Is it racist on wonder if the teachings of Islam by definition almost mandate that a certain percentage of adherents will resort to killngs? An argument can be made that extremists Christians will kill abortion doctors. Does that happen each day? year? What happends to such extremists? Are they venerated by large numbers throughout the world? I guess my point is if a small fraction of Muslim adherents resort to Jihad in it's violent form, is this the only 'worry' about Islam? And, should we ask, 'what is it that anger so many? Israel, our support of corrupt thugocracy's in the middle east--like Saudi Arabia?' If we jettisoned Israel, would that be enough? or should we but out of the middle east? These are the demands of Jihadists. But would that be a good start? or step in the right direction? What about the veil in France? the textbooks of Muslim school vis-a-vis the Jews and Christians? honor killings? At what point should we stop saying uncle?
Mr. Howard, if Christians were allowed to have Churches in Saudi Arabia, what might happen to them if Christian Youths hijacked an airplane and knifed it through Mecca? Seems to me a cartoon is enough to provoke outrage, but would the Immans preach tolerance towards our Christian brothers? I suspect the Pakistanis would join in the outrage of this carnage. Would they protect their tiny Christian minority? How many Christians in Pakistan have been killed, jailed, mutilated, raped or bombed in the name of Jihad? Why? Is it racist to ask?
achmed, er I mean John Howard, surely you must be aware of the fact that there are around 54 'islamic' countries. NONE produces enough to feed its population. What would seem to be the reason ? 'Differences in islam' ? And what is the reason for the killings of billions of non muslims by muslim hands in the past 1350 years and continuing till date ? Oh, I see, differences between islam in Nigeria and in Egypt. And what would be the reason for muslim women wearin tarpulins in America as well as Egypt and India ? Oh yes, the differences. Makes it perfectly clear to me.
What other factors? Is India or Israel floating on a sea of oil? Were the Pakistani Muslims more oppressed then their Hindu brothers? Is the dearth of literature in the entire middle east(outside of Israel) equal to Spain? Is this a lie? What factors might there be?
I don't hate Islam or Muslims. I feel there blood is the same as mine. They suffer as I do. I don't, however, see any other factors at play in Pakistan versus India or within Nigeria or the Chinese and Muslims in Malaysia. Might the factor be that Islam itself somehow stiffles curiosity? That it stiffles art? literature? science?
You see, I believe that a Saudi Muslim is just as smart or weak or dumb as I. No better not worse. He is not genetically inferior to me; he is not an animal, but his religion(and nothing else)holds him back, stiffling his culture, creating an inordinate share of terrorists, leading him to war with modernity, and blame modernity for his woes. Turning the question on its head, it is easy to blame Bush or Israel or red state America or zionists, than to look at the faith you hold dear.
I see through this nonsense of racism. I trained with many Muslim physicians from throughout the Muslim world. Many were brilliant.
I think Saudi Arabia is the best example of the flaws of Islam. Here, is a rich country, and they had/have to import an entire health care system from the west. There is a false set of beliefs in your exhortions: if there are so many brilliants Muslim doctors, why do they train in Germany or the US? Where is the scholarship within Saudi Arabia in the sciences? You could argue it is a dictatorship--and so Muslims must move to the west to learn, but could it be that Islam itself is the force holding them back, but this realization is too painful to ponder? And this clash within the mind is what sets the fuse off on occasions too many to count?
What of the education of a terrorist? Atta, KSM? They trained in the West, were schooled here, and were radicalized here? Atta went back to Cairo but found no work; this obviously further enraged him. He receieved first rate education in Hamburg, but could not find work in Cairo, and traveled back to the west; this time with a new purpose. So it's a mistake to call such terrorists dummies. In fact, many are college educated, physicians. Why? Is or was their clash with modernity, the symphony of western excellence a tipping point? Why?
Obviously, not all Muslims were make the western journey are not terrorists; and only want to enjoy a free life, raise their families. But, why do so many Muslims--in contrast to Christians, or Hindu, or Jewish immigrants to the west resort to terror?
No, Jack, you just come here to amuse yourself with tu quoque slurs and denouncement of everybody who doesn't subscribe to your multi-culti moral relativism. You smugly and pedagogically tsk and sigh, as you suffer the stones of the "bigots", proving only to yourself how much more enlightened you are than all of us rubes, rednecks, and bumpkins.
If you cannot perceive the beam in your own eye, what hope is there for you in criticising others?
Wise words. Too bad you don't seem to actually believe the source you're paraphrasing. Your arrogance blinds you to your own hypocrisy.
However, I am not willing to sit back any longer and read the vitriol directed towards Muslims which I see displayed here, page after page.
Nobody forces you to read anything here. If you're so offended, go somewhere else. I would suggest you could perhaps better spend your time convincing mohammedans to quit doing and saying things that give them such a bad reputation, one not shared by Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans, Discordians, etc.
You just let us stew in our own toxic, bigotted juices.
We'll forgive you for giving up on us, I'm sure.
I am not a neoconservative. I higly doubt democracy can reform Islam, and democracy can never be foisted upon anyone from the outside: the fatal flaw of W's vision.
But tell me, Mr. Howard, why does not democracy take root within Islam? within Islamic countries? Give some examples.
I see two possibilities: theocracy or theocracy in the making. Iran. Somalia is one possibility of government in Islamic countries.
The other example is some form of oppression. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. The Kingdoms of Rabat and Jordan. Sadaam Hussein.
What, did I forget Turkey? A democracy to be sure with plenty of moderates, but could it be because of location? or, did Turkey once--in the recent past--suppress Islam??? What would Islam be like in Turkey; what would Turkey be like without this governmental suppression???
And, if the Egyptians or Saudis or Jordanians ever vote freely, who would they vote for? Is it racism to point out that Islam might be a central issue in the governmental structure of these countries?
"Take the last month. Jihadists plots in America, England and Canada uncovered? Some Muslims by birth, some by conversion, but all with the same Jihadist mentality? Are they just a few bad apples. Ok, how many? Is this anything to worry about? A percent. A tenth of a percent? Can moderates 'turn' to extremism? I know thats an unfair question, because it transcends Islam . . . and can be applied to any religion, but is it racism on the part of the media, or does it appear that such 'turning' occurs much more often within Islam? Why? Is it racist on wonder if the teachings of Islam by definition almost mandate that a certain percentage of adherents will resort to killngs? An argument can be made that extremists Christians will kill abortion doctors. Does that happen each day? year? What happends to such extremists? Are they venerated by large numbers throughout the world? I guess my point is if a small fraction of Muslim adherents resort to Jihad in it's violent form, is this the only 'worry' about Islam? And, should we ask, 'what is it that anger so many? Israel, our support of corrupt thugocracy's in the middle east--like Saudi Arabia?' If we jettisoned Israel, would that be enough? or should we but out of the middle east? These are the demands of Jihadists. But would that be a good start? or step in the right direction? What about the veil in France? the textbooks of Muslim school vis-a-vis the Jews and Christians? honor killings? At what point should we stop saying uncle?"
I have no idea, as I have never advocated saying "Uncle" to anyone, Biorabbi. I have advocated instead, taking control of the situation and being proactive in trying to encourage the moderates within Islam to marginalise even further the radical Islamists. I would suggest as part of that, that yes, some compromise is required. Not quite as much as you suggest but more than many here are willing to undertake. Its the nature of accomodation, a concept that appears to be anaethema equally to the Islamists and the bigots who oppose them. Both are mirror-images of each other, I would suggest.
"Mr. Howard, if Christians were allowed to have Churches in Saudi Arabia, what might happen to them if Christian Youths hijacked an airplane and knifed it through Mecca? Seems to me a cartoon is enough to provoke outrage, but would the Immans preach tolerance towards our Christian brothers? I suspect the Pakistanis would join in the outrage of this carnage. Would they protect their tiny Christian minority? How many Christians in Pakistan have been killed, jailed, mutilated, raped or bombed in the name of Jihad? Why? Is it racist to ask?"
So, SOME Muslims would be upset. Funny, I seem to remember SOME Americans being upset when someone flew some planes into their secular cultural icons. Why is that you people appear to give Western cultures the OK to be ticked off yet then attack Muslims for being ticked off at something that offends/upsets them?
"No, Jack, you just come here to amuse yourself with tu quoque slurs and denouncement of everybody who doesn't subscribe to your multi-culti moral relativism. You smugly and pedagogically tsk and sigh, as you suffer the stones of the "bigots", proving only to yourself how much more enlightened you are than all of us rubes, rednecks, and bumpkins."
I could suggest that if the hat fits, wear it, mate but I'm not that rude.
If you don't like me thwarting your mutual appreciation and Islamic hatred society's general meeting, I won't apologise. I believe I've made a lot of you stop and think. Some of you appear to be thinking deeper than others and starting to recognise that perhaps some of the ideas you've been accepting and promoting aren't quite as nice as you've once believed. If I can change one person's opinion, I'll be happy.
"What other factors? Is India or Israel floating on a sea of oil? Were the Pakistani Muslims more oppressed then their Hindu brothers? Is the dearth of literature in the entire middle east(outside of Israel) equal to Spain? Is this a lie? What factors might there be?"
I alluded to it when I asked if you had read Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel, Biorabbi. Perhaps if you did, you might understand what I was talking about.
"I don't hate Islam or Muslims."
You may not, others here obviously do. With a vehemance equal to that of anything displayed by the worst Islamist or Jihadi.
"I feel there blood is the same as mine. They suffer as I do. I don't, however, see any other factors at play in Pakistan versus India or within Nigeria or the Chinese and Muslims in Malaysia. Might the factor be that Islam itself somehow stiffles curiosity? That it stiffles art? literature? science?"
It might but that has not always been the way, now has it. What has changed within Islam that has made Islam become this stifler? Oh, thats right, according to many who superficially understand Islam and its history and its belief, its static, unchanging, monolithic, now isn't it?
"You see, I believe that a Saudi Muslim is just as smart or weak or dumb as I. No better not worse. He is not genetically inferior to me; he is not an animal, but his religion(and nothing else)holds him back, stiffling his culture, creating an inordinate share of terrorists, leading him to war with modernity, and blame modernity for his woes. Turning the question on its head, it is easy to blame Bush or Israel or red state America or zionists, than to look at the faith you hold dear."
