Some experts are saying that the down side to this will possibly find more attacks directed towards American, and coalition troops instead of the sectarian violence that Zarqawi was trying to foment between Sunnis', and sheites'.
Note that the new defence minister for Iraq happens to be a Sunni. Many are now saying that Ql Qaida is more of a movement than an established Islamic front.
I bet God is giveing Nic Berg a free pass to hell for a day,so he can do some major @ss kicking,not to mention all the other people that b@sterd killed.
Libs, radicals and their willing dupes in the MSM mourn the loss of their folk hero, but are wasting no time trying to spin the news to their anti-american, anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-christian, agenda...
The best line I heard on this story came from a Fox studio anchor. I paraphrase: "F-16's dropped 500-pound bombs on al-Zarqawi's, well, unsafe house." I cracked up, doubled over with laughter.
And, I might add, that I slept safely in my bed last night while rough men were ready to do violence to my enemies. A great big "Thank You" to our military men and women. Well done.
And, I might add, that I slept safely in my bed last night while rough men were ready to do violence to my enemies. A great big "Thank You" to our military men and women. Well done.
While I understand what you're getting at, I still don't think that messing around in Iraq is going to make the US (or Europe) any safer. Probably the opposite.
I really don't care that taking him out won't put an end to the terrorists. That's not the point. The point is ONE loud mouthed sick sob is no longer among the living.
On the other hand it might well make some of the terrorist groupies have second thoughts. WAY to many muslims thought of the zee man as being an idol, someone who could kill with impunity and would NEVER be brought down.
Now what we need is bin laden and that old dude with the horn growing out of is forehead dead.
al Zarqawi will be replaced by some other mutt, of that you can be sure. However, we can rejoice in the fact that he has gone to the "paradise" of al illah and enjoying his 72 used-up c***s. Thanks for posting the shots of the house and the body. No one need doubt the deed. I saw a story over at Newsmax where locals damn us for bombing a house where only children were inside. Those chuckleheads over at Reuters really jumped on that one.
JC Supercop: "While I understand what you're getting at, I still don't think that messing around in Iraq is going to make the US (or Europe) any safer. Probably the opposite."
With all due respect, I guess you're one of those who have already forgotten 9/11, Bali (twice), Madrid, Beslan, London, et. al. Better the battle is waged over there than over here. Because the battle is going to be waged against us by our enemies, the jihadis following the dictates of Ol' Mo, whether you like it or not. Sorry, but "peace for our time" was lame in 1938, and is just as lame now. The lesson from history is that appeasement will not, and cannot, work. It's a matter of "pay me now, or pay me later." And I'd rather have our future generations not have to put up with this islamic garbage.
Not to be a wet blanket, and I understand the desire to dance a jig, but some of these comments are little better than the Pali children dancing in the streets and throwing candy on 9/11.
It is of the utmost importance for all of us to remember that this War is primarily a war of ideas and it is proven superiority of ideas that will ulitmately win the day. When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting we lose all credibility with those we might persuade.
No, I doubt he’s basking in the glow of his 72 virgins right now …more likely he’s being repeatedly jabbed in his hollowed-out eye sockets by Beelzebub’s thorned phallus. Either way, he’s no longer on this earth, making the world only a slightly better place to live.
He looks so nice and peaceful, doesn’t he? Islam is truly a religion of peace …when the maniacal, brutal, inhumane followers are all dead, that is!
Bin Laden your days are numbered! now the full specials force is upon you murderous monster.
you can take that to the bank! another bites the dust as the song goes! and another, and another..
with those jihadist caught red handed in Ontario, good news for all the free people of the world!
"It is of the utmost importance for all of us to remember that this War is primarily a war of ideas and it is proven superiority of ideas that will ulitmately win the day. When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting we lose all credibility with those we might persuade."
Again, 'gallopinggranny', why should we not rejoice in the death of a butchering, beheading islamic @sshole? Ideas are important, that I grant you, but sometimes one needs a visual to go with the ideas. Should Charlie Chaplain not have made "The Great Dictator" because it might have upset Hitler (which it did)? One only has to remember what the Italians did to Benito Mussolin and his mistress, Clara Petacci, or what the Romanians did to the Ceausescu's. Rejoicing in the death of evil is not evil, for "tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
I'm absolutely delighted that Zarqawi is dead.I also agree with someone who said the big news is that Zarqawi was eliminated due to good intelligence, flawless execution by the military and betrayal by someone in his organization.Zarqawi's death is a turning point and cause for celebration.I look forward to reading about the deaths of more Mujahid.
Rick wrote: Again, 'gallopinggranny', why should we not rejoice in the death of a butchering, beheading islamic @sshole?
Oh I think we SHOULD rejoice. Guess I just didn't make it clear. Putting another notch on the gun is great, our military deserves many a woo-who, and so forth.
That said, when we make superflous nasty comments about virgins and so forth, that makes us not one whit better than the idiots that cheered while the towers came down.
Who CARES what Islam believes about life after death? I sure don't. The last time I checked not one living soul has ever returned to give a complete, factual, detailed description. I don't care what anyone believes about life after death. I care what they believe about life BEFORE death - as do most of us. And that is what this war is about.
"That said, when we make superflous nasty comments about virgins and so forth, that makes us not one whit better than the idiots that cheered while the towers came down." ~ gallopinggranny.
Well, if ideas are important, this is their idea behind the jihad. We should mock the idea that killing innocents, and dying in the process, is the key to entry into the Playboy Club paradise that islam believes. We are not celebrating the deaths of innocents, as those who handed out sweets and ululated on 9/11 did. We are celebrating the demise of evil, and the beliefs of those who commit such evil, even if only one corpse at a time.
My suspicions, based upon what I've heard, about Ramadi and Haditha are that those places are mostly in favor of the Baathist elements and the foreign fighters, and that it is a minority in those places who are having to hunker down and hope we come to clean the places out. I am sure the jihadi leadership in those places are wide awake about Zarqawi's fate. There is much work left to be done in Iraq and the Iraqi military is getting there, but still has a ways to go.
So, gallopinggranny, how would you propose that we set up programs in those places whereby, in fair forum and debate, we get to exhange ideas and de-program them of their Islam? Send in professors and theologians? I guarantee one result from that: the heads of said academicians would be sent back to us with the attendant, appropriate messages.
Sadly, sometimes the only solution is to do a heap of killing.
Gallopinggranny,
I was thinking along your lines. I was thinking what this war has reduced us to. I am cheering at death, and baying for blood. But, these were but passing thoughts. We are in a war, and wars are not fought with gentle emotions. I think, I would rather be bloodthirsty, and savage, and unforgiving, giving no quarter to an enemy that has killed billions since its inception. To show any mercy to this enemy would be an insult to the billions dead. And so I shall rejoice at every small victory. So, I choose not to be 'better' than the enemy. I would rather be bloodthirsty, and savage, and unforgiving, so my kid can have a world in which he can afford to be gentle.
I'm sorry this might offend people. but... Should'nt we have let him live to continue his slaughter of the other fanatics? Shi'a and sunni(who Zarqawi was) fighting one another for endless decades is better than them taking it to us. Which is why we should'nt be in Iraq anymore...pull and let them do what comes natual - kill each other.
Am I way off base here? I've been wrong lots of times so maybe but I don't see the cause for big celebration. Someone will take his place because they have no shortage of people who love to die (it's an honor in this religion) and we're back to square one.
With all due respect, I guess you're one of those who have already forgotten 9/11, Bali (twice), Madrid, Beslan, London, et. al. Better the battle is waged over there than over here. Because the battle is going to be waged against us by our enemies, the jihadis following the dictates of Ol' Mo, whether you like it or not. Sorry, but "peace for our time" was lame in 1938, and is just as lame now. The lesson from history is that appeasement will not, and cannot, work. It's a matter of "pay me now, or pay me later." And I'd rather have our future generations not have to put up with this islamic garbage.
Oh, I don't mean that we should lay down arms and bend over in front of our new Islamic masters. I mean that blowing up Jihadists in Iraq is more or less futile. Jihadists are everywhere at once, and their political campaigns in the West are more dangerous than their IEDs in Iraq. I don't think it's possible to simply keep the battle in Iraq... it isn't going to have an effect on any future terrorist strikes, as recently witnessed in Canada. There is no frontline.
Gallopinggranny,
There is a BIG difference between us and the Palis. The Palis (and practically all of the Arab world) were dancing in the streets when 3,000 INNOCENT OFFICE WORKERS were murdered unprovoked. We are dancing in the aisles because a murderous, terrorist THUG and 7 of his b*tch-ass accomplices were snuffed out after killing hundreds of innocents, many of them brutally and barbarically beheaded with a dull knife in front of videocams (hello Nick Berg?) to be posted on the Web for recruiting videos.
And you say WE are being just as barbaric?
I, for one, will continue in my revelry and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it.
"Just curious, since they were able to get Zarquawi, what keeps the U.S. now (really) from finding and taking Osama bin Laden out?"
My guess is political timidity at the casualty numbers it require take to get OBL. he is located in a wild tribal region of Pakistan that not even Musharraf has contol over.
And logistics too, since we redeployed much from Afganistan to Iraq. But thse are armchair guesses.
So, gallopinggranny, how would you propose that we set up programs in those places whereby, in fair forum and debate, we get to exhange ideas and de-program them of their Islam?
I have never said this man should not have been killed. If you have read my remarks that way, then I suggest that you read them again.
Let me try to say this a little more clearly. The man is dead, good riddance, he was a plague on the face of humanity - both sides.
But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem." When you appear to attack Moslems as a whole rather than the jihad ideology, then reasonable people who might otherwise be convinced to follow the lead of Ali Sina take one look and label us all as the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like.
We don't need to set up forums "in those places." This IS one of those forums, accessible from virtually anywhere on earth. Naseem proves that almost daily.
If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general.
Allah killed Zarqawi. His death was predestined at the beginning of time, written on the Memorial Tablet by the Pen of Destiny. US forces were just the means to Allahs ends.
Muslims should learn a lesson from this...Allah wont protect you, and has already schedualed your death. It's a good thing that muslims worship death...Allah has lots of it planned for them, and he knows best...
al Zarqawi in recent years has been far more effective operationally than has OBL, whom I now consider to be an irrelevant figurehead and symbol dodging and ducking from cave to cave, from mud hut to mud hut. He has to use courier communications, because to use anything technological would be the death of him. Of course, his organization is alive and kicking, but they are having to spend more energy in preserving themselves rather than being on offense.
Overall, the operations of these respective men are far more important than they are. Anyone can step into their shoes, but it is not easy for their organizations to be remade and their losses made up for. So, I would much prefer simply killing and capturing the foot soldiers, for now. Of course, if a leader drops into our laps, all to the better.
No, gallopinggranny, I am enjoying the death of al Zarqawi. Very much so. When you go back through fourteen hundred centuries of jihad conquest and take stock of the many, many millions killed in the name of al illah, plus the many more millions (or billions)whose lives have been severely disrupted by this death cult, a little celebration every now and then can be allowed for. There is no moral equivalency here; those who practice the argument of moral equivalency are intellectually still adolescents, stuck in a rigid, totalitarian form of idealism.
Your last post demonstrates that you have never read the Qur'an, ahadith, or Sira. We reserve the right on this weblog and on others to criticize and attack Islam based upon our knowledge of its history. The ideology of jihad is based on the dozens of injunctions which refer to it in the Qur'an. It is a key concept of that religion, not an ancillary one. Islam's key end goal is exactly to effect our conversion or submission - globally and for eternity. The means described, viz, war, execution, razzia, dhimma, and jizya, are intended to compel the hegemony of al illah on earth.
Your "tolerance" is the true intolerance, since you consider any other point of view to be the thoughts of knuckledraggers who should be banned from any forum.
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
Enjoy his death. We SHOULD celebrate the death of a monster. I had the TV on first thing this AM too.
What we should not do is throw the baby out with the bath water by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks like the one (and a few other similar) above.
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
We are makeing fun of the idiots,because it is why the dumb @ss's kille people,for 72 virgins.
What we should not do is throw the baby out with the bath water by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks like the one (and a few other similar) above.
if that makes us racist for THEM killing for virgins,then I and MOST everybody else will where that badge proudly.
"If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general." ~ gallopinggranny
gallopinggranny, al-Zarqawi is a product of islam; he was not created in a void (or did you forget all of his 'islamic' pronouncements?). al-Zarqawi is a poster child for islam, especially that second picture at the top of this thread. Hmmm, that photo might make a good US military recruiting poster, come to think of it.
How is a "blowing up jihadists in Iraq more or less futile"? A dead jihadi is a good thing, no matter where, and at whose hands, they die.
Yes, but, like I said somewhere before, it's like pissing out a forest fire. For the situation in Iraq, it's beneficial (I guess), but it won't even put a dent on the global Jihad.
In a perfect world, we could magically deport all Muslims from infidel lands, cut off as much contact as possible with all Islamic nations, and perform strategic military strikes if it looks like they're about to acquire a WMD or something. If they try to use the oil card, we just take the oil fields by force. Then, hopefully, the isolated Muslims will come to realize that they need to abandon Islam if they want to be more than barbarians roaming the deserts while the rest of the world is out colonizing Mars. Alternatively, they'll just Jihad each other to death. Not our problem in any case.
The above isn't strictly my idea, I think Hugh might have written about it once. As far as I can see, it's the only working solution. Bombing terrorists in Iraq is not a long term solution.
Whoever suggested to you, Fred, that I was TOLERANT? Nor have I ever suggested that anyone be banned. Quite the contrary! (See other threads.) I certainly have read the Koran and am all too well aware of the battleground.
If we want to win this war, if we have no intention of seeing our women walking around under bed sheets, then we need to covince both our own ostriches that there even IS a valid war and those Moslems who are not enthralled with the religion they were born to that there is a better way.
Mao once said that "Power comes from the end of a gun." Quite true. Ideas, though, are eternal. Long after the barrel of a gun has dissolved to rust, ideas transcend time, space and civilizations.
Please do criticize Islam. I certainly do. But please try to do it in a thoughtful, considered way. Offhanded, ridiculous remarks about sex and virgins are not criticism of Islam. They are AMMUNITION for our own see-nothings who would call us racist Islamophobes.
Make the US (or Europe) any safer,
Hmmm,
1990 Iraq… was it not the 3rd largest army in the world? Saddam and sons Inc, sitting on lakes of oil among other things http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html.
Did we proceed to humiliate him by annialating his army and war making infrastructure? http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2020.html
Given the muslim propensity for revenge even if it takes a 1000 years how long do you suppose it would have been before he or his spores attempted some atrocity on us covertly or otherwise? If saddam had not been taken alive we could begin withdrawing shortly. I supported the President on Iraq but my target date back then was late 2006 for a significant reduction to begin. Zark is gone, lets get saddam done and bring our men home. Safe is a pre 9/11 mindset. Read J/W posts. Safe no longer exists.
Gallopinggranny,
Why the racist smear? Explain the link between 72 virgins and racism please.
While I understand the above criticisms completely, again I ask what is wrong with being Islamophobic? As reader Fred pointed out yestersday, would anyone mind being called A Naziphobe? No, not at all.
Most of us would not want to be lableled a Xenophobe or anti-Semite or anything like that because these are bigotries based on misfound ideas, misconceptions misapprehensions etc.
Many of us here are reading and studying Islam here. We know Islam is the problem. We are indeed quite Islamophobic.