Is it "his religion" or one sect's interpretation of that religion? You are aware there are different sects within Islam and that one holds sway within Saudi Arabia and has been promoting a particularly nasty Jihadi message to Muslims?
"I see through this nonsense of racism. I trained with many Muslim physicians from throughout the Muslim world. Many were brilliant."
And so, then why ascribe to Islam something that holds all Muslims back?
"I think Saudi Arabia is the best example of the flaws of Islam. Here, is a rich country, and they had/have to import an entire health care system from the west. There is a false set of beliefs in your exhortions: if there are so many brilliants Muslim doctors, why do they train in Germany or the US? Where is the scholarship within Saudi Arabia in the sciences? You could argue it is a dictatorship--and so Muslims must move to the west to learn, but could it be that Islam itself is the force holding them back, but this realization is too painful to ponder? And this clash within the mind is what sets the fuse off on occasions too many to count?"
I would suggest that in fact it is again, a combination of factors in the case of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the major one is Wahabbism - the sect I alluded to above. Another is a lack of advanced university training available within Saudi Arabia. Another could be the need to gain better training than they can receive in Saudi Arabia's limited education system.
"What of the education of a terrorist? Atta, KSM? They trained in the West, were schooled here, and were radicalized here? Atta went back to Cairo but found no work; this obviously further enraged him. He receieved first rate education in Hamburg, but could not find work in Cairo, and traveled back to the west; this time with a new purpose. So it's a mistake to call such terrorists dummies. In fact, many are college educated, physicians. Why? Is or was their clash with modernity, the symphony of western excellence a tipping point? Why?"
The FBI determined that alienation was the major factor in tipping people like Atta into Islamism and Terrorism. Perhaps the West should address the problems with coming from a traditional, Islamic culture to a modern western one for students such as he? It might save a few lives and a few squillions in lucre.
"Obviously, not all Muslims were make the western journey are not terrorists; and only want to enjoy a free life, raise their families. But, why do so many Muslims--in contrast to Christians, or Hindu, or Jewish immigrants to the west resort to terror?"
There have been reams and reams of paper expended in trying to explain that, Biorabbi. I aluded to the FBI report on the 11 September terrorists. Perhaps the West fools itself into believing that its superficiality is attractive to all people and thence pays the price when people reject it and instead embrace Terrorism?
Are Muslims more prone to be Terrorists? I somehow doubt it. I'd suggest anybody who has deep religious motivations and finds them unable to reconcile them with the reality of the modern world will often turn to violence, be they Muslim or Christian or Sikh or Hindu.
achmed, er, I mean John Howard,
Yes, SOME Americans were upset on 9/11. But, muslims ALL over the world held protest marches carrying signs of 'annihilation'. muslims are not a race. islam is a cult of death. Get it jihadi ? You do get it. So do we.
"The FBI determined that alienation was the major factor in tipping people like Atta into Islamism and Terrorism"
The FBI were not around in 662 A.D. when mad mohammad started his cult. And, just for your information, muslims have this problem of 'alienation' in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and scores of 'Eastern' countries. Please produce the 'Christian', 'Jew', 'Hindu', 'Buddhist', jihadis. Timothy McVeigh was one nutjob. islam breeds nutjobs by the millions everyday.
And while we are at it, a Christian name does not look good on a jihadi. So achmed, get a name like
abdul razzaq ibn abdullah ibn ali pasha ibn nasrullah ibn............... ibn PIG.
Actually, Jack, you are that rude. Way I was raised, condescension is considered bad manners. As is speaking to others as if you have been invited to educate, your ego telling you you must raise up the poor, benighted rabble. Your smug self-satisfaction and insistance that reality is only as you see it and everyone else be damned is insulting.
You're more than happy to pass out judgments like candy at a kiddie party, but you are rather autistic when it comes to anyone elses observations concerning your conduct. Especially when you display manners and modes of thought you decry in others.
I already said it once, but if you missed it, I'll say it again.
You're arrogant and a hypocrite.
If you don't like me thwarting your mutual appreciation and Islamic hatred society's general meeting, I won't apologise.
I said nothing of the sort. You are the one whining about not liking what you see. I will once again remind you: You are not required to read anything on this site, nor are you even required to navigate your browser in its general direction. If you are offended, go away. Personally, I couldn't care less what you do. But don't act like you're here against your will, with someone pointing a gun at your head.
I believe I've made a lot of you stop and think. Some of you appear to be thinking deeper than others and starting to recognise that perhaps some of the ideas you've been accepting and promoting aren't quite as nice as you've once believed.
I don't recall signing up for your class, professor. Nor did I get the memo/e-mail informing me that you are the new Minister for Standards in Thought, Truth, and Perception. You may see yourself as the Informer, Teacher, Edifier of the Great Unwashed, but quite frankly, you come off as nothing more than another pedantic prig.
I would riposte your little "if the hat fits" line, but I doubt there is a hat made that would fit your overinflated cranium.
More trollish garbage:
"...explain the differences within Islam, between say Malaysia and Nigeria or Indonesia and Egypt? You might understand that with the variety within Islam between its various cultures and ..."
gagagaga:
Mohammedan invaders destroyed all previous culture of conquered peoples. Those who have not been killed escaped with nothing more than their lifes and the rest was forcibly converted.
Now they all read the same Koran, they all grow up with sirah & hadith, and the western world is still looking for that one and lonely "moderate muslim..." What a sick joke!
"Muslim civilization"- your invention??? Where is it? The palaces in Dubai and Riyadh, designed & built by westerners, paid for by undeserved wealth by a geographical accident (for you the oil is a "gift from Allah", obviously)
You wanna change one persons mind, here on Jihad watch? Go and get a life! I don't know why Spencer allows you to post here, you just try to obfuscate and deflect like many trolls before you.
And I "prove your point?"
Just what is your point, you miserable agit-prop? Why don't you find us that "moderate muslim" the world is looking for in vain?
You are not it, but perhaps you should direct your efforts towards convincing the Ummah that there will be a terrible showdown and mass-deportations of Mohammedans out of infidel countries if they don't stop their BS.
Sooner is better!
Sheik yer'mami please do keep posting. Each time you, you demonstrate that you are the mirror image of those you claim that you bitterly oppose. Your intolerance, bigotry and hatred drip from every message. You reinforce every point I make superbly.
I will though, answer one of your points:
"Mohammedan invaders destroyed all previous culture of conquered peoples."
Did they, really? I'm sure the Muslim Indians, Bangladeshis, Malays, Indonesians, Philippinos and Thais, Nigerians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Turks and so on will all be rather surprised to learn that. Stop, please, you're just reinforcing your bigotry for all to see, Sheik yer'mami
"What? Convert us to left-wing liberals, moslem- loving, oh-so-tolerant-of-terrorist idiots?"
Where have I indicated that I am tolerant of terrorists, Americaningermany?
As for being a left-wing liberal, I see nothing wrong with that in the slightest. Western democracy was founded on the principles of liberalism, something many here appear to forget.
As for "Moslem[sic]-loving", why is it impossible to merely be tolerant of others, Americaningermany?
"Save it PM. Go visit a Jihadist web site. There are probably quite a few of us who are sick and tired of seeing your name.
Remember this while you are skipping along merrily on your vacation in one of your beloved islamic lands---you may not get out alive!"
You know, the one country where I feared for my life in my travels was the USA. I wonder why?
achmed, er, I mean John Howard,
There are no muslim 'Indians'. There are only muslims. And, since you seem to think that people from America, Britain, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, all of those who have replied to you are wrong, that only reinforces the point that you are a jihadi muslim. We come from all races, religions, backgrounds. The one common factor linking us is that we see islam for what it is. The cult of death started by madman mohammad. Well jihadi, you can take your name as asabdul razzaq ibn abdullah ibn ali pasha ibn nasrullah ibn............... ibn PIGmohammad
P.S. 'ibn' is 'son of'.
I have read the Q'oran, extensively and in several translations. What many don't remember though, is that like any work, it must be read in context. It must also be remembered that it is a rambling, sometimes incoherent work, riddled with contradictions and rambling. Just as the Bible is in many places. So, therefore, just as in the case of the Bible, it is possible to, if one desires, find justification for often the most heinous acts. What is clear though, from the general thrust of it, is that it is, like most religious works, one of advice.
Taken in the same context in which Moslems read and apply it - that of the ahadith and sunnah, and there's little room to manouvre with the latter. Yes, Moslems complain to me that there's so many sects it's misleading to lump them all together as one "ummah", but whatever fractures within the faith remain unresolved - and they will eventually resolve, most likely with much bloodshed - it is the things they share in common that concerns us. Perhaps our involvements in Islamic lands are delaying their inevitable reformation, perhaps our interdictions are short-sighted and ultimately counter productive - that would be a fair argument and one supported by some writers here. But what all sects share in common is the division of the world into freinds and enemies, allah's people and allah's enemies, land of Islam and land of the sword, regardless of how liberal or dhimmified we may become. Jihad has always had one overiding interpretation, that applied by Mohummad Sidique Khan in his video-taped diatribe before he became the first person ever, from any faith or persuasion, to commit mass-murder on London's tube. That applied by Mohammad Atta before he became the fist person ever, from any political or religious background, to comandeer a passenger plane into three thousand-plus office workers. That applied by all Islamic terrorists, that applied by Mohammad - to fight the unbeliever until they convert or are subdued. We have to face this threat on it's own terms, unconditional libertarianism is tantamount to surrender.
I'd suggest that there is no "horrible truth", Animus other that you have decided to place the same interpretation that the Islamists want you to, on the Q'oran.
The truth is that Islam really does preach what these terrorists are screaming at us from every corner of the globe. The horrible part is that too many of us are selectively deaf to their cries, and choose instead to assert our own predjudices upon Islam to suit our own cognitive dissonances that all politics and religions are equally wrong. Positive discrimination is still predjidice, and you need a lot of it to whitewash the undeniable historical and ongoing truths of Islamic warmongering. You cannot claim to be a liberal when what you propose is to sit back and wait for anarchy.