Is that a crime on the books to be Islamophobic? Is it at all wrng? Or should we just give it up and not be, becasue the mainstream media will label us Islamophobic and slander our images?
Glad to hear that we are more or less on the same page. Still, let's let the boys have their day of making fun of the Islamic view of sex. It deserves ridicule from every quarter, even from those us (like me)who are not libertines. I consider the 72 virgins in paradise concept to be more offensive than the poking fun at it. Generally, I don't get down in the dirt but once in awhile and this is fairly deemed one of those times. Being new to this forum, I am not familiar with your views about Islam, and so I am duly informed and retract my eroneous impression.
The most interesting item of the day, apart from Z-Man's demise, has to be Nick Berg's father's reaction to it. Bizarre in the extreme. If it were me, and my boy had been beheaded by these savages, I would be celebrating any victory over them in any way I can take it. Won't bring my son back, but the more of those savages we kill the smaller the butcher's bill, in the LONG run, on our side of the equation.
The argument that we are anti-Jihad, not anti-Islam makes us no different from the Daniel Pipes' of the world, who see this as a war on "Islamism" as opposed to Islam. This is deceptive, since there is no version of Islam that tolerates co-existance with Infidel faiths. If you think we should not be anti-Islamic, then you haven't been paying attention to what Islam actually advocates worldwide.
Yes, nobody has any idea of what the afterlife is, but that's not the point. We weren't the ones who came up with the houris - the Quran did. We weren't the ones who came up with descriptions of which places in heaven and hell different groups of people, depending on whether they are Muslim or not, end up - Mohammed did. We didn't come up with the porn paradise that describes the Islamic Afterlife - the Ahadith did.
It is inappropriate to treat Zarqawi's death as a dignified loss, similar to one's uncle or granny passing away. It isn't. He deserves a send-off similar to Adolf Eichmann, but probably won't get it. Just because people here (and elsewhere) may gloat about his sessions with the virgins, or with boys, doesn't mean that we believe it: it's just us mocking them with their own Quranic fantasies. And given what they believe in, and more importantly how they display it, trying to address them with dignity would be like attempting a land assault on Teheran using a frigate.
Oh, and I reject this notion that we should be "better than them". That's what our forebears did several millenia ago with the likes of Mohammed and the Caliphs, and we're still paying the price.
What a waste of a human being, with all the poverty and oppression within Islamic Nations this
hunk of sh*t chose to murder civilians and behead God's children for Allah.
I'd gladly give my pension money just to see the look on his face when Satan greets him at the gates of hell.
Gallopinggranny,
Why the racist smear? Explain the link between 72 virgins and racism please.
I didn't make the original 72 virgins comments tgusa. I have been attempting to point out that comments like that, while they might fullfill some individual need within ourselves for celebration, make us appear to those who do not yet share our views to be full of the same kind of racism and hatred we accuse the Palestinians of (the ones that danced in the streets on 911.)
While I understand the above criticisms completely, again I ask what is wrong with being Islamophobic?
Just this: if we portray ourselves in such a way that those who do not share our views can point to comments that we have made (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of racism or hatred and "religious intolerance", then WE WILL LOSE!
Robert, Hugh and Ali Sina all share one very strong characteristic that makes them very powerful spokemen: The never allow themselves to descend to name-calling in any way, but day after day base their work and their arguments on logic, reason and hard evidence, often the very words of the Koran itself. Some regulars here share that characteristic - storagemanager comes quickly to mind.
There is nothing whatever wrong with being Islamophobic in the sense of studying Islam to repudiate it. Giving the enemy the first excuse to equate us with Jew haters and Nazis is something else entirely!
Every single time that one of us makes foolish comments that can be used against us, then we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Unity in voice and message against Islam would be nice, but it's not necessary. Intelligent people with good reading comprehension skills will come here and see past any school yard slurs. They will glean from Robert's insight and others, while understanding that some comments are coming from raw rage.
What is the type of person who is able to grok what this site offers but nevertheless, is disuaded and turned away by crude comments directed at terrorists and Islamists? They are the type of person who is looking for affirmation of the negative: they're looking for proof that what their liberal friends have been saying about Islamophobia is true.
I've never seen an online public forum that didn't have below the belt comments. Even on religious forums. Even on philosophy forums with most users sporting PhD's. The only pure forums are private forums that are pretty small.
Personally, I don't mind crude comments. Some of them are well crafted and can be very funny. That said, I hang here because the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty high. Everyone's got their own threshold.
Just this: if we portray ourselves in such a way that those who do not share our views can point to comments that we have made (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of racism or hatred and "religious intolerance", then WE WILL LOSE!
Robert, Hugh and Ali Sina all share one very strong characteristic that makes them very powerful spokemen: The never allow themselves to descend to name-calling in any way, but day after day base their work and their arguments on logic, reason and hard evidence, often the very words of the Koran itself. Some regulars here share that characteristic - storagemanager comes quickly to mind.
There is nothing whatever wrong with being Islamophobic in the sense of studying Islam to repudiate it. Giving the enemy the first excuse to equate us with Jew haters and Nazis is something else entirely!
Every single time that one of us makes foolish comments that can be used against us, then we shoot ourselves in the foot.
I've learned that any criticism againts Islam is, without failure, interpreted as bigoted and racist Islamophobia, no matter how it's presented. Saying "death to Muslims" is no different from what Spencer & co are doing, because at the end of the day it's all just racism and Islamophobia in the eyes of Muslims and dhimmis. You're a card-carrying member of the KKK as soon as you say something unflattering about Islam, period. I can't even remember how many times it has been suggested that I would have been right at home in Nazi Germany because I see Islam as dangerous.
gallopinggranny you seem to make a good argument, but does it hold up to scrutiny? I concur that we shouldn't be triumphalists about this, nor should we chortle over such deaths overmuch. I'm certainly not arguing for raving against them as they do against us.
Still, I would argue with the premise of your sentiments with a simple question:
Who exploits the label "Islamophobe" ?
1. Muslims who wish to take the discussion about Islam into the ditch.
2. Western detractors who share with the Muslim fascist a deep antipathy for the West.
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
Let's look at group #1. Can you provide a single strand of evidence that expressions of "tolerance" and "kindness" to Muslims has ever translated into a sincere respect for our "values" of "tolerance" and "kindness"? I suggest there is no evidence for this premise. Muslim antipathy for us is independent of our actions. It is fundamental and zealous. In fact, through the lense of Islam, many (perhaps most) Muslims interpret our xpressions of "sympathy" "tolerance" "kindness" and decency as weakness by us. So it could be argued that expressions of tolerance, sympathy, or kindness encourage Muslims to go for our jugular. Expressions of sympathy or delicateness may accomplish the exact opposite of what you assert. This group is undeterrable. This group will be hard to crush.
Now group #2. Would this self-loathing group have any less antipathy for the West if no anti-Islamic utterances ever occurred. Their antipathy is also deeply rooted and zealous. They deftly exploit terms such as "Islamophobe" to squelch debate. Their pseudo-expressions of solidarity with their Muslim Komrades is simply a classic expression of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and is a marriage of convenience. I'd suggest your susceptibility to their hollow "accusations" of "Islamophobe" encourages them to continue their tactics, and aids them in deflecting and squelching debate. This group is maniplatable and crushable. That's not to say it will be easy to crush them, however.
Now group #3. These are the great undecideds. They are susceptible to the arguments and constructs of the self-loathing haters of the West. They believe it is an expression of "values" to show tolerance at all costs, even to enemies they know little to nothing about. They aren't very curious. They probably are too busy or unintelligent to do their own research and thinking. This group is the only pursuadable sector. It might be a good idea to examine the propaganda of the enemies of the West to understand how they manipulate this vast undecided constituency. That requires a robust effort to deconstruct their propaganda (i.e. labels such as "Islamaphobe" and "tolerance" and "open mindedness", etc). I would suggest that utilizing their propaganda in order to defeat their intentions is not the way to go.
I ask you to examine your premises, as I have no doubt that you are not numbered among the haters of the West, nor among the set who are incurious.
deesine, maybe it doesn't matter why people initially come to this site. Especially people who come looking to affirm a negative. Most people who bother to personally investigate what their liberal friends have been saying do so because, for whatever reason, they have doubts. If they did not doubt the validity, then no investigation would be required.
I've never seen a forum either that didn't have off-color remarks, below the belt comments and outright flame wars. Thats fine. Like I told someone the other day - if you can't take the heat, stay in the kitchen. I don't mind crude remarks and have even been known to make a few of them myself.
You might have noticed/heard though that traffic here and at other similar sites is increasing dramatically. Lots of those people stay quiet, but they all pay attention. For every one of us that posts something there are a thousand or more that just read and digest.
Yes, those who will not see will invariably equate us with the KKK no matter what, but there are those who are undecided or as yet uneducated to the danger. Who do we want those folks to agree with? Us, or Islam's fellow travelers?
Gallopinggranny :Just this: if we portray ourselves in such a way that those who do not share our views can point to comments that we have made (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of racism or hatred and "religious intolerance", then WE WILL LOSE!
What this means is that the best sounding liar wins. For instance, we all know that Islam is not a race. When someone posts that here, they are quickly corrected. That lie cant prevail here. Thats not 'losing'. Most of the time any racism or sexism, expressed here, is in jest.
In order to turn that into a form of evil, the observer must attach evil too it themselves, and then believe their own lie. These people are not capable, in the present, to absorb truth. So lying becomes the prefered method. I dont capitulate anything to a liar. Every aspect of Islam is a lie. Truth bullets coated with jest or sarcasm penetrate Allah to the heart. The very people we might 'lose' to, know this also, thats why they get so worked up over cartoons and such. To them I say, "the truth hurts, dont it"...To sum it up, I dont see myself or us, losing to anyone who's capacities are so limited. While I might agree with you that image is important, and it's not a good idea to give the enemy ammunition, walking on egg's for them, is a form of 'losing' also...I wont do it.
We dont need to see eye to eye, as long as we see. I'm happy you understand Allah and what that means...have a good day... swami
gallopinggranny: The folks who equate Jihad Watch posters with the KKK are probably the same ones selling Americans out to the enemies we face, one way or another. And they will almost certainly get theirs. The day may yet come when treason is once again regarded and treated as a serious offense in the western democracies. And Islam and Communist sympathizers here and elsewhere may have some serious 'splaining to do!
jsla, your points are well made. You, however, leave out one vital group of people: the huge number of people who still, for whatever reason, swallow the Islam = Peace argument, without themselves belonging to any of the three groups you enumerate.
The point is just this: If we want to win this war, then we must first bring the war to the court of public opinion. In and of ourselves we do not individually or even as a group have the power & resources to take on Islam and our own countrymen simultaneously.
Think about going to court, even on something like Judge Judy. The very first thing that any good defense lawyer does is make sure his defendant appears in court well groomed, well dressed and ready to say "Yes Your Honor" at the appropriate times. Want to lose? Show up in court dressed like a red-neck, drunk with a chaw in your cheek.
Appearances count. In court. At job interviews. When you want to get into an Ivy League college on a scholarship. And when you want to change public opinion.
I don't give a rat's behind what the liberal left, the Islamic world think of me personally or us collectively. But those that care to come looking, to investigate for themselves, to listen to that little niggle of doubt - THEM I care what they think.
I am personally delighted that Zarqawi is dead. Someone posted earlier that they couldn't wait to see his face. I would like to see his face too - when he stands before G*d and realizes that he has been decieved by the Father of Lies. We should celebrate. But we shouldn't be stupid about it.
I agree with you that walking on egg shells damages the cause. I tend to respect people who speak their minds, no matter how uncrafted or politically incorrect. I don't trust people who are skilled at disguising their message in linguistic folds and sugar coated euphemisms.
Crude posts are keeping it real, and I like to believe other people value that as well.
I wonder what he thought in the last seconds as heard the faint sound of a guided bumb appraching....what did his muslim spritual guide say or do....where was the power of allah??? If he was so great why did this happen....
Technolgy trumps Islam anyday. No god shield. No angels to save him. No Mo. Nothing...only the sound of whispering death made by an American engineer using good old technology and based on the laws of Physics...a rational weapon from a rational nation...for a rational future.
With that said may he rot in hell with the rest of his crew for the rest of time.
I wonder what Osama bin Laden is thinking? This bombing was thanks to inside information. Osama must be giving strange looks to his "close associates". Is Osama next?
What this means is that the best sounding liar wins.
No, Swami - what this means is that if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is, in the minds of most people, a duck.
When we make outrageous, downright stupid gratuitous* comments about sex with boys and 72 virgins then we are giving the ENEMY ammunition to say "Hey - look at the duck!"
*note the word gratuitous. Sex with boys, pedophilia and 72 virgins is not gratuitous in the context of a discussion about the realities of the Quranic.
"I wonder what Osama bin Laden is thinking? This bombing was thanks to inside information. Osama must be giving strange looks to his "close associates". Is Osama next?"
OBL is relieved no doubt.
How do we know Bin laden wasnt behind the betrayal [not saying he's working with the US, hold on to your horses] Zawahiri issued a warning to Zarqawi and chastisements, even dirty looks from OBL probably rival kisses from Don Corleone.
The very thoughts that crossed my mind were:
1)so Zarqawi's dead
2)Zarqawi was an elusive hard kill
3)Bin laden viz a vis Zawahiri chastised Zarqawi
4)Zawakiri makes Bin laden look like a coward when it comes to giving speeches about "fighting the Americans"
4)hmm...
I dont want worry at all what adherents of Islam think of me. When I see the Pakistani who runs the mosque in my homwtown in his baggys I want to look oddly at him and say "You ought to be ashamed of yourself comeing out in public desssed that way! Put some decent clothes on!" but I don't because I grew up in liberal America. Whatever floats your boat. But I do teach my children to stay away from the shrouded and veiled woman and if I say aloud to them "Children, dont go near that woman she may blow up" so be it. Let HER live with the shame HER religion/culture created.
Same thing if I call the cops on muslim men praying in public without a permit at a football game. No apologies for the police search. If people want hold a prayer service in public, do it in by the book. Get a permit!
What I dont want if for there to be any kind of restriction on a public outlet to voice out anger frustration against Islam on any level. Even if it is say "I am glad Zarqawi died" or any of the various slurs that basicall say "The beliefs held by muslims are laugablly rediculous"
Zarqawi got killed because he was complacent after many successful terrorist campaigns. From nobody to success to complacency to death.... over a short few years! After all, this Muslim terroist named Zarqawi was not as an astute leader as I think he was. Like all Muslim terrorists before him, he was prone to making mistakes on which coalition forces were waiting to capitalize. Muslims terrorists have real strength, but rely on deception, fear, and manipulation. Just a bomb, Zarqawi was dead! :-)
While I fully understand and admire the tact with which men and women like Spencer, Fitzgerald and Sina carry themselves in the debate, I must point out that it is just as necessary to have the flipside, but without stepping into the realm of ignorant savage.
Case in point: Patton was a poet. But he was also a cussing, spitting, hate-spewing warrior.
Then there was the political general: Eisenhower.
Both men together were far more dangerous than either man alone. They basically beat Germany during the Second World War.
I know exactly what I'm doing when I rabble-rouse. Though sometimes I lose my temper, I often do things for a specific purpose or to elicit a specific response. As long as the enemy can't figure that part out, then I'm doing it right.