Jihad is but Jihad takes many forms from the personal to the public. Attempting to claim that all forms of Jihad boil down to one type is short-sighted of you.
Even if you were right, and I wish you were, it is the violent sort that is the problem. Even if only a fraction of 1 percent resorts to violent Jihad, then that is the problem and Islam is their inspiration. If you have any thoughts about how these issues may be better resolved please continue to hold forth.
Here we go again:
"...Your intolerance, bigotry and hatred drip from every message. You reinforce every point I make superbly..."
So I am intolerant because I don't 'accept' islamo-intolerance?
I am a 'bigot' because I reject Islamic bigotry?
I am a hater because I reject those who suck the hatred in with the mothers milk and want me dead and destroy everything I love?
I don't know if this seeps through your coffee-filter, but I have a right to love and that also gives me the right to hate, to hate those who want to take my freedom away from me, in order to whack me into submission for some Allaballahwallah-gobbledegook...
"Mohammedan invaders destroyed all previous culture of conquered peoples." Yes they did!
Did they, really? I'm sure the Muslim Indians, Bangladeshis, Malays, Indonesians, Philippinos and Thais, Nigerians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Turks and so on will all be rather surprised to learn that. Stop, please..
I won't stop.
All of these places are hell-holes because of Islam and the Mohammedan 'believers'- check it out for yourself!
You say: 'They will be surprised?' I say: They should die of shame!
Well, we are no longer 'surprised,' the bombings, the head-choppings, the honor-killings, the murdering of Buddhist monks, the destruction of monuments and historical artifacts is -still- being reported, daily!
And you dare to even mention the Pali-Arabs, the most despicable derivatives of excreable hatred resembling the human gestalt, what is your claim to their 'cult-(ure?)'
Let it be a lesson to you all not to enter into a debate with people that have a vested interest. It's plain to see that little Johnny Howard makes a good quid from islamists, just as G.W and Blair do and are blinded to the realities they are creating for us and our children...
The ROP sends greetings:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011945.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011947.php
From John Howard:
"Are Muslims more prone to be Terrorists? I somehow doubt it. I'd suggest anybody who has deep religious motivations and finds them unable to reconcile them with the reality of the modern world will often turn to violence, be they Muslim or Christian or Sikh or Hindu."
I can't believe my eyes: 'Are Muslims more prone to be terrorists? I somehow doubt it.' Somehow is a strange word. Doubt is something you can sink your teeth into. Was it by chance that Muslim radical wannabe's were caught today plotting to blow up the Sears Tower. The Pride of Zarqa recently finlly found his maker, courtesy of 500 pounds US bombs. The Iranians are brutalizing any dissent--especially students. Now these are three straings of Islam. Yes, I get it there arer a myriad of straings within each branch with different cultural nuances. In Canada, probable recruitment within the Muslim community by a 'militant.' probably Sunni group. In the US some bizarre black Musim wannabe Al Queda insprired Miamians. In Iraq, Zarqa's group of Sunnis whose last act was lopping of the headds of Shia's and sticking them into boxes. His successor killed two US troops in a 'barbaric way.'
I get it: there are a lot of diversity in subgroups within Islam. How does this help us? Is not Jihad a united principle accepted as a sometimes violent tenent of each subgroup? Whether in Saudi Arabi's south, or a Shia in Yeman, or a convert in Canada, or a young lad in the Commoras Island. And how does the violent mind-warped Wahabism influence the Shia in Iran? It does not.
And getting back to your shocking assertion. So Christian or Sikh or Jewish immigrants to the west have equal propensity to violence? This is ludicrous. I doubt even most Muslims would dispute this? Is Fox or CNN or the Times of London simply suppressing this or that group of Sikh terrorists plotting to blow up Big Ben. Or how about that ring of Sephardic Jews planning to blow Sea World sky high. And I forgot that item about Christian youths in Thailand cutting off the heads of Muslims.
'Are Muslims more prone to be terrorists? I somehow doub it.' Come, come. Think again: can you believe this. If you do, the press must only pounce on stories about Islamic terrorists, and ignore or suppress ruthlessly those of non-Muslim terrorists. How about today? This week? this year? this decade? Different time line.
Mr. Howard, tell me about some of those Christian, Jewish and Sikh terrorists in the West? Who are they? What have they done? beheaded? blow up? or are they just in the plotting stage.LOL.
John Howard:
"You know, the one country where I feared for my life in my travels was the USA. I wonder why"
Are not more Muslims killed by other Muslims? Are not more Muslim houses of faith torched and killed on a weekly basis in Iraq, and sometimes Pakistan, than by US bombs? The steady low-grade Muslim upon Muslim murder in Pakistan and the higher-grad intra-Muslim slaughtering in Iraq--perhaps caused by the US invasion(of course another way of looking at it was Sadaam kept the lid tightly sealed on the kerosine can). What in Islam explains this intra-Muslim killing? condones it? even sanctions it by some 'groups?'
What of this?
How many Muslims--citizens or visitors are at risk in the US. Lots of talk on Jihad Watch and other sites, some hurtfull to you, some hatefull, some poking fun at the Prophet of Islam with cartoons telling us that Mohammed is complaining or jesting that heaven is running out of virgins. But how many attacked or killed? As I remember it--after 09-11-01, we opened our hearts to Muslims. The polling data actually shows higher respect and favorable impressions of Islam after 911 than today. Why is that?
But as for Muslim safety: one might guess that the half life of a Muslim is significantly longer living in the beast of the great satan than in Iran or Jedda or Islamabad. Is it just the health care system, or is it Jihad crosstalk.
"Taken in the same context in which Moslems read and apply it - that of the ahadith and sunnah, and there's little room to manouvre with the latter."
Isn't there? Yet we have very differing viewpoints being expressed by moderate and extremist Muslims, Animus on the same subjects such as Terrorism and the murder of innocents, believer and non-believer. Obviously there is substantial room to maneaouvre.
"Yes, Moslems complain to me that there's so many sects it's misleading to lump them all together as one "ummah", but whatever fractures within the faith remain unresolved - and they will eventually resolve, most likely with much bloodshed - it is the things they share in common that concerns us."
Yet what they share in common are not the things for the most part that we have dispute with them over, Animus. It is the extreme claims made by the Islamists about how non-believers should be treated and so on that primarily concern us those are the areas where the differences are greatest between the different sects.
"Perhaps our involvements in Islamic lands are delaying their inevitable reformation, perhaps our interdictions are short-sighted and ultimately counter productive - that would be a fair argument and one supported by some writers here. But what all sects share in common is the division of the world into freinds and enemies, allah's people and allah's enemies, land of Islam and land of the sword, regardless of how liberal or dhimmified we may become. Jihad has always had one overiding interpretation, that applied by Mohummad Sidique Khan in his video-taped diatribe before he became the first person ever, from any faith or persuasion, to commit mass-murder on London's tube. That applied by Mohammad Atta before he became the fist person ever, from any political or religious background, to comandeer a passenger plane into three thousand-plus office workers. That applied by all Islamic terrorists, that applied by Mohammad - to fight the unbeliever until they convert or are subdued. We have to face this threat on it's own terms, unconditional libertarianism is tantamount to surrender."
We only have to face that when we face those that use that interpretation, Animus. By your own admission, not all do. So why condemn those that don't?
"The truth is that Islam really does preach what these terrorists are screaming at us from every corner of the globe."
Does it, then why were there such wide and different responses to the issue of Terrorism after 11 September and the other terrorist attacks? Why was a Fatwa issued against Usama bin Laden after the Madrid attacks? Why has there been a major discussion paper launched over the issue of Terrorism by moderates? Why have British Imans collectively condemned Terrorism? The Terrorists might be screaming it but they are doing so to attract your attention and distract you from what other Muslims are saying.
"The horrible part is that too many of us are selectively deaf to their cries, and choose instead to assert our own predjudices upon Islam to suit our own cognitive dissonances that all politics and religions are equally wrong. Positive discrimination is still predjidice, and you need a lot of it to whitewash the undeniable historical and ongoing truths of Islamic warmongering. You cannot claim to be a liberal when what you propose is to sit back and wait for anarchy."
I attempt to whitewash nothing, Animus. I will though, however place matters into a far wider context that most do here. I'd suggest that the only prejudices being displayed are by most of the posters here who continually attack, ridicule and slander Islam and Muslims.
"Even if you were right, and I wish you were, it is the violent sort that is the problem."
Yes but we should be careful to listen to the context and the way in which the word is utilised, rather than merely make assumptions based upon prejudice, don't you think?
"Even if only a fraction of 1 percent resorts to violent Jihad, then that is the problem and Islam is their inspiration. If you have any thoughts about how these issues may be better resolved please continue to hold forth."
How it might be better resolved? I've made my views I think clear. I'll point back to my previous posts where I suggested that the aim of the Terrorists is to make people think the worst of Muslims, so that thereby more moderate Muslims can be driven in the Terrorists' camp and thence provide more recruits for them in their Jihad. We must endeavour to stop that and fight their propaganda war with better and truthful propaganda. Unfortunate we appear to have forgotten that lesson from previous wars (although perhaps the Americans have never really learnt it, if their experience in Vietnam was anything to go on) - that these sorts of wars are primarily about ideas, not weapons and bombs.
We must therefore endeavour to gain control of the "sea" in which these "fish" swim, as Mao so famously put it. As long as people act and speak in a bigoted and prejudiced manner to Muslims in general and insult Islam, then we won't be gaining many supporters, now will we?
We can make this a "clash of civilisations" if we want but that I would also suggest is merely playing into the hands of the Terrorists, which would be foolish indeed.
What we should be doing is treating Terrorism not as a military problem but a criminal one, as the British did in Malaya with such success. Doesn't mean that the military won't have a role to play but it will mean that the emphasis moves frm a military one to a matter of policing and apprehension of criminals, rather than the mass annilations of entire societies.
More garbage from an insolent troll:
"...Perhaps the West fools itself into believing that its superficiality is attractive to all people and thence pays the price when people reject it and instead embrace Terrorism?.."
Nobody asked them to come!!! They infiltrated our countries to pervert us, to conquer us, to subjugate us to Islam!! Please leave Mr. Mohammedan, and don't forget to take your kaftan, your coffe-filter and your headscarves with you!
"...Are Muslims more prone to be Terrorists? I somehow doubt it. I'd suggest anybody who has deep religious motivations and finds them unable to reconcile them with the reality of the modern world will often turn to violence, .."
"I somehow doubt it..." what an idiotic statement! Have you ever seen a hasidic Jew fly a jet into a building? have you seen Buddhists on murdering rampages threatening their hosts with beheading and annihilation?
You are one sick puppy, but the coffee-filter fits you well!
Here it is, straight from the horses mouth:
"Terror made me victorious", said Mohammed, "strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers..."
"Allah made booty lawful... so go ahead and enjoy the spoils..."
Profit Mo was the 'perfect man'," uswa hasana, al insan al kamil"
The perfect example for all mankind, and you come here asking fake questions like "are Muslims more prone to be terrorists"- which you "somehow" doubt...?
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes_terrorism.html
Andrew,
Nice to see you after all these many months since the Examined Life upped and croaked. Well, when I say "nice to see you", I only mean it in a charitably politic way, since, sharing Caroline's écœurment, I don't find your sophistical nicety nice at all. Pity that you seem so chary of entering into dialogue with Hugh when, by remarkable contrast, you are expending loads of fastidious time and trouble fending off like a lone swashbuckling musketeer the repeated attacks of all these "bigoted" fools on this ship. Knowing you, though, it's likely you're cleverly avoiding his more formidable rapier wisdom, perhaps biding your time, shoring up your scholarly bastions before you strike that particular blunderbuss.
P.S.: Nice touch, purposefully misspelling Qur'an by writing "Q'oran", to see if any of these "bigots" would notice.
There is nothing to be done with these fanatics. They bow to the force of circumstances for the time being, but as soon as they are in a position to revolt, they consider rebellion as a sacred duty. There is no evolution to be hoped for from them, they are fixed in their conception, regarding this conception as perfect, they will never agree to modify it... Now piss off!
Where were we? Heathrow hijackers planned to hide bombs in cameras. Now there's a novel idea...
The insane zealot above is clearly as much a part of the problem in the West as the Jihadis are themselves. Why should we endure his hate crimes above when he accuses the intelligent and thoughtful posters at this site of "nazism" and "bigotry"?
And why is he so relentlessly devoted to place the onus back on us to defend Islam more fervently than Muslims do themselves from the supposed distortions by the supposed "extremists"?
Posters such as "John Howard" are nefarious and have a very dark agenda. The constant and clumsy attempts to smear this site -- the endless and preposterous slammings of posters at this site and his broken record of accusations that we are "bigots" and no better than "nazis" deliberately wastes our time and efforts -- we shouldn't be wasting time defending ourselves against such smears -- all of it is a mantra out of Islam's insidious playbook:
Protect Islam -- defame non-Muslims. Do anything to place non-Muslims on the defensive -- project Islam's crimes onto them at every opportunity -- cynically exploit their stupid decency and their ignorance of Islam to make make them into tools to spread Islam.
Poster "John Howard" is a craven Islamic propagandist and a Jihadi booster.
Take a look at another poster named "Ryan" from about 10 months ago:
This website is terrible and it's surprising that it hasn't provoked any attacks on innocent muslims yet. In Israel, this would fall under the Incitement Law and be illegal. You can write what you want within reason. Promoting this type of hate is on the periphery of the law, if not illegal. This is no different from Neo-Nazi webpages that call for death to Jews or some Islamic webpages that call for death to Christians and Jews.
The most disgusting post ever on this website:
"Muslims set fire to innocent woman in France"
Exactly where is the proof that the guilty parties were muslims?? There is none. It was just assumed for the sake of this website without one shread of evidence that this is the case. Now that is unethical.
Posted by: Ryan at November 9, 2005 12:53 AM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008906.php#c140832
Never mind that disaffected Muslim youth set a woman on fire:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-03-franceriots_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
(LE BLANC MESNIL, France (AP) - Small, mobile groups of youths hit Paris' riot-shaken suburbs with waves of arson attacks, torching hundreds of cars, as unrest entered its second week Friday and spread to other towns in France. A woman on crutches was doused in flammable liquid and set on fire earlier this week as she tried to get off a bus in a Paris suburb, a judicial official said Friday. She suffered severe burns.
The poster Ryan chooses to take one of Islams innumerable crimes and accuse the posters of this site of being the true terrorists and nazis and bigots. It's pure bunk.
The exact same kinds of conflations and inflations are employed by the poisonous liar above. The name, just like the case with "Ryan", appears to be carefully chosen to evoke a Northern European or Anglo Saxon -- in short, he evokes a non-Muslim who is speaking from a position of anti-Bigotry and 'can-we-all-just-get-along'ism and reasonableness. Yet notice how the Muslims are never at fault in his cosmology -- it all comes back to our supposed heinousness -- our exhortations for genocide -- our actions which are under indictment. Who here has called for genocide? It's the Muslims that do this every day. Who here has conducted barbaric acts of terrorism? It's the Muslims that do this every day.
"John Howard" is pure poison.
I don't care whether poster "John Howard" is simply an insanely deluded infidel or a pervert of Islam posing as one.
Now that we've seen his sick constructs and endured his cancerous libels, he should be banned from this site for his hate crimes. He is as ardent an enemy of the West as any filthy Muslim Jihadist.
Obviously there is substantial room to maneaouvre.
Sorry, but with regards to the sunnah, the example of Mohammad, the perfect man, to be emulated by all for all time, is the example of the Jihadists now attacking us. Mo'hd was a terrorist, he exhorted his followers to do likewise. He was a thief, a liar and cheat, a sadistic torturer, a mass murderer, a serial rapist, racist, mysogonist, xenophobic, pedophillic, a vile predatory psychopath who sought to sanctify terrorism, to prey on others goodwill, trusts and altruism, and in these endeavours he was highly successful. The example of Moh'd is that terrorism works. Whatever leeway there may be in various interpretations of Qur'anic scripture, the Sunnah teaches that through terror, Allah will make the faithful victorious. This is the Jihad being fought by the terrorists we see in the news everyday.
We only have to face that when we face those that use that interpretation, Animus. By your own admission, not all do. So why condemn those that don't?
The distinction is between Moslems as individuals and Islam. Not all Moslems are terrorists, but most of the terrorists are Moslems. The problem, according to them, is the core scriptures of Islam. So that then is the enemy... The peaceful Moslems are the only people with the authority to renounce the "interpretations" being applied by the terrorists. But they can't renounce the story of their prophet's life - what would we have them do, renounce Moh'd as a false prophet?
Why have British Imans collectively condemned Terrorism? The Terrorists might be screaming it but they are doing so to attract your attention and distract you from what other Muslims are saying.
Even terrorists wil renounce terrorism to throw us off. Even Moh'd did. Dissimulation is one of their core tenets. Unfortunately too many of us are willing to fall for it. The objective of the terrorists is to subdue all peoples until all religion is for Allah, not simply to create chaos. The purpose, the goal, is a global caliphate, a central prophecy of Islam they believe they are charged to prosecute.
We must therefore endeavour to gain control of the "sea" in which these "fish" swim, as Mao so famously put it. As long as people act and speak in a bigoted and prejudiced manner to Muslims in general and insult Islam, then we won't be gaining many supporters, now will we?
Non-Moslems cannot gain control of this sea. And Moslems themselves won't or can't. Which is why there is quite understandably prejudice towards Islam. But anti-bigotry cannot be described as bigotry. We are ant-fascist, anti-racist, ant-sexist etc. etc. Doubtless you are too, but you fail to exhibit the broad view you claim, focusing on the woods but not seeing the wood rot...
On your last points you are incorrect in framing the problem as a response to Western prejudices. The problem is Moslem's responses to Islam in its totality, and the clash is that of civilisation versus the examples and central tenets of Mohammadanism. The only hope as far as I can see is to show a little backbone, while throwing open the scriptures being used against us and confronting the ideology on its aims, objectives and prescribed means. Islam is not a benign faith. If it is to be preserved then it needs, for its own sake and that of its adherents, not to mention the rest of us, to be controlled firmly and without compromise on our fundamental freedoms and liberties.
J Howard: “Oh, dear. I appear to have upset you, Caroline. Do you dislike me suggesting that the world has changed since the 16th century? Are you really so much of a zealot that the worst you can do is call me a "liberal elitist"? I actually embrace the term but then I live outside the USA where the term "liberal" is not considered an insult but a compliment. As for being an "elitist", I see nothing wrong with striving to be the best.”
No, I’m not a zealot at all. I simply haven’t mastered the particularly unctuous quality that you display in your postings. That failure on my part may make me look like a zealot. But actually, once you strip all the tu quoque arguments, the absurd moral equivalence and the dripping condescension and well frankly – unctuousness, out of your posts – then what remains is zealotry. The zealotry of a liberal who worships “Tolerance” as his God. Some of your comments:
"Tolerance is an ideal we should be aspiring to, Caroline.”
“Why? We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and this would merely demonstrate prejudice, betraying the very principles we claim to be upholding.”
“Hardly a sparkling example of the Western ideals many proclaim here to be upholding.”
“I have stated that we should, if we seek to wish to remain true to the very principles we claim to be upholding, not bar Muslims from seeking to migrate to Western Countries on the basis of their religion. To do so, would, I'd suggest merely play into the hands of the Islamists and undermine the very principles we claim to be upholding and which are central to Western Liberal democracy.”
“Let me guess you attack Islam because some Muslim countries don't allow Christians to migrate there. Gee, I wonder therefore how you can justify your personal ban on Muslims if you consider those nations' bans on Christians to be wrong?”
("Caroline:That is utterly and completely perverted. I would rather be called a bigot any day of the week than sacrifice myself, my friends, my community, or my civilization, on the alter of your liberal God of "tolerance".")
Howard: “Then you don't understand what the civilisation you claim to be protecting actually stands for.”