So, while I will agree that going totally into a name-calling session serves no real good, backing entirely away from hatred for our enemies is also counter-productive.
There is no longer any reason to be polite or nice to this enemy. All that is required is to win. Or, as Patton so famously said, "Make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
GreatShaitan - it's simply prudent to make your children aware of the grievous dangers posed by our exploding muslim populations.
gallopinggranny -- the group you call "the huge number of people who still, for whatever reason, swallow the Islam = Peace argument, without themselves belonging to any of the three groups you enumerate." are included in group #3 as I describe above:
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
Non-muslims who have bought into the tripe that Islam is a religion of peace, or that "Muslims want the exact same things that we want" are the pursuadable ones -- I fully agree that this is a target audience, as they represent by far the vast majority of Westerners.
But you are absolutely correct about decorum. It is nearly always a good thing. The ranting frothing supplicant has already lost his case, no matter how meritous his complaints.
Even so, I think there's also a place when fighting enemies includes judiciously working to devalue, defame, and ridicule them. It's OK sometimes to provoke them, but it must be done intelligently. In a war, it's not only OK to formulate ugly caricatures of them, it's NECESSARY in order to make it permissable to annihilate them.
War is often thought of by fatuous fools as the absolute nadir of human endeavors. At some point they will be disabused of this absurd folly. The nadir of human endeavors is the wanton disregard for your circumstances when the enemy is holding a knife at your throat, or climbing in your window to snuff out your family.
Doing it right is a complicated balancing act. But war should never be easy to wage or win, otherwise it probably isn't justified. Other means would do.
Those who believe we're not in a war are strictly limited to groups #2 and #3 as I describe them above. Group #1, the Muslims (and I mean ALL Muslims) understand on some level that their religion axiomatically places them in opposition to all non-Muslims. Therefore, they know to various degrees that war is being waged for the sake of Allah every day that they utter his execrable name.
I know exactly what I'm doing when I rabble-rouse. Though sometimes I lose my temper, I often do things for a specific purpose or to elicit a specific response. As long as the enemy can't figure that part out, then I'm doing it right.
And that is exactly my point Foehammer - you know EXACTLY what you are doing when you rabble rouse!
Case in point: Patton was a poet. But he was also a cussing, spitting, hate-spewing warrior.
Then there was the political general: Eisenhower.
Patton was charged with driving millions up the Italian peninsula, something he was uniquely qualified to do. Few generals ever have the ability to motivate that Patton possessed.
Poor Eisenhower was stuck in London having to make nice with recalcitrant "Allies" of every stripe. (I hear, BTW, that he could be a cussing, spitting warrior himself now and then.) Likely a good thing though. Had the roles been reversed London would have been awash in blood. Patton would not have brooked the goings-on for five minutes LOL!
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
I think you do many undecideds a huge disservice jsla. I know many an extremely patriotic American who love our country dearly and who are not touchy-feely in the least, but who are yet so angered at President Bush for everything else that the forest behind the trees simply has not yet come to their attention.
Just one word really about Zarqawi's death that may not resonate with many here, but I think it is timely "alhamdulilah". Next on the list should be Ismail Haniyeh, Mahmhoud Zahar, the entire Hamas leadership, the entire Hizbollah leadership. Reprsentatives from both terrorist entities have expressed sympathy for Zarqawi and the "resistance".
We are our own worst enemies. Your comment is a case in point.
I've read that comment several times and I can't help but come to the conclusion that, by that comment, you're just as guilty of what you accuse tgusa of.
gallopinggranny -- You're correct to point this out. "Touchy feely" was a bad attempt to simplify the category, but it just confused my intent. Really the "undecideds" are those who just don't agree yet with what you and I know about the dangers of Islam. Whatever the reason for their ignorance, they remain the target audience, and I think you agree with that. After all, they are the only ones that are pursuadable.
Category #1 -- the Muslim insurrectionists won't change their minds any time soon. Category #2 also won't change their minds. They are bent on undermining the West until it conforms to their dystopic fantasy world.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of George Bush except to the extent that we don't have a viable alternative. Damned with faint praise.
The real world keeps spinning, the Muslims keep coming, and the underminers keep undermining... I have said it before, our era needs a Western hero with the intellect and wiles of Tallyrand -- the only man who survived the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the proto-Hitler Napoleon, and the reinstallment of French kings again. Maybe that's a bad example, since he presided over the most blood drenched period of French History. But never was a man alive who could see the significance of this or that before it happened. He was a true genius for playing the forces against each other to manage a safe passage. What he did for himself is what the West now needs to do for itself. Come through hurricanes to come.
"If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general."
Islam is the problem. It is what him the monster that he was.
galloppinggranny - while I understand the point you're trying to make about decorum, this is where you lose me:
"But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem." When you appear to attack Moslems as a whole rather than the jihad ideology, then reasonable people who might otherwise be convinced to follow the lead of Ali Sina take one look and label us all as the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like….If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general.
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:17 PM
"
The reason you lose me there is that mocking the 72 virgins idea is NOT anti-Moslem. It is mocking Islam. Something that Ali Sina is quite adept at and makes a clear distinction about - mock Islam but don't mock Muslims. But at the end of your post you admonish posters for "personal attacks on Islam", suggesting to me that you are a bit confused. Yes of course we attack Islam "in general" - which is precisely what mocking the idea of the 72 virgins in paradise is about. (And what is wrong with mocking a ridiculous belief that may have been a huge motivation for Zarqawi to wantonly and brutally kill so many people?) But how can mocking that facet about islam constitute a "personal attack on Islam"? Is Islam capable of taking offense? No. Of course not. Only Muslims can take offense (as human beings, which Islam is not) if they are personally attacked. But Islam cannot take offense. But if your point is that Muslims in general will take offense at posters here mocking Islam - and that we should avoid mocking (or criticizing - where do you draw the line?) Islam - then I think you've missed the point altogether. And you've certainly missed Ali Sina's point.
Zarqaqi last acts apparently was the beheading of a group of 'Shia's' and a "moderate" Sunni close to yesterday's bull's eye. Apparently, several heads were found in banana boxes. I guess that's one way to track a Salafi psycho: just follow the grim tidings of human heads. This shows you how nutso Islam is. That a guy like this could receieve succor by Bin Laden, but also lovely Iran with its true Shia path. Zarqaqi receieved protection in Iran as well. What freaked out, messed up, pathetic religion could tolerate a guy like this, let alone join him, revere him, die for him? All in the name of the lovely, religion of peace. Remember, Islam means peace.
I have one more comment to add, concerning the running debate between "gallopinggranny" and some of us whose 72 virgins' comments have rubbed her the wrong way. She states that this site and this debate will only inflame our enemies and turn off potential converts if we let slip an occasional rusticism while celebrating the death of a nefarious jihadi. My experience with people who, during the past five or six years, have been either on the sidelines or who have veered somewhat away from recognizing this as a fight for the defense of our civilization, our liberties, and our religions, is this: most of them will not believe us anyway when we tell them that Islam means submission and that jihad is the way of Allah. From my own experience, I was reluctant to believe these things too, more than six years ago. It was not until I read Mr. Spencer's books and then went out and bought a Qur'an for myself to read that my eyes were opened. One has to undertake the journey because one is first curious. If you do not have the inner motivation to learn about these things, you are not going to do it because someone is suggesting you do it or trying to make you see reason. The only thing we can do to avoid being labelled Islamophobes (and I actually do not mind being called that)is to cease being critical of Islam. And that is something I am not prepared to do.
But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem
Well Galloping Granny, you just proved you haven't been reading anything Hugh and Robert post here. The whole point of this site is to prove through example that: Islam = Jihad. The Koran demands it. I find it impossible to be anti-jihad without being, consequentely, anti-islamic.
Yes, race enters into it. But that is not our fault. That is their fault. And it is too bad because the race angle protects islam in our liberal societies from criticism, counter attack, and legal prosecution. For that reason, I wish race was not apart of it. It is their greatest asset in their jihad. It is what protects them.
But I also have customers who are Arabic. I work for them. And it is my pleasure to do so. But they are Copts. Christians. There is something fundamentally different about them. And it ain't the crucifix on the wall.
I always like the pre-karmic idea that a killer is "substituted backwards in time" and has to stand in for all of his victims, at the time and manner of their murders.
In essence, every crime suffered by every criminal.
May Zarqawi now be awakening, again and again and again, to discover himself gagged, blindfolded, and hearing his own manifesto of screams and his own knife approaching.
profitsbeard - why is what you suggest "pre-karmic" as opposed to simply "karmic"? One wouldn't need to be transported BACK in time to be subjected to horrible punishment. Zarqawi could be reborn tomorrow as a woman in (apparently soon to be Talibanesque) Somalia - and be married off as a 9 year old to a disgusting, malodorous 60 year old man with rotting teeth who rapes and beats him regularly, eventually throws acid in his face and finds himself stoned to death eventually by his Islamic brethren.
Personally I don't get the idea of eternal hell. Reincarnation and karma makes a whole lot more sense to me from a theological perspective (bad, "quasi-Christian" that I am).
Actually PB - on second thought - I do like the idea you describe - that one would simply have to personally relive whatever pain one inflicted in this lifetime. That would be real justice.
I simply cannot believe in the notion of "eternal hellfire", because where is the justice in that? That's not justice. That's just savagery and the all too human emotion of revenge.
But does any religion (ancient even) actually endorse the belief in the "afterlife" which you decribe?
I don’t know if any religion endorses it but Dante’s Inferno describes the different levels of hell and the punishments doled out for various sins. Interesting though that murder will get you the 7th circle while treachery will deposit you in circle 9.
Sorry Caroline - didn't mean to lose anyone. Let me try again:
The reason you lose me there is that mocking the 72 virgins idea is NOT anti-Moslem. It is mocking Islam. Something that Ali Sina is quite adept at and makes a clear distinction about - mock Islam but don't mock Muslims.
One thing you might notice about Robert, Ali, Hugh, etc. is that they always try to stick to facts/arguments that they can win, even while they are making fun.
Religious faith is, unfortunately, very hard to apply things like logic and reason to - that's why it is faith. It is easy to mock many things in Islam, and many attitudes of their fellow travelers. As an example, some group or other is making a huge fuss today because the US showed the perp's dead mug shot on international TV, claiming it was a "violation of the Geneva Convention!!!!" I ask you - WHERE were these nice folks screaming about the Geneva Convention when Zarqawi beheaded Nick Berg and posted the entire event to the net, which then was transmitted worldwide?
Every religion has some vision or other of what life after death is like. Most of them are in some way or another ridiculous to those of other religions. The religous concept of some heaven in the next life is one of the very first religious concepts children learn, in any religion, thus one of the hardest to undo. More importantly, no one at any time in world history has come back with solid proof of exactly who is right and who is wrong. So, by definition, arguments about the afterlife are moot anyway.
All of us here think that 72 virgins in Paradise (not Heaven) is laughable. Millions of people do not. It is 100% fair - and logical - to point out the illogic, inconsistencies and contradictions in Islam itself between the expectations of "perfection" in this life and the wild abandon of the next. To do so is also an effective tactic with both "undecideds" and those born Moslem who have doubts. To point out that women, who have virtually no rights other than to dehumanize themselves under a bedsheet in this life, simultaneously have no expectation of the afterlife either is fair. And effective. At least some small portion of those millions of people who believe in 72 virgins might change their minds. Apostate ex-muslims are becoming more and more common and we should welcome every one of them.
To say something like "I bet he's having a sextravaganza" (no offense intended to the authors) rather than something along "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" lines is gratuitous. It sounds like kids out in the school yard - nah, nah your Mamma wears combat boots.
But at the end of your post you admonish posters for "personal attacks on Islam", suggesting to me that you are a bit confused. Yes of course we attack Islam "in general" - which is precisely what mocking the idea of the 72 virgins in paradise is about. (And what is wrong with mocking a ridiculous belief that may have been a huge motivation for Zarqawi to wantonly and brutally kill so many people?)
More likely I was distracted rather than confused. Kitchen's full of bread dough, made 3 gallons of spahgetti sauce and I am a homeschool teacher, LOL.
I don't believe that the 72 virgins in Paradise is the motivator for Zarqawi or anyone else. It may be the convenient lie these folks and their families hide behind when they excuse sending their sons off to slaughter, but I know of no pyschopath (and that is exactly what this man was) who murders for anything other than the pleasure of the kill.
In our society, we view serial killers as an aberration, to be locked up till the day they die if we catch them in a state we cannot execute them in. Islam - for whatever reasons, be they societal or religious, produces serial killers who claim to act in the name of some god, much like a few in the West who have claimed exactly the same. The difference is that in the West we know darned good and well that such a serial killer is having hallucinations. Islamic serial killers are operating under a mass delusion shared by a huge chunk of the society in which they live.
(snipped a bit)But if your point is that Muslims in general will take offense at posters here mocking Islam - and that we should avoid mocking (or criticizing - where do you draw the line?) Islam - then I think you've missed the point altogether. And you've certainly missed Ali Sina's point.
I have little or no concern about Moslems in general. I have none whatever about what the Islamic world might think. Criticism is good, especially when it is based on something that can be logically torn asunder. Mockery is good, when it reinforces that criticism.
Not for half a second would I, as an example, refuse to publish a cartoon like those that caused the mega riot. Those were valid criticism and as a non-Moslem, I am not subject and refuse to be subject to their religious principles, any more than I would expect a Moslem to genuflect on entering a church, kiss the bishop's ring or wear a prayer shawl.
There are certain things though, in any religion, that one can make fun of "just because," 72 virgins being one of them. To those of us who don't believe in 72 virgins and know the dangers of Islam, this might be funny.
To an "undecided" who came looking for answers, it more likely appears to be hate speech, no matter the context or intent.
To a Moslem-by-birth possibly taking a few tentative steps away from this horror, this might very well seem to be a very personal attack of deeply held beliefs by a schoolyard bully.
gallopinggranny: "I don't believe that the 72 virgins in Paradise is the motivator for Zarqawi or anyone else. It may be the convenient lie these folks and their families hide behind when they excuse sending their sons off to slaughter, but I know of no pyschopath (and that is exactly what this man was) who murders for anything other than the pleasure of the kill."
But then aren't you slandering Muslims by that statement? Aren't you implying (by dismissing the ideological motivation inherent in islam - including their view of the afterlife) that they are in some way "genetically" motivated to kill? Is that a more comforting explanation than the notion that they kill because of an ideology - that ideology being Islam? And if you were to consider the possibility that they kill because of Islam/ideology (as opposed to some genetic explanation positing a virulent strain of psychopathy), would the 72 virgins constitute part of that explanation for why they kill?
"Islam - for whatever reasons, be they societal or religious, produces serial killers who claim to act in the name of some god, much like a few in the West who have claimed exactly the same. The difference is that in the West we know darned good and well that such a serial killer is having hallucinations. Islamic serial killers are operating under a mass delusion shared by a huge chunk of the society in which they live."
But now it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.
"Islam...produces serial killers".
True.
Of course they "claim to act in the name of some God"
but you are also implying there that Muslims en masse share in this mass delusion ( you refer to "a huge chunk of the society in which they live"). You are also inadvertently implying by that statement that this "mass delusion" is due to Islam (unless you want to argue that this tendency towards mass murder is somehow genetic in nature)
But if this tendency towards mass murder IS due to ideology (as opposed to a genetic predisposition towards psychopathy) what parts of islam as an ideology contribute to this tendency towards mass murder then?
Why would you out of hand dismiss the idea of 72 virgins in paradise as part of that ideological motivation to explain their propensity towards mass murder?
Just because it seems totally ridiculous to you?
Well it seems totally ridiculous to me as well. Which is why I have no problem mocking it. And no problem with other posters here mocking such an absurd idea either.
The aya regarding the 72 virgins (or as Mr Luxembourg would argue "grapes") is interesting. I have heard some progressive Muslims, argue that this was not revelation, but a deliberate insertion by Muhammad (yes, i know most of you would say all of the Qur'an is just a deliberate insertion) to encourage Muslims to actually fight. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that recruitment went through the roof after this verse was "revealed".
Let us get this Islamophobia out of the the way. There is no one who reads or writes on JW or DW who can possible be an ISLAMOPHOBE because to be an ISLAMOPHOBE you have to have an irrational fear of ISLAM and all the people who come to this site have a RATIONAL FEAR OF ISLAM. If you have problems by being call an Islamophobe counter it with the above argument, and if you can't give at least 10 good argument out of the Koran then you don't deserve to reading or writing your comments here. A gentle mocking is the best way to make advocates of the Islamic heaven look foolish, but I have yet to see it performed effectively by anyone either in Television or in the Newspapers. Rational questions make irrational concepts look exceedingly foolish. A Simple example Why 72 virgins why not 82 or 12, do I get to chose shape colour of race, why do you want boys when you have all those bueatiful virgins are they reserved for Homos. If I am a Sadist can I get a pass for a short holiday in Hell.
Caroline wrote: But then aren't you slandering Muslims by that statement? Aren't you implying (by dismissing the ideological motivation inherent in islam - including their view of the afterlife) that they are in some way "genetically" motivated to kill?
First, I would be libeling them rather than slandering, were I doing either. This is in print.
But no, I am doing neither. For something to be slander or libel it must be demonstrably false. Nor am I dismissing ALL ideological motivation, just the particular ideological motivation of 72 virgins as an impetus to either suicide or serial murder.
The Nature v. Nurture question is one that no one in the scientific community has yet been able to answer. There are great arguments on both sides. One thing I've learned over more than a half-century, though, is that there are never just two sides to any argument. In a divorce there is always his side, her side and the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle.
In the particular case of serial killers, I would posit that both genetics and environment play a role. Born with the potential, created by the environment.
That is not necessarily such a far-fetched idea about Islam (and other cults) either.
Does genetics play a role? You know, Caroline, it just might. Certainly genetics plays a role in some other psychological/neuronal disorders and a number of cancers. Repeated intermarriage within a group over a period of time tends to greatly multiply the number of genetic errors present in a given gene pool.
Look at the devastation of the European "aristocracy" by the single genetic mutation that presented in Queen Victoria and then passed on to her children, all of whom intermarried within the same closed group. Virtually all of the EU aristos at the time were cousins, many of them first cousins. Prior to WWI virtually every ruler in EU was either a direct descendant of Victoria or married to a direct descendant, sometimes both. Both the last Czar of Russia and his wife were grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Within that one immediate, repeatedly intermarried family, the Kaiser was born with a birth defect of a type possibly related to nutritional deficiences (some reports say he was also rather loony), the Czar's heir AND both sons of the King of Spain AND at least one of Victoria's sons all had hemophilia. There was a British prince (actually might have been the legal heir) who was hidden away for years due to epilepsy and mental "deficiencies." Many historians consider Alexei's hemophilia to be an almost direct cause of the collapse of the Russian czar's rule and more than one has baldly stated that WWI was a family feud on steroids.
One thing I've seen stated repeatedly about Islamic cultures by people both East and West is that it is centered on the clan/tribe and women are often married off to their first cousins. Could 1400 years of that lead to some widespread genetic aberration? Obviously so.
RE mass delusions, read up on the Nazi movement in Germany. Dozens of books have been written attempting to explain the phenomenon. Islam is an ideology very similar to the Nazi movement. Most Islamic countries and well known Moslem personalities were allied to the Nazis during WWII.
So, why do I dismiss 72 virgins as a motivator? It sounds like a "cover story," very similar to what you hear women who are being abused say: "He was drunk, it was the beer talking. He LOVES me" --- yadaa, yadaa, yadaa ad nauseum. One of those things people tell themselves and everyone else, all of whom pretend to believe it, in order to avoid confronting a problem.
I have no problem mocking 72 virgins appropriately. Holger Dansker does it brilliantly:
Why 72 virgins why not 82 or 12, do I get to chose shape colour of race, why do you want boys when you have all those bueatiful virgins are they reserved for Homos. If I am a Sadist can I get a pass for a short holiday in Hell.
Like my Grandma always told me - "It isn't WHAT you say, it is HOW you say it!"
gallopinggranny is more than willing to label ,
When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 11:31 AM
the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:17 PM
by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:34 PM
They are AMMUNITION for our own see-nothings who would call us racist Islamophobes
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Giving the enemy the first excuse to equate us with Jew haters and Nazis is something else entirely!
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 01:31 PM
Yes, those who will not see will invariably equate us with the KKK
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 01:57 PM
Do I detect a pattern?
And what was the horribly offensive remark…
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 8, 2006 11:11 AM
Wow!
My personal favorite,
Patton was charged with driving millions up the Italian peninsula,
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 04:34 PM http://www.generalpatton.com/biography.html
gallopinggranny: "In the particular case of serial killers, I would posit that both genetics and environment play a role. Born with the potential, created by the environment."
Actually this reminds me of a previous discussion I had with Archimedes about the Mouusaoui case:
(It starts on May 4, 5:33 pm in the thread. If I understood the magic that people use to link directly towards a particular spot in a thread, I would use it. I have no idea but I would be grateful to anyone here who wants to give us all a lesson).
But anyway, the gist of the discussion was about the apparent prevalence of psychopathy in the Muslim population to explain how they can kill without any conscience whatsoever, a cardinal feature of psychopathy (now called sociopathy). I was positing that this caused some dilemma for western psychiatry in terms of what is considered "normative" behavior, because Islam appears to make psychopathy "normative". I was trying to avoid this conclusion by noting that people at war by definition must adopt certain features of sociopathy.
Anyway the long and short of it was that Archimedes soundly noted the kind of nature-nurture argument you are making. In other words, there is likely a certain universal genetic propensity towards psychopathy but some cultures and societies nurture that propensity while others put a brake on it.
Islam, as a culture, nurtures a particular genetic trait which is otherwise probably normatively distributed.
That seems like a reasonable explanation of the stituation to me. But you seem to be going further when you discuss the genetics in terms of "interbreeding" and so on. You seem to me to be putting the onus far more on the "nature" than the "nurture". And that seems to me to be why you are dismissing the Ideology as you do - including the 72 virgins as motivation.
I actually don't know if you are correct about the genetic factors. I would merely note that in making that case (weighing in on nature more than nurture) I think you are being much more "libelous" (thank you for the clarification) than those posters here who merely mock the idea of the 72 virgins.
Personally, I am not concerned with whether you are being libelous or not in positing a genetic explanation for this mass-murderer (and his many Muslim cohorts). But then I'm not the one who was objecting to people mocking the ideological motivation of the 72 virgins either.
I would like to note, however, that inasmuch as you would admit the "nurture" part of the equation - the ideology - that the 72 virgins cannot be dismissed. See Haidon's post above. Haidon is a Muslim.
Caroline wrote: That seems like a reasonable explanation of the stituation to me. But you seem to be going further when you discuss the genetics in terms of "interbreeding" and so on.
Yes, I am going further. The outline of very basic genetic principles that I sketched above are hard science. (I used to be a working medical scientist before I retired.)
Genetic inheritance is entirely dependent on the DNA that you receive from your biological parents. That will eventually express itself as things like your hair color, your eye color, if you go bald, what your voice sounds like and so on. It will also express itself in things not so visible - your cholesterol level, your "normal" body temp, certain cancers, heart disease, diabetes and much, much more. And then too you will note similarities within families that cannot entirely be explained away by environment, even though we may not be able as yet to point to some specific gene and say "this is the cause." Schizophrenia/bipolar disorder is one of those. If one of your parents or grandparents is bipolar, you have an increased chance of being bipolar. "Runs in families" as they say.
There are countless possible genetic combinations (probably not truly countless, but a really huge number it is not necessary to look up.) In our society we tend to marry people outside of our own "clan" or family. That brings an entirely new set of DNA to the new generation. If you happen to get one bad gene, you have another gene that may very well override the bad gene or mitigate the damage done to your organism. Sickle cell is a perfect example.
In Islamic societies the tendency is to marry within your same clan/family - as did your parents and your grandparents. Instead of adding new DNA, the DNA pool becomes more and more homogenous with each succeeding generation.
So, when some genetic anomaly arises - and they do in most people - instead of a different/better/more close to correct copy of a gene being available to express itself, the error spreads and multiplies with each succeeding generation. The Biblical "sins of the fathers" really do get passed along to the sons and quite literally multiply.
Science has long, long been aware of this. The Jews wrote down laws prohibiting intermarriage nearly 5000 years ago. Here in the US virtually every state has laws against intermarriage. In most you cannot marry a first cousin, nor can you marry an aunt or an uncle and usually a long list of other folks.
Now, can I say that there is some genetic defect that makes Islam what it is? No, of course not. I can definitely say, however, that within a closed society that practices and has practiced intermarriage of first cousins for hundreds of years, numerous genetic abnormalities as measured against the norm of a heterogenous society would absolutely be present. And I can absolutely assure you that there are very high rates of certain genetically linked diseases in the Middle East.
Sometimes, that inbreeding can lead to genetic expressions that can't exactly be called a disease, but none the less are apparent and quantifiable. We've documented this here in the US in certain small, closed societies in Appalachia. Sometimes that can be learning capacity - or lack there of.
Something else to consider: Islamic women tend to have many children and tend to keep having children past the age of 30. They also eat last, by custom. A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have. Those eggs start to break down with age. So certain genetic abnormalities like Down Syndrome are far more common in children born to older women. Numerous birth defects are associated with poor nutrition. A woman who is having a baby every year or two, nursing those children and eating last by definition would be a victim of poor nutrition, as would any child that she is carrying - even without a poverty factor. No period of rest/renewal between gestation-lactation periods. Each successive child would be more likely to have problems.
There would be no universal normative rate for psychopathy any more than there is a world-wide normative for much of anything else. Normal in something testable may depend on your race, where you live, your age, the equipment something was tested on, how high you live above sea-level. Normal in Flagstaff, AZ can be a very different thing than normal on Cape Cod.
Psychology, though, is not "hard" science. If you have diabetes, we can run certain tests and determine quantitatively that you do. We can run more and figure out why in some cases. We can run still another and learn whether or not you are sticking to your diet appropriately.
We cannot do any of that in the field of psychology. Diagnosis is based on societal norms, observation, self input. What is a terrible aberration in our society is perfectly normal elsewhere. It is not the least unusual for a psychiatric patient to have as many different diagnoses as they have had psychiatrists. We see that in courtrooms all the time.
So - could there be something inherent in the genetic makeup of many people from strongly Moslem countries that leads them to think and behave differently than we do? Absolutely. Can we define it? No. Not from either a genetic or a psychological basis.
We should not, however, dismiss Nature. Nurture can destroy nature, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it overcoming Nature.
If you want to link to a particular posting, right-click on the time/date stamp link at the bottom of that post, copy the link address, and use it as you would any other link address.
When you highlight it, the time/date link should look like:
*Note the number following the 'php'(#c227675). Everything before that points to the page address. The number following the number sign points to the individual posting
I better be brief here as this thread is about to be bumped!
Granny -
The genetics issue is certainly interesting. Zarqawi was apparently a criminal before he "got Islam" and as Archimedes pointed out on the previous thread, Moussaoui's father was a violent man so it is possible that Mouse inherited a genetic propensity towards violence. Also interesting is the spread of islam in prisons which have a high population of sociopaths. Makes me wonder if Muslims themselves understand there to be a link between sociopathy and Islam or why else would they so pointedly target prison populations in their recruitment efforts?
I do have to wonder about the genetic contribution to violence in Arabs in particular (above and beyond the ideology of Islam). The iraqis are Arabs (but the Kurds are not IIRC). The Palestinians are Arabs. Steven Schwartz likes to point out the difference in islam in the Balkans vs. Saudi Arabia. Just a few examples that come to mind.
But I suppose if one wanted to really try to tease apart the genetic vs the ideological angle, one could look to Pakistan vs India. I believe it is arjun.sedak (sic) - our regular poster here - who has pointed out in the past that Pakistanis and Indians share the same genes and the difference between them is a perfect illustration of what Islam - the ideology - does to people.
Hope...One for the good guy's.....we needed this..GOD bless the armed forces of AMERICA!
Sweet! And as an ex-member of the Air Force, I'm proud it was the USAF who dropped the hammer on this scumbag.
Of course this doesn't end the problems or the Jihad in Iraq, but it's a sweet moment. God bless the US Armed Forces.
DEFEAT JIHAD!
Looks like I got a photo for my X-mas cards a little early this year!
Some experts are saying that the down side to this will possibly find more attacks directed towards American, and coalition troops instead of the sectarian violence that Zarqawi was trying to foment between Sunnis', and sheites'.
Note that the new defence minister for Iraq happens to be a Sunni. Many are now saying that Ql Qaida is more of a movement than an established Islamic front.
I bet God is giveing Nic Berg a free pass to hell for a day,so he can do some major @ss kicking,not to mention all the other people that b@sterd killed.
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD....
This is GOOD news.UUUUUraaah! :)
R.I.P.
(ROT in PUKE)
Dumb Ox Headline News: Zarqawi Dead! Libs Saddened!
Libs, radicals and their willing dupes in the MSM mourn the loss of their folk hero, but are wasting no time trying to spin the news to their anti-american, anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-christian, agenda...
http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/06/zarqawi-dead-libs-saddened-dumb-ox.html
US_infidel:
That's exactly what I was thinking. Killing Jihadist fighters in Iraq is like pissing out a forest fire.
Any bets on the most popular Halloween mask this year? Way to go U.S. Military!
The best line I heard on this story came from a Fox studio anchor. I paraphrase: "F-16's dropped 500-pound bombs on al-Zarqawi's, well, unsafe house." I cracked up, doubled over with laughter.
And, I might add, that I slept safely in my bed last night while rough men were ready to do violence to my enemies. A great big "Thank You" to our military men and women. Well done.
I believe John Murtha would call for investigation.
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
Rick:
While I understand what you're getting at, I still don't think that messing around in Iraq is going to make the US (or Europe) any safer. Probably the opposite.
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
i bet they are lonely right now,he's too busy with his harem of nubile boys.
Cue up the Team America theme:
America! F. yeah!
Comin' again to save the m.f. day yeah!
America! F. yeah!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through,
cuz now you have to answer too...
America! F. yeah!
Allahu akhbar!
It is a great victory for the enemies of the true Muslims!
Karbala, we will avenge thee! Oh come 12th Imam!
The Shia people of Iraq and Iran unite! Our enemy is dead! Now let us cleanse our land of the infidels.
I really don't care that taking him out won't put an end to the terrorists. That's not the point. The point is ONE loud mouthed sick sob is no longer among the living.
On the other hand it might well make some of the terrorist groupies have second thoughts. WAY to many muslims thought of the zee man as being an idol, someone who could kill with impunity and would NEVER be brought down.