In other words, the sum message of your many posts (the particulars above) as well as the many assorted attacks against other posters here – for being “bigots”, “prejudiced”, “parochial” etc – is that we are violating the ultimate mandate of your religion and your God, which is TOLERANCE.
For a liberal zealot such as yourself, “tolerance” is the alpha and the omega. Unfortunately, you can’t appreciate your own single-mindedness and zealotry on that score.
You said: “I believe I've made a lot of you stop and think. Some of you appear to be thinking deeper than others and starting to recognise that perhaps some of the ideas you've been accepting and promoting aren't quite as nice as you've once believed. If I can change one person's opinion, I'll be happy. Posted by: John Howard at June 23, 2006 03:32 AM”
Actually you’re right on that score. But probably not in the way you think. Rather what you’ve got me thinking about is how right on Lawrence Auster has been to address the logical fallacies of Liberalism, which is what we have to overcome if our civilization is to be saved. Your tu quoque and moral equivalence arguments don’t hold water at all. Rather, it’s that appeal to your God, “Tolerance”, which you wield like a hammer over peoples heads (much as the mullahs weild their hammers over peoples heads in defense of Allah), in order to shut them up (Bigot! Smack!) and impose a bizarre Orwellian inversion of reality, which we need to give some serious thought to, if we intend to save western civilization.
Anyway, you got me thinking about this recent post at Auster's site in which he addresses a rather tongue in cheek article at Jerusalem Post, which suggested that given the current political trends, we ought to bring white supremacists into the “political dialogue”, cause they’ve been feeling a little marginalized lately:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005923.html
“We need to understand that liberal society, founded on the belief in non-discrimination, is an organic arrangement consisting of three parts, each of which is indispensable to the working of the whole. First there are the liberals themselves, who represent and conscicuously practice the society’s ideal of non-discrimination, though they tend to do this symbolically more than in their real lives. Then there are the unassimilable Others, the non-Westerners and minorities upon whom the liberals practice the virtue of non-discrimination. Then there is a third group, consisting of whites who are insufficiently non-discriminatory toward the Others, and so are the foil against whom the virtue of the liberal elites shines more strongly. While the earlier, non-liberal society defined itself by discriminating against unassimilable Others, today’s liberal society defines itself by discriminating against its own native members who have not yet “gotten with” the liberal program and still discriminate against the Other, or at least fail to display the correct non-discriminatory attitudes...."
What I see in that post which relates to your posts are -
1.Worshiping the God of tolerance above all else (“non-discrimination”)
2.The “conspicuous” practice of this virtue.(frankly it would be an understatement to call your posts "conspicuous" in this regard)
3.The embrace of the “other” while at the same time condemning as morally inferior the far more “natural” embrace of one’s “own”.
4. The blatant discrimination and condescending attitudes towards others who haven’t yet gotten with the morally superior program of embracing the other at the expense of one’s own.
On first reflection, it seems to me that if you were completely consistent, you might actually spend some time at liberal websites admonishing them not be bigoted and prejudiced towards southern white rednecks. But somehow I very much doubt that you spend much time doing that. As Auster points out, however, that isn’t hypocritical exactly. That’s just what you get when someone worships the God of modern liberalism (i.e. Tolerance/non-discrimination). It’s completely consistent.
Similarly, I recall during the cartoon riots when a Canadian journalist pointed out that there was nothing at all hypocritical about Muslims printing all these nasty cartoons of Jews and Christinas while deploring turnaround in our press. This Canadian journalist basically pointed out – no, it isn’t hypocritical. They believe they are superior and so they are being completely consistent with their expressed beliefs in adopting what to the rest of us appears to be a double standard.
So yes. You've gotten me thinking about a few things. But they probably aren't the things you imagined. Western culture today is objectively superior to Msulim culture. That's a fact. And it isn't bigoted or prejuduced to say so. We need to figure out how to save the relatively soft west from the much less 'struck-by-their-liberal-conscience' wolves who are, whether you believe it or not, quite intent on dragging our civilization back many centuries, your liberal ideas be damned.
Insofar as Liberalism as an unqaulified ideology (which is the way you present it in your many posts), might contribute to that eventuality, then the ideology of Liberalism itself is on the table. Liberalism as an unqualified ideology (again as you use it) - needs to be questioned and raked over the coals just as westerners have done with every other ideology/religion, including Christianity and Islam.
Something else you've got me thinking about is this old post By the blogger Shrinkwrapped about the relationship between modern liberalism and narcissism. It's extemely long and probably not of much interest to anyone except those who enjoy this sort of psychobabble, but the particular bit that struck me was this:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2005/11/narcissism_disi_2.html
"When the Narcissistic intellectual believes he alone possesses absolute morality, the need to be seen as smarter and better than anyone else can lead him to believe that his words matter more than reality. From Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia: Part IV
"...the left and liberal aggrandizement of their own ideological ideas presents a serious danger to our prosecution of the war. The ACLU, people like Ward Churchill, groups like Moveon.org and Human Rights First insist that their motives are pure (while everyone who disagrees with them have motives that are typically corrupt.) They are upholding human rights; the right to be treated with respect; the right to counsel; the right to free speech. As abstractions, these rights are inviolate; as explanations for their behavior (which could appear to be harmful to our nation's interests) they are superficially plausible; yet, reality always supervenes. To be more attached to abstractions than to the welfare of others in one's community is a classic signifier of the Narcissist. It is one step removed from the narcissistic disavowal of the other: my beliefs are more important than your life."
The reason I was thinking about this today (in response to your hopes as stated above that your posts would cause some of us to think a bit) is that I couldn't understand your persistence in placing your God of Tolerance (an abstraction as you use it) above and beyond the real implications of what you advocate to real human beings (both infidels and Muslims included).
Because the fact is that your tolerance where Islam is concerned IS an abstraction. You posit this completely abstract liberal "Good" (non-descrimination/Tolerance) but the truth is that you have no real world answers to any of this. Once you strip away the vague liberal ideas that each person must be judged on his own individual basis ( no profiling, no generalizations etc), and Islam just needs a counter-reformation, and we should encourage that counter-reformation here in the west to demonstrate by example our liberal, non-discriminatory nature - our "pluralism" and "diversity" - blah blah blah - you really don't have a clue nor an answer. All you have is a wing and a prayer.
In other words, like shrinkwrapped points out - you are placing your ideology - that liberal God of Tolerance - above and beyond peoples lives. You are literally willing to risk peoples lives rather than question the wisdom or truth of your utopian idea of unqualified Tolerance in the face of so much real world evidence which would cause any non-zealot to take a serious look at the evidence which might cast some degree of doubt on your God. As an example of what I'm talking about, look at how you dismissed the polls showing that a very large percentage of Muslims in the west utterly reject our western values (which includes, by the way, your God of tolerance). You dismiss that evidence because it conflicts with your preconceptions - because it conflicts with your religious beliefs (that religion being Liberalism, with all its attendent assumptions).
Think about it.
Caroline,
your patience is amazing! You dissected the troll nicely...
He (JH) is very tolerant towards his faith (which is Islam) but doesn't show much tolerance towards those who oppose this perverted belief-sysem...
I suspect we are dealing with the former troll "King Tolerance" who was posting similar crap here some time ago until he got banned.
His new moniker is even more preposterous and insulting. I just wonder why many Mohammedans who try this sort of deflection and obfuscation here on JW deny that they are actually Mohammedans...
Do they really believe that makes their claptrap more palatable?
Sheik - you could well be right that he is a Muslim "troll". But I prefer to take posters at face value. And he argues from the POV of a true western liberal - with a big L. So absent any other evidence, I think we have to address his arguments at face value. Arguments are arguments - they have to stand on their own merits in terms of whom they are addressed to on the surface, even if one has been fooled as to the real identity of the person one is responding to. But what else can one do on the internet (absent solid evidence or proof of who people really are)?
-Caroline,
I've seen an AC-130 gunship tear up terrain with the precision of 10,000 seamstresses threading 10,000 needles.
You could rightfully change your nick to "Specter".
My last post above was my way of saying I think I know who this JH is -- a Leftist and non-Muslim to be sure as Caroline surmised -- but a rather intellectually formidable one. If he's the guy I'm thinking of, trust me, I know from years of debate with him on a philosophy forum that has since gone defunct, he only showed 10% of his talents in this brief, unpleasant episode -- and only 10% of the arrogant "unctuousness" that Caroline couldn't help notice.
I wouldn't say this if there weren't several remarkable traits I noticed in the writings of JH that resemble that guy -- not the least of which was that he became rather infamous at the philosophy site for putting on disguises and pretending he was someone else. One example: he spent a few months pretending to be a female German librarian from Liepzieg, and had everyone (some quite intelligent and educated folks) completely fooled for a long time, and also in that disguise excellently defended a certain philosophical viewpoint. A briefer masquerade he pulled off (not quite as successfully) was to pretend he was a female Muslim intellectual from Bangladesh (or some place similar) who was defending Islam against mostly my critiques (since, as usual for Net forums, the Islam critics are rare). He didn't always don the gay apparel of females in his disguises; there were so many I can't remember them all. His latest and perhaps longest-lasting was of a vaguely professional intellectual living and working in some university-affiliated capacity in Scotland. I at least will be on the lookout for other "characters" who might pop up here in the near future.
But trust me, he really was unusually well-read in history and philosophy and remarkably intelligent (aside from also being insufferable). He sort of reminded me of a Leftist PC version of Hugh. Horrors! Imagine using talents like that for evil and not good!
-Television,
While he certainly does have the devil's tongue, the best pastry chef in the world can't make a cowpie palatable.
TV
If what you've said is correct, he has a funny way of not showing it. Yesterday, in the thread about Iraq's newly discovered WMD, he asked me how is it relevant on whether or not he's a Muslim, and whether or not he's a Leftist? I described to him how his being a Muslim would have a direct bearing on what he believes, since he'd stand to gain if he succeeded in his mission of softening us up so that we digest the jinn and taqiyya that Mohammedan trolls like Salahudin throw at us. I also pointed out that there are strong parallels between Communism and Islam, and that ironically, Leftist movements haven't hesitated to abandon their constituents, such as feminists, gay-right advocates, athiests, etc in order to be in the good graces of Muslims. As a result, his views on Islam, if he was a Leftist, would certainly fit the trend.