Now what we need is bin laden and that old dude with the horn growing out of is forehead dead.
al Zarqawi will be replaced by some other mutt, of that you can be sure. However, we can rejoice in the fact that he has gone to the "paradise" of al illah and enjoying his 72 used-up c***s. Thanks for posting the shots of the house and the body. No one need doubt the deed. I saw a story over at Newsmax where locals damn us for bombing a house where only children were inside. Those chuckleheads over at Reuters really jumped on that one.
JC Supercop: "While I understand what you're getting at, I still don't think that messing around in Iraq is going to make the US (or Europe) any safer. Probably the opposite."
With all due respect, I guess you're one of those who have already forgotten 9/11, Bali (twice), Madrid, Beslan, London, et. al. Better the battle is waged over there than over here. Because the battle is going to be waged against us by our enemies, the jihadis following the dictates of Ol' Mo, whether you like it or not. Sorry, but "peace for our time" was lame in 1938, and is just as lame now. The lesson from history is that appeasement will not, and cannot, work. It's a matter of "pay me now, or pay me later." And I'd rather have our future generations not have to put up with this islamic garbage.
Not to be a wet blanket, and I understand the desire to dance a jig, but some of these comments are little better than the Pali children dancing in the streets and throwing candy on 9/11.
It is of the utmost importance for all of us to remember that this War is primarily a war of ideas and it is proven superiority of ideas that will ulitmately win the day. When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting we lose all credibility with those we might persuade.
JanuaryMan,
No, I doubt he’s basking in the glow of his 72 virgins right now …more likely he’s being repeatedly jabbed in his hollowed-out eye sockets by Beelzebub’s thorned phallus. Either way, he’s no longer on this earth, making the world only a slightly better place to live.
He looks so nice and peaceful, doesn’t he? Islam is truly a religion of peace …when the maniacal, brutal, inhumane followers are all dead, that is!
Bin Laden your days are numbered! now the full specials force is upon you murderous monster.
you can take that to the bank! another bites the dust as the song goes! and another, and another..
with those jihadist caught red handed in Ontario, good news for all the free people of the world!
"It is of the utmost importance for all of us to remember that this War is primarily a war of ideas and it is proven superiority of ideas that will ulitmately win the day. When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting we lose all credibility with those we might persuade."
Again, 'gallopinggranny', why should we not rejoice in the death of a butchering, beheading islamic @sshole? Ideas are important, that I grant you, but sometimes one needs a visual to go with the ideas. Should Charlie Chaplain not have made "The Great Dictator" because it might have upset Hitler (which it did)? One only has to remember what the Italians did to Benito Mussolin and his mistress, Clara Petacci, or what the Romanians did to the Ceausescu's. Rejoicing in the death of evil is not evil, for "tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
I'm absolutely delighted that Zarqawi is dead.I also agree with someone who said the big news is that Zarqawi was eliminated due to good intelligence, flawless execution by the military and betrayal by someone in his organization.Zarqawi's death is a turning point and cause for celebration.I look forward to reading about the deaths of more Mujahid.
Rick wrote: Again, 'gallopinggranny', why should we not rejoice in the death of a butchering, beheading islamic @sshole?
Oh I think we SHOULD rejoice. Guess I just didn't make it clear. Putting another notch on the gun is great, our military deserves many a woo-who, and so forth.
That said, when we make superflous nasty comments about virgins and so forth, that makes us not one whit better than the idiots that cheered while the towers came down.
Who CARES what Islam believes about life after death? I sure don't. The last time I checked not one living soul has ever returned to give a complete, factual, detailed description. I don't care what anyone believes about life after death. I care what they believe about life BEFORE death - as do most of us. And that is what this war is about.
"That said, when we make superflous nasty comments about virgins and so forth, that makes us not one whit better than the idiots that cheered while the towers came down." ~ gallopinggranny.
Well, if ideas are important, this is their idea behind the jihad. We should mock the idea that killing innocents, and dying in the process, is the key to entry into the Playboy Club paradise that islam believes. We are not celebrating the deaths of innocents, as those who handed out sweets and ululated on 9/11 did. We are celebrating the demise of evil, and the beliefs of those who commit such evil, even if only one corpse at a time.
My suspicions, based upon what I've heard, about Ramadi and Haditha are that those places are mostly in favor of the Baathist elements and the foreign fighters, and that it is a minority in those places who are having to hunker down and hope we come to clean the places out. I am sure the jihadi leadership in those places are wide awake about Zarqawi's fate. There is much work left to be done in Iraq and the Iraqi military is getting there, but still has a ways to go.
So, gallopinggranny, how would you propose that we set up programs in those places whereby, in fair forum and debate, we get to exhange ideas and de-program them of their Islam? Send in professors and theologians? I guarantee one result from that: the heads of said academicians would be sent back to us with the attendant, appropriate messages.
Sadly, sometimes the only solution is to do a heap of killing.
Looks like SOMEBODY dropped a house on him! Salud!
Let's just wait and see if this one death is insignificant to the war against Global Jihad.
A great many people believe that having the death penatly is a deterrent to crime.
Up until this death, bin Laden was the role for Jhadists. Kill the Americans and Allah will whisk you off to a hidden cave of safety.
Now Jihadists have a common sense reminder them that physics in the form of a 500 pound stee1 bomb can play havok with Allah's "protective powers".
Gallopinggranny,
I was thinking along your lines. I was thinking what this war has reduced us to. I am cheering at death, and baying for blood. But, these were but passing thoughts. We are in a war, and wars are not fought with gentle emotions. I think, I would rather be bloodthirsty, and savage, and unforgiving, giving no quarter to an enemy that has killed billions since its inception. To show any mercy to this enemy would be an insult to the billions dead. And so I shall rejoice at every small victory. So, I choose not to be 'better' than the enemy. I would rather be bloodthirsty, and savage, and unforgiving, so my kid can have a world in which he can afford to be gentle.
I'm sorry this might offend people. but... Should'nt we have let him live to continue his slaughter of the other fanatics? Shi'a and sunni(who Zarqawi was) fighting one another for endless decades is better than them taking it to us. Which is why we should'nt be in Iraq anymore...pull and let them do what comes natual - kill each other.
Am I way off base here? I've been wrong lots of times so maybe but I don't see the cause for big celebration. Someone will take his place because they have no shortage of people who love to die (it's an honor in this religion) and we're back to square one.
Rick:
Oh, I don't mean that we should lay down arms and bend over in front of our new Islamic masters. I mean that blowing up Jihadists in Iraq is more or less futile. Jihadists are everywhere at once, and their political campaigns in the West are more dangerous than their IEDs in Iraq. I don't think it's possible to simply keep the battle in Iraq... it isn't going to have an effect on any future terrorist strikes, as recently witnessed in Canada. There is no frontline.
Gallopinggranny,
There is a BIG difference between us and the Palis. The Palis (and practically all of the Arab world) were dancing in the streets when 3,000 INNOCENT OFFICE WORKERS were murdered unprovoked. We are dancing in the aisles because a murderous, terrorist THUG and 7 of his b*tch-ass accomplices were snuffed out after killing hundreds of innocents, many of them brutally and barbarically beheaded with a dull knife in front of videocams (hello Nick Berg?) to be posted on the Web for recruiting videos.
And you say WE are being just as barbaric?
I, for one, will continue in my revelry and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it.
"Just curious, since they were able to get Zarquawi, what keeps the U.S. now (really) from finding and taking Osama bin Laden out?"
My guess is political timidity at the casualty numbers it require take to get OBL. he is located in a wild tribal region of Pakistan that not even Musharraf has contol over.
And logistics too, since we redeployed much from Afganistan to Iraq. But thse are armchair guesses.
A mug only a M*T*E*F*C*E* could love...
So, gallopinggranny, how would you propose that we set up programs in those places whereby, in fair forum and debate, we get to exhange ideas and de-program them of their Islam?
I have never said this man should not have been killed. If you have read my remarks that way, then I suggest that you read them again.
Let me try to say this a little more clearly. The man is dead, good riddance, he was a plague on the face of humanity - both sides.
But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem." When you appear to attack Moslems as a whole rather than the jihad ideology, then reasonable people who might otherwise be convinced to follow the lead of Ali Sina take one look and label us all as the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like.
We don't need to set up forums "in those places." This IS one of those forums, accessible from virtually anywhere on earth. Naseem proves that almost daily.
If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general.
Up until this death, bin Laden was the role for Jhadists. Kill the Americans and Allah will whisk you off to a hidden cave of safety.
Until his death,he was a role model?When did he die?
Time to turn up the heat! Start training local police in arabic. Watch the local mosques. Be ready to defend, apprehend, imprison, and deport.
Allah killed Zarqawi. His death was predestined at the beginning of time, written on the Memorial Tablet by the Pen of Destiny. US forces were just the means to Allahs ends.
Muslims should learn a lesson from this...Allah wont protect you, and has already schedualed your death. It's a good thing that muslims worship death...Allah has lots of it planned for them, and he knows best...
al Zarqawi in recent years has been far more effective operationally than has OBL, whom I now consider to be an irrelevant figurehead and symbol dodging and ducking from cave to cave, from mud hut to mud hut. He has to use courier communications, because to use anything technological would be the death of him. Of course, his organization is alive and kicking, but they are having to spend more energy in preserving themselves rather than being on offense.
Overall, the operations of these respective men are far more important than they are. Anyone can step into their shoes, but it is not easy for their organizations to be remade and their losses made up for. So, I would much prefer simply killing and capturing the foot soldiers, for now. Of course, if a leader drops into our laps, all to the better.
No, gallopinggranny, I am enjoying the death of al Zarqawi. Very much so. When you go back through fourteen hundred centuries of jihad conquest and take stock of the many, many millions killed in the name of al illah, plus the many more millions (or billions)whose lives have been severely disrupted by this death cult, a little celebration every now and then can be allowed for. There is no moral equivalency here; those who practice the argument of moral equivalency are intellectually still adolescents, stuck in a rigid, totalitarian form of idealism.
"I mean that blowing up Jihadists in Iraq is more or less futile." ~ JC Supercop
How is a "blowing up jihadists in Iraq more or less futile"? A dead jihadi is a good thing, no matter where, and at whose hands, they die.
gallopinggranny,
Your last post demonstrates that you have never read the Qur'an, ahadith, or Sira. We reserve the right on this weblog and on others to criticize and attack Islam based upon our knowledge of its history. The ideology of jihad is based on the dozens of injunctions which refer to it in the Qur'an. It is a key concept of that religion, not an ancillary one. Islam's key end goal is exactly to effect our conversion or submission - globally and for eternity. The means described, viz, war, execution, razzia, dhimma, and jizya, are intended to compel the hegemony of al illah on earth.
Your "tolerance" is the true intolerance, since you consider any other point of view to be the thoughts of knuckledraggers who should be banned from any forum.
Fred, there is "moral equivalence" HERE -
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
Enjoy his death. We SHOULD celebrate the death of a monster. I had the TV on first thing this AM too.
What we should not do is throw the baby out with the bath water by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks like the one (and a few other similar) above.
Nice, clean strike. An ex-Navy man's salute to the USAF!!
gallopinggranny
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
We are makeing fun of the idiots,because it is why the dumb @ss's kille people,for 72 virgins.
What we should not do is throw the baby out with the bath water by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks like the one (and a few other similar) above.
if that makes us racist for THEM killing for virgins,then I and MOST everybody else will where that badge proudly.
"If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general." ~ gallopinggranny
gallopinggranny, al-Zarqawi is a product of islam; he was not created in a void (or did you forget all of his 'islamic' pronouncements?). al-Zarqawi is a poster child for islam, especially that second picture at the top of this thread. Hmmm, that photo might make a good US military recruiting poster, come to think of it.
Up until this death, bin Laden was the role for Jhadists. Kill the Americans and Allah will whisk you off to a hidden cave of safety.
Until his death,he was a role model?When did he die?
I wrote up until THIS death not his death =)
meaning until now bin laden was the only roll model
jihad=protection from Allah
THIS death of Zarqawi
jihad=comes with a price to pay, no guarantee of safety
ya,i see that know,my bad.
"OBL, whom I now consider to be an irrelevant figurehead and symbol dodging and ducking from cave to cave"
I agree, but I still very much want to see OBL dead and humiliated in my lifetime.
I mean I'll even volunteer to go one on one in a Steel Cage Deathmatch with OBL and I'm pretty out of shape =D
"Sadly though, it appears a child and his mother died in the airstrike..."
Posted by: skald at June 8, 2006 12:23 PM
A.K.A. Sympathy for the devil spawn.
Rick:
Yes, but, like I said somewhere before, it's like pissing out a forest fire. For the situation in Iraq, it's beneficial (I guess), but it won't even put a dent on the global Jihad.
In a perfect world, we could magically deport all Muslims from infidel lands, cut off as much contact as possible with all Islamic nations, and perform strategic military strikes if it looks like they're about to acquire a WMD or something. If they try to use the oil card, we just take the oil fields by force. Then, hopefully, the isolated Muslims will come to realize that they need to abandon Islam if they want to be more than barbarians roaming the deserts while the rest of the world is out colonizing Mars. Alternatively, they'll just Jihad each other to death. Not our problem in any case.
The above isn't strictly my idea, I think Hugh might have written about it once. As far as I can see, it's the only working solution. Bombing terrorists in Iraq is not a long term solution.
Whoever suggested to you, Fred, that I was TOLERANT? Nor have I ever suggested that anyone be banned. Quite the contrary! (See other threads.) I certainly have read the Koran and am all too well aware of the battleground.
If we want to win this war, if we have no intention of seeing our women walking around under bed sheets, then we need to covince both our own ostriches that there even IS a valid war and those Moslems who are not enthralled with the religion they were born to that there is a better way.
Mao once said that "Power comes from the end of a gun." Quite true. Ideas, though, are eternal. Long after the barrel of a gun has dissolved to rust, ideas transcend time, space and civilizations.
Please do criticize Islam. I certainly do. But please try to do it in a thoughtful, considered way. Offhanded, ridiculous remarks about sex and virgins are not criticism of Islam. They are AMMUNITION for our own see-nothings who would call us racist Islamophobes.
Make the US (or Europe) any safer,
Hmmm,
1990 Iraq… was it not the 3rd largest army in the world? Saddam and sons Inc, sitting on lakes of oil among other things http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html.
Did we proceed to humiliate him by annialating his army and war making infrastructure?
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2020.html
Given the muslim propensity for revenge even if it takes a 1000 years how long do you suppose it would have been before he or his spores attempted some atrocity on us covertly or otherwise? If saddam had not been taken alive we could begin withdrawing shortly. I supported the President on Iraq but my target date back then was late 2006 for a significant reduction to begin. Zark is gone, lets get saddam done and bring our men home. Safe is a pre 9/11 mindset. Read J/W posts. Safe no longer exists.
Gallopinggranny,
Why the racist smear? Explain the link between 72 virgins and racism please.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
He's gunna bypass nthe virgins,go right for the nubile serving boys.
While I understand the above criticisms completely, again I ask what is wrong with being Islamophobic? As reader Fred pointed out yestersday, would anyone mind being called A Naziphobe? No, not at all.
Most of us would not want to be lableled a Xenophobe or anti-Semite or anything like that because these are bigotries based on misfound ideas, misconceptions misapprehensions etc.
Many of us here are reading and studying Islam here. We know Islam is the problem. We are indeed quite Islamophobic.
Is that a crime on the books to be Islamophobic? Is it at all wrng? Or should we just give it up and not be, becasue the mainstream media will label us Islamophobic and slander our images?
IIRC, Isn't a phobia an IRRATIONAL fear of something which comprimises a person's ability to be functional?
(armchair psychiatric definition}
gallopinggranny
Glad to hear that we are more or less on the same page. Still, let's let the boys have their day of making fun of the Islamic view of sex. It deserves ridicule from every quarter, even from those us (like me)who are not libertines. I consider the 72 virgins in paradise concept to be more offensive than the poking fun at it. Generally, I don't get down in the dirt but once in awhile and this is fairly deemed one of those times. Being new to this forum, I am not familiar with your views about Islam, and so I am duly informed and retract my eroneous impression.
The most interesting item of the day, apart from Z-Man's demise, has to be Nick Berg's father's reaction to it. Bizarre in the extreme. If it were me, and my boy had been beheaded by these savages, I would be celebrating any victory over them in any way I can take it. Won't bring my son back, but the more of those savages we kill the smaller the butcher's bill, in the LONG run, on our side of the equation.
gallopinggranny
The argument that we are anti-Jihad, not anti-Islam makes us no different from the Daniel Pipes' of the world, who see this as a war on "Islamism" as opposed to Islam. This is deceptive, since there is no version of Islam that tolerates co-existance with Infidel faiths. If you think we should not be anti-Islamic, then you haven't been paying attention to what Islam actually advocates worldwide.
Yes, nobody has any idea of what the afterlife is, but that's not the point. We weren't the ones who came up with the houris - the Quran did. We weren't the ones who came up with descriptions of which places in heaven and hell different groups of people, depending on whether they are Muslim or not, end up - Mohammed did. We didn't come up with the porn paradise that describes the Islamic Afterlife - the Ahadith did.
It is inappropriate to treat Zarqawi's death as a dignified loss, similar to one's uncle or granny passing away. It isn't. He deserves a send-off similar to Adolf Eichmann, but probably won't get it. Just because people here (and elsewhere) may gloat about his sessions with the virgins, or with boys, doesn't mean that we believe it: it's just us mocking them with their own Quranic fantasies. And given what they believe in, and more importantly how they display it, trying to address them with dignity would be like attempting a land assault on Teheran using a frigate.
Oh, and I reject this notion that we should be "better than them". That's what our forebears did several millenia ago with the likes of Mohammed and the Caliphs, and we're still paying the price.
What a waste of a human being, with all the poverty and oppression within Islamic Nations this
hunk of sh*t chose to murder civilians and behead God's children for Allah.
I'd gladly give my pension money just to see the look on his face when Satan greets him at the gates of hell.
I think phobia is a real fear and anxiety is an imagined fear.
Gallopinggranny,
Why the racist smear? Explain the link between 72 virgins and racism please.
I didn't make the original 72 virgins comments tgusa. I have been attempting to point out that comments like that, while they might fullfill some individual need within ourselves for celebration, make us appear to those who do not yet share our views to be full of the same kind of racism and hatred we accuse the Palestinians of (the ones that danced in the streets on 911.)
While I understand the above criticisms completely, again I ask what is wrong with being Islamophobic?
Just this: if we portray ourselves in such a way that those who do not share our views can point to comments that we have made (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of racism or hatred and "religious intolerance", then WE WILL LOSE!
Robert, Hugh and Ali Sina all share one very strong characteristic that makes them very powerful spokemen: The never allow themselves to descend to name-calling in any way, but day after day base their work and their arguments on logic, reason and hard evidence, often the very words of the Koran itself. Some regulars here share that characteristic - storagemanager comes quickly to mind.
There is nothing whatever wrong with being Islamophobic in the sense of studying Islam to repudiate it. Giving the enemy the first excuse to equate us with Jew haters and Nazis is something else entirely!
Every single time that one of us makes foolish comments that can be used against us, then we shoot ourselves in the foot.
gallopinggranny,
Unity in voice and message against Islam would be nice, but it's not necessary. Intelligent people with good reading comprehension skills will come here and see past any school yard slurs. They will glean from Robert's insight and others, while understanding that some comments are coming from raw rage.
What is the type of person who is able to grok what this site offers but nevertheless, is disuaded and turned away by crude comments directed at terrorists and Islamists? They are the type of person who is looking for affirmation of the negative: they're looking for proof that what their liberal friends have been saying about Islamophobia is true.
I've never seen an online public forum that didn't have below the belt comments. Even on religious forums. Even on philosophy forums with most users sporting PhD's. The only pure forums are private forums that are pretty small.
Personally, I don't mind crude comments. Some of them are well crafted and can be very funny. That said, I hang here because the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty high. Everyone's got their own threshold.
Fred said
That's so weird, because that one little kid in the picture looks exactly like Zarqawi.
gallopinggranny:
I've learned that any criticism againts Islam is, without failure, interpreted as bigoted and racist Islamophobia, no matter how it's presented. Saying "death to Muslims" is no different from what Spencer & co are doing, because at the end of the day it's all just racism and Islamophobia in the eyes of Muslims and dhimmis. You're a card-carrying member of the KKK as soon as you say something unflattering about Islam, period. I can't even remember how many times it has been suggested that I would have been right at home in Nazi Germany because I see Islam as dangerous.gallopinggranny you seem to make a good argument, but does it hold up to scrutiny? I concur that we shouldn't be triumphalists about this, nor should we chortle over such deaths overmuch. I'm certainly not arguing for raving against them as they do against us.
Still, I would argue with the premise of your sentiments with a simple question:
Who exploits the label "Islamophobe" ?
1. Muslims who wish to take the discussion about Islam into the ditch.
2. Western detractors who share with the Muslim fascist a deep antipathy for the West.
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
Let's look at group #1. Can you provide a single strand of evidence that expressions of "tolerance" and "kindness" to Muslims has ever translated into a sincere respect for our "values" of "tolerance" and "kindness"? I suggest there is no evidence for this premise. Muslim antipathy for us is independent of our actions. It is fundamental and zealous. In fact, through the lense of Islam, many (perhaps most) Muslims interpret our xpressions of "sympathy" "tolerance" "kindness" and decency as weakness by us. So it could be argued that expressions of tolerance, sympathy, or kindness encourage Muslims to go for our jugular. Expressions of sympathy or delicateness may accomplish the exact opposite of what you assert. This group is undeterrable. This group will be hard to crush.
Now group #2. Would this self-loathing group have any less antipathy for the West if no anti-Islamic utterances ever occurred. Their antipathy is also deeply rooted and zealous. They deftly exploit terms such as "Islamophobe" to squelch debate. Their pseudo-expressions of solidarity with their Muslim Komrades is simply a classic expression of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and is a marriage of convenience. I'd suggest your susceptibility to their hollow "accusations" of "Islamophobe" encourages them to continue their tactics, and aids them in deflecting and squelching debate. This group is maniplatable and crushable. That's not to say it will be easy to crush them, however.
Now group #3. These are the great undecideds. They are susceptible to the arguments and constructs of the self-loathing haters of the West. They believe it is an expression of "values" to show tolerance at all costs, even to enemies they know little to nothing about. They aren't very curious. They probably are too busy or unintelligent to do their own research and thinking. This group is the only pursuadable sector. It might be a good idea to examine the propaganda of the enemies of the West to understand how they manipulate this vast undecided constituency. That requires a robust effort to deconstruct their propaganda (i.e. labels such as "Islamaphobe" and "tolerance" and "open mindedness", etc). I would suggest that utilizing their propaganda in order to defeat their intentions is not the way to go.
I ask you to examine your premises, as I have no doubt that you are not numbered among the haters of the West, nor among the set who are incurious.
manipulatable
deesine, maybe it doesn't matter why people initially come to this site. Especially people who come looking to affirm a negative. Most people who bother to personally investigate what their liberal friends have been saying do so because, for whatever reason, they have doubts. If they did not doubt the validity, then no investigation would be required.
I've never seen a forum either that didn't have off-color remarks, below the belt comments and outright flame wars. Thats fine. Like I told someone the other day - if you can't take the heat, stay in the kitchen. I don't mind crude remarks and have even been known to make a few of them myself.
You might have noticed/heard though that traffic here and at other similar sites is increasing dramatically. Lots of those people stay quiet, but they all pay attention. For every one of us that posts something there are a thousand or more that just read and digest.
Yes, those who will not see will invariably equate us with the KKK no matter what, but there are those who are undecided or as yet uneducated to the danger. Who do we want those folks to agree with? Us, or Islam's fellow travelers?
Well,at least the creep doesn't have to worry about handling US assault weapons correctly anymore.
Gallopinggranny :Just this: if we portray ourselves in such a way that those who do not share our views can point to comments that we have made (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of racism or hatred and "religious intolerance", then WE WILL LOSE!
What this means is that the best sounding liar wins. For instance, we all know that Islam is not a race. When someone posts that here, they are quickly corrected. That lie cant prevail here. Thats not 'losing'. Most of the time any racism or sexism, expressed here, is in jest.
In order to turn that into a form of evil, the observer must attach evil too it themselves, and then believe their own lie. These people are not capable, in the present, to absorb truth. So lying becomes the prefered method. I dont capitulate anything to a liar. Every aspect of Islam is a lie. Truth bullets coated with jest or sarcasm penetrate Allah to the heart. The very people we might 'lose' to, know this also, thats why they get so worked up over cartoons and such. To them I say, "the truth hurts, dont it"...To sum it up, I dont see myself or us, losing to anyone who's capacities are so limited. While I might agree with you that image is important, and it's not a good idea to give the enemy ammunition, walking on egg's for them, is a form of 'losing' also...I wont do it.
We dont need to see eye to eye, as long as we see. I'm happy you understand Allah and what that means...have a good day... swami
gallopinggranny: The folks who equate Jihad Watch posters with the KKK are probably the same ones selling Americans out to the enemies we face, one way or another. And they will almost certainly get theirs. The day may yet come when treason is once again regarded and treated as a serious offense in the western democracies. And Islam and Communist sympathizers here and elsewhere may have some serious 'splaining to do!
jsla, your points are well made. You, however, leave out one vital group of people: the huge number of people who still, for whatever reason, swallow the Islam = Peace argument, without themselves belonging to any of the three groups you enumerate.
The point is just this: If we want to win this war, then we must first bring the war to the court of public opinion. In and of ourselves we do not individually or even as a group have the power & resources to take on Islam and our own countrymen simultaneously.
Think about going to court, even on something like Judge Judy. The very first thing that any good defense lawyer does is make sure his defendant appears in court well groomed, well dressed and ready to say "Yes Your Honor" at the appropriate times. Want to lose? Show up in court dressed like a red-neck, drunk with a chaw in your cheek.
Appearances count. In court. At job interviews. When you want to get into an Ivy League college on a scholarship. And when you want to change public opinion.
I don't give a rat's behind what the liberal left, the Islamic world think of me personally or us collectively. But those that care to come looking, to investigate for themselves, to listen to that little niggle of doubt - THEM I care what they think.
I am personally delighted that Zarqawi is dead. Someone posted earlier that they couldn't wait to see his face. I would like to see his face too - when he stands before G*d and realizes that he has been decieved by the Father of Lies. We should celebrate. But we shouldn't be stupid about it.
duh_swami,
I agree with you that walking on egg shells damages the cause. I tend to respect people who speak their minds, no matter how uncrafted or politically incorrect. I don't trust people who are skilled at disguising their message in linguistic folds and sugar coated euphemisms.
Crude posts are keeping it real, and I like to believe other people value that as well.
He he....Zarqawi!
I wonder what he thought in the last seconds as heard the faint sound of a guided bumb appraching....what did his muslim spritual guide say or do....where was the power of allah??? If he was so great why did this happen....
Technolgy trumps Islam anyday. No god shield. No angels to save him. No Mo. Nothing...only the sound of whispering death made by an American engineer using good old technology and based on the laws of Physics...a rational weapon from a rational nation...for a rational future.
With that said may he rot in hell with the rest of his crew for the rest of time.
I wonder what Osama bin Laden is thinking? This bombing was thanks to inside information. Osama must be giving strange looks to his "close associates". Is Osama next?
What this means is that the best sounding liar wins.
No, Swami - what this means is that if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is, in the minds of most people, a duck.
When we make outrageous, downright stupid gratuitous* comments about sex with boys and 72 virgins then we are giving the ENEMY ammunition to say "Hey - look at the duck!"
*note the word gratuitous. Sex with boys, pedophilia and 72 virgins is not gratuitous in the context of a discussion about the realities of the Quranic.
greatcometof1577,
My rational belief in the transrational means I believe an eternal hell isn't too far from what Zarqawi will suffer.If we were drinking together I'd say, "Fu-k those guys!" as we lifted glass to frescoe our tonsils with a Bavarian brush.
May all his 72 "virgins" look like Janet Reno.
"I wonder what Osama bin Laden is thinking? This bombing was thanks to inside information. Osama must be giving strange looks to his "close associates". Is Osama next?"
OBL is relieved no doubt.
How do we know Bin laden wasnt behind the betrayal [not saying he's working with the US, hold on to your horses] Zawahiri issued a warning to Zarqawi and chastisements, even dirty looks from OBL probably rival kisses from Don Corleone.
The very thoughts that crossed my mind were:
1)so Zarqawi's dead
2)Zarqawi was an elusive hard kill
3)Bin laden viz a vis Zawahiri chastised Zarqawi
4)Zawakiri makes Bin laden look like a coward when it comes to giving speeches about "fighting the Americans"
4)hmm...
Food for thought.
gallopinggranny,
I have now serious doubts about you. I could be wrong.
gallopinggranny,
I have now serious doubts about you. I could be wrong.
You probably are arjun.sevak. I've made it a life-time habit to take on the government and win, in my own small way. I like to win :)
I dont want worry at all what adherents of Islam think of me. When I see the Pakistani who runs the mosque in my homwtown in his baggys I want to look oddly at him and say "You ought to be ashamed of yourself comeing out in public desssed that way! Put some decent clothes on!" but I don't because I grew up in liberal America. Whatever floats your boat. But I do teach my children to stay away from the shrouded and veiled woman and if I say aloud to them "Children, dont go near that woman she may blow up" so be it. Let HER live with the shame HER religion/culture created.
Same thing if I call the cops on muslim men praying in public without a permit at a football game. No apologies for the police search. If people want hold a prayer service in public, do it in by the book. Get a permit!
What I dont want if for there to be any kind of restriction on a public outlet to voice out anger frustration against Islam on any level. Even if it is say "I am glad Zarqawi died" or any of the various slurs that basicall say "The beliefs held by muslims are laugablly rediculous"
Zarqawi got killed because he was complacent after many successful terrorist campaigns. From nobody to success to complacency to death.... over a short few years! After all, this Muslim terroist named Zarqawi was not as an astute leader as I think he was. Like all Muslim terrorists before him, he was prone to making mistakes on which coalition forces were waiting to capitalize. Muslims terrorists have real strength, but rely on deception, fear, and manipulation. Just a bomb, Zarqawi was dead! :-)
While I fully understand and admire the tact with which men and women like Spencer, Fitzgerald and Sina carry themselves in the debate, I must point out that it is just as necessary to have the flipside, but without stepping into the realm of ignorant savage.