Since then, he has crossed swords with other posters on that highly critical question about whether there is a rail link between Iraq and Syria that the WMD could have been used to transport, but didn't bother to confront me on how his affiliations were relevant to the arguments that he was putting up. If he was indeed as you describe, he seemed to flee rather easily.
I normally don't call for banning posters, but given that he has been completely hijacking threads and distracting attention from the articles being discussed, it's high time the owners of this site exercised their privilege to revoke his posting rights.
Actually, I think TV made an excellent point somewhere here that this has been an excellent lesson in seeing the soft spots of the ant-jihad defenses. It would seem to me that soft-spot largely lies in the principles of modern liberalism, inasmuch as non-discrimination is viewed as the highest order good of western society (and this is what JH is essentially arguing). That is what the jihadis use against us - their clear plan is to use this absolute non-discrimination against us in order to bring us down and impose in its place - the opposite. It would seem to me that an idea is flawed if its practical application leads to suicide. The excception to that would be for ideas that are of a spiritual nature, like "turn the other cheek" - which could well cause one to commit suicide but that's why it's a spiritual idea and not necessarily relevant to real world policy. There is something of a parallel between absolute non-discrimination and "turn the other cheek", which suggests that the principle of absolute non-discrimination is in essence a spiritual idea, and that hence liberalism is, for some zealots like JH, in essence a "religion".
I am not an expert in Lawrence Auster's ideas on this topic but I can grasp that this is the reason why he rejects liberalism as being inadequate to defend our civilization and instead adopts what he calls a "traditionalist" conservatism which places liberal ideas secondary to a particular historical and concrete civilizational identity - or something like that. I'm sure other readers here are familiar with his arguments about this and could explain them better than I can. We certainly got a taste of the gist of this argument when Mr Spencer and Mr Auster went at eachother here. But I think JH's comments indicate why this particular debate is so important to have and to flesh out, because clearly the implications of his argument is that the only thing the west stands for is absolute non-discrimination and hence, we are obligated by the essence of what the west stands for, to commit civilizational suicide.
I don't think I have ever seen Auster address the specific issue though of what might be called "classical liberalism" and on what grounds it is distinguishable from "modern liberalism" (which takes as its ultimate value absolute non-discrimination) but I think it would be very helpful if he or someone would address that issue.
There is also the side issue that as the principle of non-discrimination is applied in practice by modern liberals- it is, in fact, used to discriminate against the western majority (largely white and Christian demographically) - and so it isn't actually practiced as absolute non-discrimination - but still, its the principles and implications of liberalism, which need to be put on the table and questioned. Because if an ideology (excepting spiritual ideas here) doesn't promote survival and instead leads to the opposite, then it suggests that there is something wrong with the ideology - that it is flawed and mistaken and is basically a failed ideology.
Or - the limits of the ideology are being misunderstood. So that when JH argues that the essence of the west is tolerance, nondiscrimination etc - and that therefore if we were to practice discrimination, we would essentially sacrifice what we stand for as a civilization - he is mistaken from an actual historical perpective as to what constitutes the core of western civilization. In which case, his whole argument falls apart. I am afraid I am not very articulate about these matters but I am not a political historian so I don't possess quite the language needed to cogently address these issues. But I hope that people can at least appreciate why it is that the issue is an important one to address.
Caroline,
"There is also the side issue that as the principle of non-discrimination is applied in practice by modern liberals- it is, in fact, used to discriminate against the western majority (largely white and Christian demographically) - and so it isn't actually practiced as absolute non-discrimination"
There is an implicit logic to this side issue that when rendered explicit reveals a perverted torsion to the double standard:
1) the Western majority (largely white and Christian demographically -- along with their Machiavellian Jewish bankrollers) is seen to be the most powerful agent of potential discrimination as well as the most evil discriminator in history; and it is seen to be in its nature essentially predisposed to discrimination
2) through some inexplicable miracle in history, the noble liberal ideal of non-discrimination arose out of the Western milieu that was, according to the liberal descendants (JH among them), in its essence prone to discrimination more than any other culture and has acquired world hegemony which constantly poses the horrible danger that this powerful West (particularly its more suspect torchbearer, America) will revert to its former evil self
3) this inexplicable miracle of the rise and cultural dominance in the West of the noble liberal ideal of non-discrimination is relatively recent, and as we can see from its neo-con enemies (beginning, at least in terms of the timeline of the rise of liberalism's dominance, with McCarthy), precariously dominant, mandating a constant vigilance against a "slippery slope" back into the Dark Ages of the 1950s and (shudder) beyond into the era when the West was on the whole proudly Colonialist and did not wring its hands over whether the Third World savages it was truly helping were obviously inferior to the West's superiority.
4) In light of #1-3, then, it is incumbent upon liberals of the modern era to positively discriminate against this entity, the West in terms of its Western majority (largely white and Christian demographically -- along with their Machiavellian Jewish bankrollers), in order to safeguard against that horrible slippery slope into the traditional Western discrimination that is a constant lurking potential.
The specific "perverted torsion" to the double standard I referred to at the beginning of my post will become clear through the above adumbration:
Torsion twist #1: Liberals castigate us for our reasonable desire to practice discrimination against Muslims in order to fight against the threat of Islamic discrimination enshrined in Islamic ideology.
Torsion twist #2: Liberals see, in our desire to guard against the discrimination inherent to Islamic ideology, the slippery slope leading to a revival of that ugly specter of the most evil discrimination in history -- traditional Western discrimination.
Torsion twist #3: In order to guard against this slippery slope leading to this revival of that ugly Western specter, Liberals like JH conclude that it is necessary and just to practice discrimination against the West in terms of its Western majority (largely white and Christian demographically -- along with their Machiavellian Jewish bankrollers).
I.e., it's not okay for us to limit the ideal of non-discrimination in the face of an enemy (Islam) that threatens that ideal, but it is okay for liberals to limit that same ideal for the same mirror-image reason!
Caroline & TV - Exactly!
These words from J Howard just prove he hasn't really read Robert Spencer's books. Blaming wahhabi's. Like problems just started with wahhabi. And calling Spencer a bigot. And his writings not based on anything.
If he had read Spencer he would know the koran can not be reformed. How can you change the word of God?
Why would stopping immigration be stupid, just let them keep coming and take over.
bi-gawt, bi-gawt
The braying of the mule pulling islam's cart.
TV - brilliant, as usual.
In analyzing the whole issue of how it came to be the case in the first place that liberals ignore the total historical picture of peoples and come to the conclusion of your point #1, namely, "the Western majority (largely white and Christian demographically -- along with their Machiavellian Jewish bankrollers) is seen to be the most powerful agent of potential discrimination as well as the most evil discriminator in history; and it is seen to be in its nature essentially predisposed to discrimination" - I will link again (I doubt it will be the last time) to this post by Mark Humphry's at his excellent blog (there is so much to explore there), entitled, "Paradox No.1 (The Paradox of the Fisks): The most criticised societies in the world will be the least criminal societies."
http://www.markhumphrys.com/laws.html#no.1
"Finally, what is the effect on people of this imbalance?
In the closed society, the regime (happily) reprints the free society's criticisms of itself. No criticisms are printed of the closed society. Many people in the closed society, not knowing anything else, may even come to believe that the free society is more flawed than the closed society. For example, in the Arab Middle East, most criticism seems to be of Israel and America, rather than of their own societies, which are far more flawed.
And in the free society, naive young people read the criticisms of the free society, and don't read the (small) criticisms of (uninteresting) foreign closed societies. They too may even come to believe that the free societies are the worst societies."
In short, it is almost inevitable, given what Mark Humphry's describes, that those living in the open societies of the west, where every sin of the west has been exposed to the utmost scrutiny (relative to much worse societies who do not permit such internal self-criticism), will arrive at an unbalanced perspective as to their societies' RELATIVE sins. I think Humphrys here is hitting at something critical for the reason that yes - it is by now abundantly obvious that many westerners view the west as the ultimate evil which must be brought down (even by betraying their own manifest principles of non-discrimination by discriminating against their own) but as to the question of HOW IT IS that they came to this position - I think that what Humphrys posits here is a quite plausible explanation.
Humphrys description is good, but leaves out a good half of the explanation. He includes the negative factor -- that naive Westerners have been imbibing negative criticisms of the West so much they can become disposed to consider the West to be the worst -- but he fails (unless he does include it somewhere on his blog) to include the equally important positive factor: the sanctification of the "noble savage". This positive factor, of course, is not separable from the negative factor: the two have worked hand in glove, both are sides of the same coin. But it's important to look at the flip side of the coin too. In this sanctification of the noble savage (Islam because of its "golden age" aura (sans the vast amount of data of its also being a slaveholding, oppressive, culturally intolerant, genocidal imperialism) being the most noble), the noble savage can do no real wrong: any wrongs which the evidence would show they do is quickly and efficiently put into the categories of
a) the evil West made them do it (through evil meddling via colonialism and the crypto-colonialism of post-colonialism)
b) it's their culture in the wonderful rainbow of cultures out there, and there is no standard by which to judge other cultures as inferior
+ the ever-present PC torsion:
b2) in the interest of safeguarding both the noble idea of (b) above and the precious noble savage it protects (that lovely brown Child of our Liberal Condescension), it is hereby lawful and encouraged to break our own rule for the one solemn purpose of judging modern Western culture to be not only emphatically inferior, but downright evil.
TV - I like your elucidation of the "flip side" of the equation - namely the "sanctification of the noble savage". You are quite probably correct that the paradox of western self-criticim leading to self-hatred (as Humphrys describes) is insufficient in itself to explain the pathology of modern liberal self-hatred. It's just a bit too cerebral an explanation actually, and doesn't explain why, for instance, there would be no educational corrective issuing from our universities to put the sins of the west in objective perspective.