Case in point: Patton was a poet. But he was also a cussing, spitting, hate-spewing warrior.
Then there was the political general: Eisenhower.
Both men together were far more dangerous than either man alone. They basically beat Germany during the Second World War.
I know exactly what I'm doing when I rabble-rouse. Though sometimes I lose my temper, I often do things for a specific purpose or to elicit a specific response. As long as the enemy can't figure that part out, then I'm doing it right.
So, while I will agree that going totally into a name-calling session serves no real good, backing entirely away from hatred for our enemies is also counter-productive.
There is no longer any reason to be polite or nice to this enemy. All that is required is to win. Or, as Patton so famously said, "Make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
GreatShaitan - it's simply prudent to make your children aware of the grievous dangers posed by our exploding muslim populations.
gallopinggranny -- the group you call "the huge number of people who still, for whatever reason, swallow the Islam = Peace argument, without themselves belonging to any of the three groups you enumerate." are included in group #3 as I describe above:
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
Non-muslims who have bought into the tripe that Islam is a religion of peace, or that "Muslims want the exact same things that we want" are the pursuadable ones -- I fully agree that this is a target audience, as they represent by far the vast majority of Westerners.
But you are absolutely correct about decorum. It is nearly always a good thing. The ranting frothing supplicant has already lost his case, no matter how meritous his complaints.
Even so, I think there's also a place when fighting enemies includes judiciously working to devalue, defame, and ridicule them. It's OK sometimes to provoke them, but it must be done intelligently. In a war, it's not only OK to formulate ugly caricatures of them, it's NECESSARY in order to make it permissable to annihilate them.
War is often thought of by fatuous fools as the absolute nadir of human endeavors. At some point they will be disabused of this absurd folly. The nadir of human endeavors is the wanton disregard for your circumstances when the enemy is holding a knife at your throat, or climbing in your window to snuff out your family.
Doing it right is a complicated balancing act. But war should never be easy to wage or win, otherwise it probably isn't justified. Other means would do.
Those who believe we're not in a war are strictly limited to groups #2 and #3 as I describe them above. Group #1, the Muslims (and I mean ALL Muslims) understand on some level that their religion axiomatically places them in opposition to all non-Muslims. Therefore, they know to various degrees that war is being waged for the sake of Allah every day that they utter his execrable name.
I know exactly what I'm doing when I rabble-rouse. Though sometimes I lose my temper, I often do things for a specific purpose or to elicit a specific response. As long as the enemy can't figure that part out, then I'm doing it right.
And that is exactly my point Foehammer - you know EXACTLY what you are doing when you rabble rouse!
Case in point: Patton was a poet. But he was also a cussing, spitting, hate-spewing warrior.
Then there was the political general: Eisenhower.
Patton was charged with driving millions up the Italian peninsula, something he was uniquely qualified to do. Few generals ever have the ability to motivate that Patton possessed.
Poor Eisenhower was stuck in London having to make nice with recalcitrant "Allies" of every stripe. (I hear, BTW, that he could be a cussing, spitting warrior himself now and then.) Likely a good thing though. Had the roles been reversed London would have been awash in blood. Patton would not have brooked the goings-on for five minutes LOL!
arjun.sevak,
Thinking the same here.
The one thing our ememy loves to do is... tell all Infidels what to do as well as when and how to do it.
3. Misguided 'undecided voters'. Those who are saturated with these touchy feely sentiments and who are easily swayed, but who don't harbor any deep antipathy against the West.
I think you do many undecideds a huge disservice jsla. I know many an extremely patriotic American who love our country dearly and who are not touchy-feely in the least, but who are yet so angered at President Bush for everything else that the forest behind the trees simply has not yet come to their attention.
Number One Rule of Warfare, tgusa: Divide and Conquer.
Set the enemy to looking for an enemy behind every tree and disagreement, then sneak in while they are bickering and run up the flag.
We are our own worst enemies. Your comment is a case in point.
Just one word really about Zarqawi's death that may not resonate with many here, but I think it is timely "alhamdulilah". Next on the list should be Ismail Haniyeh, Mahmhoud Zahar, the entire Hamas leadership, the entire Hizbollah leadership. Reprsentatives from both terrorist entities have expressed sympathy for Zarqawi and the "resistance".
Mmmmmm.....Janet Reno
gallopinggranny wrote:
I've read that comment several times and I can't help but come to the conclusion that, by that comment, you're just as guilty of what you accuse tgusa of.Ha ha ha
Yea for our side.
Here is a fitting video for Zarqawi and his supporters.
http://stickdeath.com/talibloop.html
http://www.stickdeath.com/talibloop.html
Duh
gallopinggranny -- You're correct to point this out. "Touchy feely" was a bad attempt to simplify the category, but it just confused my intent. Really the "undecideds" are those who just don't agree yet with what you and I know about the dangers of Islam. Whatever the reason for their ignorance, they remain the target audience, and I think you agree with that. After all, they are the only ones that are pursuadable.
Category #1 -- the Muslim insurrectionists won't change their minds any time soon. Category #2 also won't change their minds. They are bent on undermining the West until it conforms to their dystopic fantasy world.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of George Bush except to the extent that we don't have a viable alternative. Damned with faint praise.
The real world keeps spinning, the Muslims keep coming, and the underminers keep undermining... I have said it before, our era needs a Western hero with the intellect and wiles of Tallyrand -- the only man who survived the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the proto-Hitler Napoleon, and the reinstallment of French kings again. Maybe that's a bad example, since he presided over the most blood drenched period of French History. But never was a man alive who could see the significance of this or that before it happened. He was a true genius for playing the forces against each other to manage a safe passage. What he did for himself is what the West now needs to do for itself. Come through hurricanes to come.
out alive. Why does the machine keep cutting off my last few words...? It keeps happening lately.
"If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general."
Islam is the problem. It is what him the monster that he was.
Amillennialist
galloppinggranny - while I understand the point you're trying to make about decorum, this is where you lose me:
"But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem." When you appear to attack Moslems as a whole rather than the jihad ideology, then reasonable people who might otherwise be convinced to follow the lead of Ali Sina take one look and label us all as the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like….If we intend to win this battle, then our celebrations need to be personal attacks on Zarqawi and his actions, not personal attacks on Islam in general.
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:17 PM
"
The reason you lose me there is that mocking the 72 virgins idea is NOT anti-Moslem. It is mocking Islam. Something that Ali Sina is quite adept at and makes a clear distinction about - mock Islam but don't mock Muslims. But at the end of your post you admonish posters for "personal attacks on Islam", suggesting to me that you are a bit confused. Yes of course we attack Islam "in general" - which is precisely what mocking the idea of the 72 virgins in paradise is about. (And what is wrong with mocking a ridiculous belief that may have been a huge motivation for Zarqawi to wantonly and brutally kill so many people?) But how can mocking that facet about islam constitute a "personal attack on Islam"? Is Islam capable of taking offense? No. Of course not. Only Muslims can take offense (as human beings, which Islam is not) if they are personally attacked. But Islam cannot take offense. But if your point is that Muslims in general will take offense at posters here mocking Islam - and that we should avoid mocking (or criticizing - where do you draw the line?) Islam - then I think you've missed the point altogether. And you've certainly missed Ali Sina's point.
It is a depressing wet day up north here and this is like the sun breaking out for once.
Zarqaqi last acts apparently was the beheading of a group of 'Shia's' and a "moderate" Sunni close to yesterday's bull's eye. Apparently, several heads were found in banana boxes. I guess that's one way to track a Salafi psycho: just follow the grim tidings of human heads. This shows you how nutso Islam is. That a guy like this could receieve succor by Bin Laden, but also lovely Iran with its true Shia path. Zarqaqi receieved protection in Iran as well. What freaked out, messed up, pathetic religion could tolerate a guy like this, let alone join him, revere him, die for him? All in the name of the lovely, religion of peace. Remember, Islam means peace.
I have one more comment to add, concerning the running debate between "gallopinggranny" and some of us whose 72 virgins' comments have rubbed her the wrong way. She states that this site and this debate will only inflame our enemies and turn off potential converts if we let slip an occasional rusticism while celebrating the death of a nefarious jihadi. My experience with people who, during the past five or six years, have been either on the sidelines or who have veered somewhat away from recognizing this as a fight for the defense of our civilization, our liberties, and our religions, is this: most of them will not believe us anyway when we tell them that Islam means submission and that jihad is the way of Allah. From my own experience, I was reluctant to believe these things too, more than six years ago. It was not until I read Mr. Spencer's books and then went out and bought a Qur'an for myself to read that my eyes were opened. One has to undertake the journey because one is first curious. If you do not have the inner motivation to learn about these things, you are not going to do it because someone is suggesting you do it or trying to make you see reason. The only thing we can do to avoid being labelled Islamophobes (and I actually do not mind being called that)is to cease being critical of Islam. And that is something I am not prepared to do.
Very frank, Fred, and well said.
But do remember that this site is "anti jihad" not "anti Moslem
Well Galloping Granny, you just proved you haven't been reading anything Hugh and Robert post here. The whole point of this site is to prove through example that: Islam = Jihad. The Koran demands it. I find it impossible to be anti-jihad without being, consequentely, anti-islamic.
Yes, race enters into it. But that is not our fault. That is their fault. And it is too bad because the race angle protects islam in our liberal societies from criticism, counter attack, and legal prosecution. For that reason, I wish race was not apart of it. It is their greatest asset in their jihad. It is what protects them.
But I also have customers who are Arabic. I work for them. And it is my pleasure to do so. But they are Copts. Christians. There is something fundamentally different about them. And it ain't the crucifix on the wall.
I always like the pre-karmic idea that a killer is "substituted backwards in time" and has to stand in for all of his victims, at the time and manner of their murders.
In essence, every crime suffered by every criminal.
May Zarqawi now be awakening, again and again and again, to discover himself gagged, blindfolded, and hearing his own manifesto of screams and his own knife approaching.
Until the idea penetrates: cruelty is demonic.
profitsbeard - why is what you suggest "pre-karmic" as opposed to simply "karmic"? One wouldn't need to be transported BACK in time to be subjected to horrible punishment. Zarqawi could be reborn tomorrow as a woman in (apparently soon to be Talibanesque) Somalia - and be married off as a 9 year old to a disgusting, malodorous 60 year old man with rotting teeth who rapes and beats him regularly, eventually throws acid in his face and finds himself stoned to death eventually by his Islamic brethren.
Personally I don't get the idea of eternal hell. Reincarnation and karma makes a whole lot more sense to me from a theological perspective (bad, "quasi-Christian" that I am).
These pictures should be posted on tv as a warning to would-be-terrorists : you run, but you cannot hide.
Actually PB - on second thought - I do like the idea you describe - that one would simply have to personally relive whatever pain one inflicted in this lifetime. That would be real justice.
I simply cannot believe in the notion of "eternal hellfire", because where is the justice in that? That's not justice. That's just savagery and the all too human emotion of revenge.
But does any religion (ancient even) actually endorse the belief in the "afterlife" which you decribe?
I don’t know if any religion endorses it but Dante’s Inferno describes the different levels of hell and the punishments doled out for various sins. Interesting though that murder will get you the 7th circle while treachery will deposit you in circle 9.
Sorry Caroline - didn't mean to lose anyone. Let me try again:
The reason you lose me there is that mocking the 72 virgins idea is NOT anti-Moslem. It is mocking Islam. Something that Ali Sina is quite adept at and makes a clear distinction about - mock Islam but don't mock Muslims.
One thing you might notice about Robert, Ali, Hugh, etc. is that they always try to stick to facts/arguments that they can win, even while they are making fun.
Religious faith is, unfortunately, very hard to apply things like logic and reason to - that's why it is faith. It is easy to mock many things in Islam, and many attitudes of their fellow travelers. As an example, some group or other is making a huge fuss today because the US showed the perp's dead mug shot on international TV, claiming it was a "violation of the Geneva Convention!!!!" I ask you - WHERE were these nice folks screaming about the Geneva Convention when Zarqawi beheaded Nick Berg and posted the entire event to the net, which then was transmitted worldwide?
Every religion has some vision or other of what life after death is like. Most of them are in some way or another ridiculous to those of other religions. The religous concept of some heaven in the next life is one of the very first religious concepts children learn, in any religion, thus one of the hardest to undo. More importantly, no one at any time in world history has come back with solid proof of exactly who is right and who is wrong. So, by definition, arguments about the afterlife are moot anyway.
All of us here think that 72 virgins in Paradise (not Heaven) is laughable. Millions of people do not. It is 100% fair - and logical - to point out the illogic, inconsistencies and contradictions in Islam itself between the expectations of "perfection" in this life and the wild abandon of the next. To do so is also an effective tactic with both "undecideds" and those born Moslem who have doubts. To point out that women, who have virtually no rights other than to dehumanize themselves under a bedsheet in this life, simultaneously have no expectation of the afterlife either is fair. And effective. At least some small portion of those millions of people who believe in 72 virgins might change their minds. Apostate ex-muslims are becoming more and more common and we should welcome every one of them.
To say something like "I bet he's having a sextravaganza" (no offense intended to the authors) rather than something along "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" lines is gratuitous. It sounds like kids out in the school yard - nah, nah your Mamma wears combat boots.
But at the end of your post you admonish posters for "personal attacks on Islam", suggesting to me that you are a bit confused. Yes of course we attack Islam "in general" - which is precisely what mocking the idea of the 72 virgins in paradise is about. (And what is wrong with mocking a ridiculous belief that may have been a huge motivation for Zarqawi to wantonly and brutally kill so many people?)
More likely I was distracted rather than confused. Kitchen's full of bread dough, made 3 gallons of spahgetti sauce and I am a homeschool teacher, LOL.
I don't believe that the 72 virgins in Paradise is the motivator for Zarqawi or anyone else. It may be the convenient lie these folks and their families hide behind when they excuse sending their sons off to slaughter, but I know of no pyschopath (and that is exactly what this man was) who murders for anything other than the pleasure of the kill.
In our society, we view serial killers as an aberration, to be locked up till the day they die if we catch them in a state we cannot execute them in. Islam - for whatever reasons, be they societal or religious, produces serial killers who claim to act in the name of some god, much like a few in the West who have claimed exactly the same. The difference is that in the West we know darned good and well that such a serial killer is having hallucinations. Islamic serial killers are operating under a mass delusion shared by a huge chunk of the society in which they live.
(snipped a bit)But if your point is that Muslims in general will take offense at posters here mocking Islam - and that we should avoid mocking (or criticizing - where do you draw the line?) Islam - then I think you've missed the point altogether. And you've certainly missed Ali Sina's point.
I have little or no concern about Moslems in general. I have none whatever about what the Islamic world might think. Criticism is good, especially when it is based on something that can be logically torn asunder. Mockery is good, when it reinforces that criticism.
Not for half a second would I, as an example, refuse to publish a cartoon like those that caused the mega riot. Those were valid criticism and as a non-Moslem, I am not subject and refuse to be subject to their religious principles, any more than I would expect a Moslem to genuflect on entering a church, kiss the bishop's ring or wear a prayer shawl.
There are certain things though, in any religion, that one can make fun of "just because," 72 virgins being one of them. To those of us who don't believe in 72 virgins and know the dangers of Islam, this might be funny.
To an "undecided" who came looking for answers, it more likely appears to be hate speech, no matter the context or intent.