So the explanation must be more emotionally based than that. The very term, "noble savage", suggests something quite emotional, rather than cerebral. Which makes me wonder whether the west hasn't felt itself to be too cerebral, too cold, too objective, too lacking in passion to such a degree that it has come to envy the "noble savage" for his very LACK of rationalism - as a counterweight to the rationality of the westerner, in a sense.
Of course if that were in fact the case (a 'flight from rationalism'), one would have to speculate on the actual causes for the west to be in its current completely cerebral (and non-passionate) state along with its reasons for desiring to escape that state of affairs. One explanation might lie in the direction of the west's abandonment of Christianity/mystery and its heavy weight upon science and empiricism and pure rationality. Or maybe one could even set Christianity aside altogether and merely speculate that liberal westerners have conluded that scientific progress will destroy mankind - through weapons, and bioengineering and so on and that therefore, rationality has gone too far and that western culture suffers from a preponderance of THINKING, and that therefore the solution to this imbalance is the opposite - namely, irrationality.
Clearly at this point I am wildly speculating and merely grasping at straws in order to understand why westerners (liberals - which pretty much defines the west at this point) are filled with so much self-hatred, while at the same time extolling the virtues of the irrational "Other" (the "noble savage").
I don't know the answer yet (in fact it seems that the problem itself is only very recently coming under some degree of critical scrutiny) - but I am convinced that this is an issue (the liberal west's self-hatred) which has to be explored and understood (in terms of its "root causes") in order to halt the apparently willing march towards dhimmitude in the face of Islam.
Sigh.
Don't forget, what many of us see as "self hatred" and an effort to deconstruct Western civilization, many civil Libertarians see as their self-imposed duty to "improve" and bring progress to the latter, as evidence of patriotism and love for it. Once again, letting ideals take precedence over reality.
Eisenhund: "Once again, letting ideals take precedence over reality."
Eisenhund - being a military man yourself - I wonder whether you are familiar with Bill Whittle at eject eject eject:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
The link above is the intro chapter he is writing to a book. The reason I bring it up is that I think the analogy he is laying out here is so very apropos and important to the issue of "ideals" vs "reality". He says,
"We need a map. Several are for sale. How do we choose?
Actually, it’s not so difficult. We can choose the map that best conforms to the coastline we see unveiling before us. We choose the map that best matches reality – the objective, external, indisputable reality of bays and promontories, capes and gulfs and rivers and shoals.
We can, indeed, lay out competing philosophies on the table, and see where each conforms to reality and where it does not. No maps are without distortions; none of these are likely to be, either. And one map may conform perfectly to the coastline in one area, and be dreadfully amiss in another. We can cut and paste them as we wish. This is too important for us to be arguing about who is right – all our energies must go to getting it right.
And before we start, we must agree to one thing: we will never be so full of arrogance and blinded by pride that we dare confront a place where our map does not match the coastline, and proclaim that the coastline must be wrong."
But then what Mr Whittle is arguing for is empiricism and rationality. And for some inexplicable reason, the west seems to have lost its way in that regard and they want to stick with the map (that takes them off course), come hell or high water, while obstinately refusing to look at the coastline itself, to see if their map bears any resemblance to objective reality.
Why has that happened? How has that happened? And how do the coastline watchers above board seize back control from the blind map readers hovering below board who are calling the shots? I wish I knew the answer.
But the fact that this is even happening, suggests to me a certain flight of the west into irrationality. Why is it that the west is taking a flight into irrationality? That appears to me to be the question (the "root cause" of the west's march towards dhimmitude) - which we need to address.
"Why is it that the west is taking a flight into irrationality?"
As you intuited, this has roots that go back quite a ways in Western history. Heinrich Heine wrote some interesting observations in the 19th century about this tendency he noticed in Europe, and particularly in Germany, and many have seen his essays as premonitions of the precipitous decline into the abyss of irrationality that Germany fell into in the 1930s -- which is in my view just one feature of the overall sea change of the West that has been going on. If you have time, you can read a little more of what I think about this sea change in my latest two entries (a two-part essay of June 23 and 24) of my blog at
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/
-Caroline,
I have looked at Mr. Whittle's site, although it was a bit long and I only jumped there through a link here as I was reading through the posts.
In the military, it used to be similar, but in some ways the situation has changed. Very often, the plan makers would lend more credence to the reports of the intel squirrels who, after counting and typing their nuts, would tell General Hapablap what the enemy situation was. Problem was, when Staff Sergeant Me would tell them that the situation as I see it, right here and right now, was different it would often be dismissed. Things are a bit differnt now. A pair of eyes on the ground are better than ten in the rear and the guys actually looking at the maps and the reports often realize that.
I'm thinking that many of the type of people to whom I was referring have the same kind of attitude that reality is more painful than their comfortable concept, an almost Gnostic view somewhat like the concept discussed in a previous thread at great length. Working within a conceptual framwork and trying to impose that construct on the real world rather than dealing with what's concrete and, to most people with common sense (as if it were so "common"), undeniable. It's like having cavities and convincing one's self that to get rid of them, all one has to do is brush more and harder rather than facing the dentist's drill.
The civil libertarians in the media and academia don't really have to face the reality of the situation of islam and may have a subconscious realization that to do so would be more painful than criticizing their own culture, or at least the culture that makes their lifestyles and expression of their viewpoints possible. They have the security of being able to criticize the very system and values that they know won't punish them for it. In short, it's a bully tactic. They want to throw punches without risking getting one in return.
In the infantry, as was the case before I ever picked up a rifle, maps are not always up to date. Terrain features change, streams dry up, improved roads decay into unimproved, structures are built and torn down, often faster than the cartographers can keep up. When you're on the ground in the fight, you can either sit back and bitch about it or lift your chin and look around, annotate your map and move out. Personally, but for the fact that Jack and his ilk have a sometimes loud voice and are able to blow smoke in the faces of people who don't know any better, I couldn't care less what the map says if it doesn't agree with my lying eyes. If I'm taking fire from a building, and the map says it's a lake, I'm going to plot the coordinates and call for fire. If the gun bunnies in the FDC want to argue, I'm going to tell them that I'm fishing and fire anyway, they can bill me for the ordnance. All I care about is that the rounds land where I want them.
While I almost hate to say it, the curse of the West seems to almost be its success. We have driven the wolves from the door, keep our homes warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and live in a nation that has a problem with obesity and counts among its citizens individuals who voluntarily starve themselves to fit into clothes valued for their aesthetic appeal instead of their ablility to protect from the elements. A nation that pays athletes more than teachers, actors more than cops and firefighters, and rock singers more than soldiers. A nation of bread and circuses to stave off the boredom of not having to struggle for the essentials. Comfort leads to soft skin. Soft skin is sensitive. It needs to be cushioned against the thorns of the real world. That gives birth to PC. PC tells people to never leave your house, it's dangerous out there. Sit on your couch and complain that there is nothing but crap on the couple of hundred cable and satellite channels. If the wolves do come back and start scratching and howling, just turn up the sound. Better yet, switch to the show about the destruction of wolf habitats and tsk, tsk your disapproval.
It's easy to deny the evidence reported by the grunt with the gun on the ground when you're looking at the map from afar, sitting in the AC'd espresso bar in the City of New Wherethehellever or a lecture hall at Knowitall College. That guy has been indoctrinated, you see, that rifle-shooting dupe, he's been taught to see a bunker where the map clearly says there is a lake. And if it's described in ink on paper, how could it be wrong?
How to grab the cultural cartographers out of their neat, comfortable little warrens, into the light of day, show them the trees and hills, buildings and roads, lakes, rivers, and beaches is beyond my former pay grade. I was a squad leader, assistant platoon sergeant, and chief instructor of dismount personnel in a mechanized Infantry company. I taught guys how to find, fix, and destroy the enemy through maneuver and superior firepower (in other words, kill people and break things) after which, I would lead them in these endeavors. I didn't worry about why the other guy was shooting at me. His reasons were immaterial and I didn't care that other people not in my situation thought I should care. PC is cowardess. Fear of what really matters, stuff that cuts and bites. I don't respect the opinions of cowards and I don't waste my time or give them any more attention than they merit. I was more worried about keeping my head down and making sure 2nd squad had their machineguns in the overwatch position.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt
If y'all made it this far, stream-of-rant over.
This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen here in a while ... May I barge in?
I haven't gone through the whole set of posts above yet, but I wanted to insert a thought that's been kicking around in my head lately. This isn't about rationality, but the advent of insanity -- possibly an explanation of mass global irrationality.
The modern world is changing so rapidly, and the psyches of Westerners (and even more so the third worlders) are barraged so relentlessly with shocking imagery, and threatening changes, that perhaps we are in the midst of a kind of global mass hysteria or psychosis. This may simply be a primitive way of dealing with over-stimulation and threats. We may be in the midst of a gargantuan repeat of former periods when, for example, smaller communities felt somehow threatened or overcome by circumstance, and then succumbed to crazy spasms like the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, the periodic burnings of heretics, the ancient pogroms, WW2, etc. Plotting a boat through such violent waters may convince the observer that there are a series of rational signposts or little events which led to such calamities, but is it also possible to understand this in a much more overarching but simplistic way?
Humans have never lived cheek by jowl globally before, and despite the cultural chasms that separate us, these escalating stimuli barraging us affect the collective populace. For the sake of this discussion at this site, if you accept the Islam/The Rest divide, both sides seem to be going collectively berserk at the same moment. The stresses on everyone are today unprecedented. The reactions we see may point to ancient coping mechanisms. If there are differences in the reactions, it's probably the cultural differences which overlay an identical underlying response. Perhaps the West has cultivated a certain set of psychic real estate which permits us to somewhat internalize our anxieties -- "What did I do to cause this situation?" Even the breakdown of confidence belies a certain belief in our omnipotent powers - we have somehow failed to be in control as we expected to be.
The Muslims are culturally persuaded to locate external bogeymen for their triggered anxiety crisis.
Seen this way, two seemingly different reactions to the same stimulii may appear different, but they may be exactly the same. As the million year old programming kicks into high gear -- we may only be able to sit and watch what unfolds ... We are, after all, the exact same animal we were 5,000 or 50,000 years ago when clubs and sharp objects were the curency of our discourse.