To a Moslem-by-birth possibly taking a few tentative steps away from this horror, this might very well seem to be a very personal attack of deeply held beliefs by a schoolyard bully.
gallopinggranny: "I don't believe that the 72 virgins in Paradise is the motivator for Zarqawi or anyone else. It may be the convenient lie these folks and their families hide behind when they excuse sending their sons off to slaughter, but I know of no pyschopath (and that is exactly what this man was) who murders for anything other than the pleasure of the kill."
But then aren't you slandering Muslims by that statement? Aren't you implying (by dismissing the ideological motivation inherent in islam - including their view of the afterlife) that they are in some way "genetically" motivated to kill? Is that a more comforting explanation than the notion that they kill because of an ideology - that ideology being Islam? And if you were to consider the possibility that they kill because of Islam/ideology (as opposed to some genetic explanation positing a virulent strain of psychopathy), would the 72 virgins constitute part of that explanation for why they kill?
"Islam - for whatever reasons, be they societal or religious, produces serial killers who claim to act in the name of some god, much like a few in the West who have claimed exactly the same. The difference is that in the West we know darned good and well that such a serial killer is having hallucinations. Islamic serial killers are operating under a mass delusion shared by a huge chunk of the society in which they live."
But now it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.
"Islam...produces serial killers".
True.
Of course they "claim to act in the name of some God"
but you are also implying there that Muslims en masse share in this mass delusion ( you refer to "a huge chunk of the society in which they live"). You are also inadvertently implying by that statement that this "mass delusion" is due to Islam (unless you want to argue that this tendency towards mass murder is somehow genetic in nature)
But if this tendency towards mass murder IS due to ideology (as opposed to a genetic predisposition towards psychopathy) what parts of islam as an ideology contribute to this tendency towards mass murder then?
Why would you out of hand dismiss the idea of 72 virgins in paradise as part of that ideological motivation to explain their propensity towards mass murder?
Just because it seems totally ridiculous to you?
Well it seems totally ridiculous to me as well. Which is why I have no problem mocking it. And no problem with other posters here mocking such an absurd idea either.
this murderous vile and evil follower of mohammed is now bowed in front of God for final condemnation.
His shoes will be filled by another vile and evil mo that will be hunted down if he fights.
Osams has run and hide as most mos do when faced with any force.
The aya regarding the 72 virgins (or as Mr Luxembourg would argue "grapes") is interesting. I have heard some progressive Muslims, argue that this was not revelation, but a deliberate insertion by Muhammad (yes, i know most of you would say all of the Qur'an is just a deliberate insertion) to encourage Muslims to actually fight. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that recruitment went through the roof after this verse was "revealed".
Let us get this Islamophobia out of the the way. There is no one who reads or writes on JW or DW who can possible be an ISLAMOPHOBE because to be an ISLAMOPHOBE you have to have an irrational fear of ISLAM and all the people who come to this site have a RATIONAL FEAR OF ISLAM. If you have problems by being call an Islamophobe counter it with the above argument, and if you can't give at least 10 good argument out of the Koran then you don't deserve to reading or writing your comments here. A gentle mocking is the best way to make advocates of the Islamic heaven look foolish, but I have yet to see it performed effectively by anyone either in Television or in the Newspapers. Rational questions make irrational concepts look exceedingly foolish. A Simple example Why 72 virgins why not 82 or 12, do I get to chose shape colour of race, why do you want boys when you have all those bueatiful virgins are they reserved for Homos. If I am a Sadist can I get a pass for a short holiday in Hell.
Caroline wrote: But then aren't you slandering Muslims by that statement? Aren't you implying (by dismissing the ideological motivation inherent in islam - including their view of the afterlife) that they are in some way "genetically" motivated to kill?
First, I would be libeling them rather than slandering, were I doing either. This is in print.
But no, I am doing neither. For something to be slander or libel it must be demonstrably false. Nor am I dismissing ALL ideological motivation, just the particular ideological motivation of 72 virgins as an impetus to either suicide or serial murder.
The Nature v. Nurture question is one that no one in the scientific community has yet been able to answer. There are great arguments on both sides. One thing I've learned over more than a half-century, though, is that there are never just two sides to any argument. In a divorce there is always his side, her side and the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle.
In the particular case of serial killers, I would posit that both genetics and environment play a role. Born with the potential, created by the environment.
That is not necessarily such a far-fetched idea about Islam (and other cults) either.
Does genetics play a role? You know, Caroline, it just might. Certainly genetics plays a role in some other psychological/neuronal disorders and a number of cancers. Repeated intermarriage within a group over a period of time tends to greatly multiply the number of genetic errors present in a given gene pool.
Look at the devastation of the European "aristocracy" by the single genetic mutation that presented in Queen Victoria and then passed on to her children, all of whom intermarried within the same closed group. Virtually all of the EU aristos at the time were cousins, many of them first cousins. Prior to WWI virtually every ruler in EU was either a direct descendant of Victoria or married to a direct descendant, sometimes both. Both the last Czar of Russia and his wife were grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Within that one immediate, repeatedly intermarried family, the Kaiser was born with a birth defect of a type possibly related to nutritional deficiences (some reports say he was also rather loony), the Czar's heir AND both sons of the King of Spain AND at least one of Victoria's sons all had hemophilia. There was a British prince (actually might have been the legal heir) who was hidden away for years due to epilepsy and mental "deficiencies." Many historians consider Alexei's hemophilia to be an almost direct cause of the collapse of the Russian czar's rule and more than one has baldly stated that WWI was a family feud on steroids.
One thing I've seen stated repeatedly about Islamic cultures by people both East and West is that it is centered on the clan/tribe and women are often married off to their first cousins. Could 1400 years of that lead to some widespread genetic aberration? Obviously so.
RE mass delusions, read up on the Nazi movement in Germany. Dozens of books have been written attempting to explain the phenomenon. Islam is an ideology very similar to the Nazi movement. Most Islamic countries and well known Moslem personalities were allied to the Nazis during WWII.
So, why do I dismiss 72 virgins as a motivator? It sounds like a "cover story," very similar to what you hear women who are being abused say: "He was drunk, it was the beer talking. He LOVES me" --- yadaa, yadaa, yadaa ad nauseum. One of those things people tell themselves and everyone else, all of whom pretend to believe it, in order to avoid confronting a problem.
I have no problem mocking 72 virgins appropriately. Holger Dansker does it brilliantly:
Why 72 virgins why not 82 or 12, do I get to chose shape colour of race, why do you want boys when you have all those bueatiful virgins are they reserved for Homos. If I am a Sadist can I get a pass for a short holiday in Hell.
Like my Grandma always told me - "It isn't WHAT you say, it is HOW you say it!"
Carolyn2,
Thanks for the video link.
Holger Dansker, well said!
Q.E.D.
gallopinggranny is more than willing to label ,
When we allow ourselves to speak and sound exactly like the barbarians that we are fighting Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 11:31 AM
the racist crackpots those nasty comments make us sound like
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:17 PM
by appearing to be racist crackpots through ill-considered, juvenile remarks
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:34 PM
They are AMMUNITION for our own see-nothings who would call us racist Islamophobes
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Giving the enemy the first excuse to equate us with Jew haters and Nazis is something else entirely!
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 01:31 PM
Yes, those who will not see will invariably equate us with the KKK
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 01:57 PM
Do I detect a pattern?
And what was the horribly offensive remark…
I bet he is having a sex-travaganza with the 72 virgins right now.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 8, 2006 11:11 AM
Wow!
My personal favorite,
Patton was charged with driving millions up the Italian peninsula,
Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 8, 2006 04:34 PM
http://www.generalpatton.com/biography.html
Clark was charged with driving ¼ million US/UK troops up the Italian peninsula, http://www.bookrags.com/biography-mark-wayne-clark/index.html
Zarqawi is DEAD!!!
Justice has been served!!
gallopinggranny: "In the particular case of serial killers, I would posit that both genetics and environment play a role. Born with the potential, created by the environment."
Actually this reminds me of a previous discussion I had with Archimedes about the Mouusaoui case:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/011298.php
(It starts on May 4, 5:33 pm in the thread. If I understood the magic that people use to link directly towards a particular spot in a thread, I would use it. I have no idea but I would be grateful to anyone here who wants to give us all a lesson).
But anyway, the gist of the discussion was about the apparent prevalence of psychopathy in the Muslim population to explain how they can kill without any conscience whatsoever, a cardinal feature of psychopathy (now called sociopathy). I was positing that this caused some dilemma for western psychiatry in terms of what is considered "normative" behavior, because Islam appears to make psychopathy "normative". I was trying to avoid this conclusion by noting that people at war by definition must adopt certain features of sociopathy.
Anyway the long and short of it was that Archimedes soundly noted the kind of nature-nurture argument you are making. In other words, there is likely a certain universal genetic propensity towards psychopathy but some cultures and societies nurture that propensity while others put a brake on it.
Islam, as a culture, nurtures a particular genetic trait which is otherwise probably normatively distributed.
That seems like a reasonable explanation of the stituation to me. But you seem to be going further when you discuss the genetics in terms of "interbreeding" and so on. You seem to me to be putting the onus far more on the "nature" than the "nurture". And that seems to me to be why you are dismissing the Ideology as you do - including the 72 virgins as motivation.
I actually don't know if you are correct about the genetic factors. I would merely note that in making that case (weighing in on nature more than nurture) I think you are being much more "libelous" (thank you for the clarification) than those posters here who merely mock the idea of the 72 virgins.
Personally, I am not concerned with whether you are being libelous or not in positing a genetic explanation for this mass-murderer (and his many Muslim cohorts). But then I'm not the one who was objecting to people mocking the ideological motivation of the 72 virgins either.
I would like to note, however, that inasmuch as you would admit the "nurture" part of the equation - the ideology - that the 72 virgins cannot be dismissed. See Haidon's post above. Haidon is a Muslim.
Whoops - 5:33 AM. Archimedes is apparently an insomniac or at least a whole lot more self-disciplined than I am.
Caroline wrote: That seems like a reasonable explanation of the stituation to me. But you seem to be going further when you discuss the genetics in terms of "interbreeding" and so on.
Yes, I am going further. The outline of very basic genetic principles that I sketched above are hard science. (I used to be a working medical scientist before I retired.)
Genetic inheritance is entirely dependent on the DNA that you receive from your biological parents. That will eventually express itself as things like your hair color, your eye color, if you go bald, what your voice sounds like and so on. It will also express itself in things not so visible - your cholesterol level, your "normal" body temp, certain cancers, heart disease, diabetes and much, much more. And then too you will note similarities within families that cannot entirely be explained away by environment, even though we may not be able as yet to point to some specific gene and say "this is the cause." Schizophrenia/bipolar disorder is one of those. If one of your parents or grandparents is bipolar, you have an increased chance of being bipolar. "Runs in families" as they say.
There are countless possible genetic combinations (probably not truly countless, but a really huge number it is not necessary to look up.) In our society we tend to marry people outside of our own "clan" or family. That brings an entirely new set of DNA to the new generation. If you happen to get one bad gene, you have another gene that may very well override the bad gene or mitigate the damage done to your organism. Sickle cell is a perfect example.
In Islamic societies the tendency is to marry within your same clan/family - as did your parents and your grandparents. Instead of adding new DNA, the DNA pool becomes more and more homogenous with each succeeding generation.
So, when some genetic anomaly arises - and they do in most people - instead of a different/better/more close to correct copy of a gene being available to express itself, the error spreads and multiplies with each succeeding generation. The Biblical "sins of the fathers" really do get passed along to the sons and quite literally multiply.
Science has long, long been aware of this. The Jews wrote down laws prohibiting intermarriage nearly 5000 years ago. Here in the US virtually every state has laws against intermarriage. In most you cannot marry a first cousin, nor can you marry an aunt or an uncle and usually a long list of other folks.
Now, can I say that there is some genetic defect that makes Islam what it is? No, of course not. I can definitely say, however, that within a closed society that practices and has practiced intermarriage of first cousins for hundreds of years, numerous genetic abnormalities as measured against the norm of a heterogenous society would absolutely be present. And I can absolutely assure you that there are very high rates of certain genetically linked diseases in the Middle East.
Sometimes, that inbreeding can lead to genetic expressions that can't exactly be called a disease, but none the less are apparent and quantifiable. We've documented this here in the US in certain small, closed societies in Appalachia. Sometimes that can be learning capacity - or lack there of.
Something else to consider: Islamic women tend to have many children and tend to keep having children past the age of 30. They also eat last, by custom. A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have. Those eggs start to break down with age. So certain genetic abnormalities like Down Syndrome are far more common in children born to older women. Numerous birth defects are associated with poor nutrition. A woman who is having a baby every year or two, nursing those children and eating last by definition would be a victim of poor nutrition, as would any child that she is carrying - even without a poverty factor. No period of rest/renewal between gestation-lactation periods. Each successive child would be more likely to have problems.
There would be no universal normative rate for psychopathy any more than there is a world-wide normative for much of anything else. Normal in something testable may depend on your race, where you live, your age, the equipment something was tested on, how high you live above sea-level. Normal in Flagstaff, AZ can be a very different thing than normal on Cape Cod.
Psychology, though, is not "hard" science. If you have diabetes, we can run certain tests and determine quantitatively that you do. We can run more and figure out why in some cases. We can run still another and learn whether or not you are sticking to your diet appropriately.
We cannot do any of that in the field of psychology. Diagnosis is based on societal norms, observation, self input. What is a terrible aberration in our society is perfectly normal elsewhere. It is not the least unusual for a psychiatric patient to have as many different diagnoses as they have had psychiatrists. We see that in courtrooms all the time.
So - could there be something inherent in the genetic makeup of many people from strongly Moslem countries that leads them to think and behave differently than we do? Absolutely. Can we define it? No. Not from either a genetic or a psychological basis.
We should not, however, dismiss Nature. Nurture can destroy nature, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it overcoming Nature.
-Caroline,
If you want to link to a particular posting, right-click on the time/date stamp link at the bottom of that post, copy the link address, and use it as you would any other link address.
When you highlight it, the time/date link should look like:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011737.php#c227675*
*Note the number following the 'php'(#c227675). Everything before that points to the page address. The number following the number sign points to the individual posting
Hope that helps.
The Moors last sigh.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011298.php#c210656
Test.
I better be brief here as this thread is about to be bumped!
Granny -
The genetics issue is certainly interesting. Zarqawi was apparently a criminal before he "got Islam" and as Archimedes pointed out on the previous thread, Moussaoui's father was a violent man so it is possible that Mouse inherited a genetic propensity towards violence. Also interesting is the spread of islam in prisons which have a high population of sociopaths. Makes me wonder if Muslims themselves understand there to be a link between sociopathy and Islam or why else would they so pointedly target prison populations in their recruitment efforts?
I do have to wonder about the genetic contribution to violence in Arabs in particular (above and beyond the ideology of Islam). The iraqis are Arabs (but the Kurds are not IIRC). The Palestinians are Arabs. Steven Schwartz likes to point out the difference in islam in the Balkans vs. Saudi Arabia. Just a few examples that come to mind.
But I suppose if one wanted to really try to tease apart the genetic vs the ideological angle, one could look to Pakistan vs India. I believe it is arjun.sedak (sic) - our regular poster here - who has pointed out in the past that Pakistanis and Indians share the same genes and the difference between them is a perfect illustration of what Islam - the ideology - does to people.
It worked! Very cool. Thanks Eisenhund!:-)
You're entirely welcome, Caroline.