Examples of human states of mind I consider to be possible examples of mass hysteria/psychosis today:
Global anti-Americanism.
Islam's resurgence.
PC in the West, and the underlying self loathing self destructive malignancies it conceals.
Fierce (and I think nearly religious) attachment to Global Warming. (while there may be scientific underpinnings to support the warming thesis -- my understanding is that the science is ambiguous -- I am empirically fascinated by the near complete fervency with which this notion is embraced by the masses in the West and among the Muslims. It seems to me that the fervent embracing of this apocalyptic notion is plucking at some much deeper and darker or primitive chords in the collective human psyche ...)
Our unquestioned zombielike advance towards globalization.
The somtimes frenzy against globalization.
Conspiracy theories about aliens or the political/economic machinations of the world.
Apocalyptic and millenial beliefs on the rise across the spectrum. (I'm susceptible to this myself -- it's hard to watch everything unfold and not have one of those Koyaaniskatsi moments...)
Anyway, this is just a half baked tray of cupcakes, but I'm curious what the Televisions, the Carolines, the Eisenhunds, Borgs et al might have to say? It may simply rehash much of what you're already discussing, but it seems to be inverse to some of what I've read so far. I'm not even sure if I believe any of it -- but what do you think?
sorry for the lame presentation. just re-read my post -- yick! Apologies!
jsla - I didn't see anything wrong with your post.
"The reactions we see may point to ancient coping mechanisms. If there are differences in the reactions, it's probably the cultural differences which overlay an identical underlying response. Perhaps the West has cultivated a certain set of psychic real estate which permits us to somewhat internalize our anxieties -- "What did I do to cause this situation?" Even the breakdown of confidence belies a certain belief in our omnipotent powers - we have somehow failed to be in control as we expected to be. The Muslims are culturally persuaded to locate external bogeymen for their triggered anxiety crisis."
That reminds me of the difference between neurosis vs character disorders. Neurosis is presumably characterized by assuming an excess of responsibility (leading to guilt, anxiety and depression), while character disorders cope by assuming too little responsibility and blaming others. But neither one is exactly rational (which would entail assuming the just proportional amount of responsibility).
TV - I did go over to your site and read your essays. It seems that one major current which you are leaving out in addressing modern PC is "postmodernism". As I understand it, postmodernism has roots in Rousseau and is basically anti-rational. Steven Hicks describes its philosophical roots here and its connection to PC:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=22&h=51
Also, I can't help but wonder about the influence of Buddhism and Hinduism (both of which are gnostic if I understand correctly) on western culture, especially as they influenced the 1960's cultural revolution.
Well, the truth is that much of this is over my head. Apparently to have a clear grasp of what is going on one needs to be a theologian, a philosopher, an historian, a political scientist, and a psychologist. It's a tall order!
Caroline,
"one major current which you are leaving out in addressing modern PC is "postmodernism". As I understand it, postmodernism has roots in Rousseau and is basically anti-rational... Also, I can't help but wonder about the influence of Buddhism and Hinduism (both of which are gnostic if I understand correctly) on western culture, especially as they influenced the 1960's cultural revolution."
I'd say these things are implicitly (maybe too cryptically) covered by #5 of the factors I listed as manifesting/causing the sea change of the West -- namely, "5) the massive subculture of religious syncretism beginning in the 19th century".
(When I say "beginning in the 19th century", I'm not saying it didn't have roots earlier.)
The fascination with Oriental cultures and religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, began stirring in the 18th century in France and Germany and really picked up steam in the 19th century throughout the West, and greatly informed the larger tossing sea of what I call "religious syncretism" of the 19th century (which includes a revival of interest in mysticism, spiritualism, supernaturalism, Satanism, multicultural eclecticism, the fabrication of new-fangled sects (pseudo- or quasi-Christian like Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc., as well as others with no affiliation with Christianity per se), the proliferation of quack remedies and health techniques, the rise of science fiction, the obsessions in Romanticism with erotic and passionate surrender and self-annihilation to primitivism and "Nature", the rise of modern psychology, etc.) -- and of course this sea of syncretism has not by any means abated, but continues to expand, and I think has been a major influence on the rise of PC multiculturalism as a socio-cultural and political force. This religious syncretism is, on one level, a protracted arc of a process that was basically a semi-conscious response to the dissolution of the intellectual/spiritual synthesis of Christendom and the existential and intellectual disarray and disenchantment that caused.
jsla,
I agree, there seems to be a general, amorphous apocalypticism that has many flavors -- many mutually contradictory. I think this phenomenon is significant enough that I'll probably add it to my list of factors manifesting/causing the epochal sea change on my blog, since none of the factors I have listed really sufficiently cover it (even my #5 I noted in my post above to Caroline, "spiritual syncretism beginning in the 19th century", does not quite cover or sufficiently advert to this global and multiply conceived mood of apocalypticism).
TV - you're quite right. I read too fast to catch your #5 (religious sycretism), which of course would point to the impact of Buddhism and Hinduism on western thought. In fact, IIRC, that trend in the US started way before the 1960's with Emerson and Thoreau.
Still, I don't think you're going to get very far without explicitly addressing "postmodernism". In the broad scheme of things, I suspect that is where the explanation for PC ultimately lies from a philosophical POV. This is a book I know I definitely need to read, "Explaining Postmodernism":
http://www.explainingpostmodernism.com/
"Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left—the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism—now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism?
Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy."
My rough understanding is that we are dealing here with a schism in enlightenment philosophy that led to Locke and the US on the one hand (representing "modernity") vs the legacy of Rousseau and Kant on the other hand, which greatly affected the course of continental Europe well into the 20th century and continuing even today (Neitzsche,e.g. being a descendent of Rouuseau).
I barely understand what that basic schism is all about (other than to invoke broad terms like "Enlightenment" and "Counter-Enlightenment") but now you additionally throw into the mix the influence of Gnosticism, which of course well precedes the Enlightenment by many centuries. So I wonder - does Gnosticism have anything to do with that fundamental Locke-Rousseau/Kant philosophical split? The reason I ask is because Hicks clearly traces the roots of modern PC to that split, while you locate the roots of PC in Gnosticism. Are Rousseau and Kant closet gnosticists?
Okay - never mind that last question. I only raised it to demonstrate my confusion while at the same time suggesting that I do understand how a very few salient ideas can infuse everything, only I realize that most of us living our entirely ordinary lives, will never grasp what those BIG IDEAS were about, even as we deal with their fallout in our ordinary, everyday lives.
My kudos go out to anyone who would boldly attempt to put any of this into a simple enough language that those of us ordinary plebians caught up in the path of history might remotely understand how our little ordinary lives happened to intersect with those great ideas that have always driven the engine of human history.
Which I suppose is my way of saying that I look forward to your blog and your efforts to do just that. Just do us all a favor every now and then and remind us to check in on your blog.:-)
Caroline,
I don't know enough about Kant and his influence; what little I know I've gleaned through my favorite philosopher, Eric Voegelin, who knew a lot about him. Voegelin's main bag was diagnosing and analyzing the "deformation" he perceived to have happened to the modern West (he died in the mid-1980s). He wrote that as a young man embarking upon a career in philosophy in Austria, Kant was at the pinnacle of all philosophical study, and he took it upon himself to thoroughly master Kant in order to free himself from his hold on modern thought. Voegelin didn't conclude that Kant was completely wrong, just wrong on certain key points -- interestingly, Voegelin notes that one thing among many that helped free his mind from the Kantian box was a period of time he spent studying the history of the American Supreme Court: he found in the way they drew upon a tradition of common sense as well as the tradition of American and English philosophy of law a refreshing stream of thought that dealt with political philosophy (which to Voegelin is, as it was to Plato, the crown of philosophy, not some subspeciality) without having any recourse to Kant much at all.
One of the main points on which Voegelin concluded Kant was wrong was that, like most moderns and post-moderns, Kant was attacking and critiquing (and thereby building up a "New System" from the remains of) the ossified symbolisms of Christendom and ignoring the truth those symbolisms were translucent to -- truths that according to Voegelin were essentially the same truths preserved in the writings of Plato and Aristotle -- before they became ossified by a complicated historical process of reactionary defensiveness on the part of the Catholic Church as Christendom was slowly dissolving in the early Modern era.
On post-modernism, I agree this is an important issue, but on one level it's semantics, insofar as "post-modernism" is just a term denoting a process, in many ways the same process I've been analyzing in my blog. My blog is not complete and I leave out many factors (I try to convey this now and then on the blog). Insofar as "post-modernism" is a prevalent and commonly discussed topic, it would behoove me to integrate its public conversation at some point in my blog, so thanks for reminding me about that.
Tv - I find it fascinating that Voegelin "took it upon himself to thoroughly master Kant in order to free himself from his hold on modern thought", while at the same time "Voegelin notes that one thing among many that helped free his mind from the Kantian box was a period of time he spent studying the history of the American Supreme Court: he found in the way they drew upon a tradition of common sense as well as the tradition of American and English philosophy"
Could that tension in his thinking possibly represent the tension between Kant and Locke? That enlightenment schism I have surmised as being at the junction between "modernism" (the American political tradition) and "post modernism"? (where Europe has gone?) I don't know.
But I will say that your many posts about Voegelin have inspired in me a desire to read what the man had to say. Could you recommend what you consider his single best "must-read" book for those of us who might desire to get up to speed with his philosophy?
Caroline,
If you don't mind "jumping in the deep end", the best first Voegelin book I would recommend would be his 4th volume of Order and History subtitled "The Ecumenic Age".
If you want a really introductory type book, either of his two short paperback books "Science, Politics and Gnosticism" or "The New Science of Politics" would be good -- but they aren't as juicy as his denser works.
In many ways, some of his essays that never became books (though they are now part of the Collected Works) are the best of all -- particularly "Immortality: Experience and Symbolization" and "Wisdom and the Magic of the Extreme" -- these two, among others, just blew me away when I first read them.
One of the best books about Voegelin and his thought is "Eric Voegelin: Philosopher of History", by Eugene Webb.
If you ever get around to any of these, I'd like to know what you think.