Princeton economist: Poverty doesn’t cause terror, so it must be…er…denial of civil liberties! Yeah, that’s it!

In “Princeton Economist Says Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism” by David Wessel in the Wall Street Journal (thanks to all who sent this in), Princeton economist Alan Krueger ably debunks the crumbling myth that poverty causes terrorism, and then, breezily ignoring the jihad ideology, constructs his own alternative myth.

…Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, “Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror.” Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, “The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent.”…

“As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate,” Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, “What Makes a Terrorist?”

Krueger hasn’t discovered anything new in the idea that jihadists are generally wealthier and better educated than their peers. We have documented that fact here again and again and again over the years.

“There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen,” he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.

[…]

“¢ Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.

“¢ Terrorism doesn’t increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists. Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as “significant” reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.

“¢ Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.

[…]

So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he says, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”

The Wall Street Journal’s dogged cluelessness about the jihad ideology never ceases to astound me, and here we go again. For a rebuttal, let’s bring in Mr. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, and no friend of those who, like Muslims Hassan Butt and Tanveer Ahmed, believe that the root cause of jihad terrorism is not anything that non-Muslims do, but the jihad ideology itself. Mr. Blair? What would you say to someone who posits that Muslims in Britain hatched the recent terror plots because of a lack of civil liberties?

…’The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don’t have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you’ve got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,’ Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

‘The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we’re not actually fighting it properly. We’re not actually standing up to these people and saying, “It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.”‘…

Blair added: ‘How are [we] oppressing them? You’re oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.’

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    OT

    I am feeling a little better now. For the last five minutes I have literally been banging my head on my desk, and crying with frustration and anger, luckily I don’t have much hair. Like most of my fellow countrymen in times of adversity I have gone and mashed myself a good strong cup of tea. My blood pressure is going down, and my dog has resumed her usual position curled up at my side by the computer. The pure inanity of some of the people in power defies belief. I am certain many of my compatriots who read Jihad Watch will be feeling the same as myself. I feel that there is a suppressed anger bubbling away under the surface. I am English to the core, a WASP, and I can trace my descendants back the the 12th century. These so called leaders of ours are alienating the indigenous population. The more stupidity they spout the more contempt the population will feel for them. They will pay a heavy price for their contempt when we are really attacked and a backlash begins. We were saved by not police vigilance but by the terrorists incompetence. One day one of them will get through and murder thousands of my countrymen and the dam will burst, I am sorry this is off thread but I feel so impotent and frustrated I just had to talk to someone.

    Political Correctness gone Mad

    POLICE chiefs were last night under intense pressure to use racial profiling in the battle to prevent ­further terror strikes.
    All the suspects in the latest failed attacks are young adults of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. But officers carrying out spot checks at key sites have been told not to target people based on their ethnicity or age.

    It means searches are unfocused, with even elderly white couples being stopped. The policy has led to accusations that police bosses are more worried about upsetting minority groups than protecting the country.

    One frustrated officer last night said: “In these extreme circumstances the rules need to be changed because otherwise we are wasting our resources.”

    Security has been stepped up at potential targets across the UK following the attempted car bomb attacks in London and at Glasgow airport at the weekend.

    Political correctness is being put above the security of people in this country.

    Tory MP Philip Davies

    But police resources are already overstretched, with widespread spot checks at airports and other key sites resulting in major delays for many passengers.

    There were urgent calls yesterday for an immediate change in tactics as fears grow that more terrorist attacks are being planned.

    A senior police officer ” among those carrying out the random checks ” contacted this newspaper to explain why the policy is failing.

    He said: “You can only stop a percentage of cars at any one time and once the cars have slowed down to a point where you can see the occupants it would make sense for us to be able to use profiling and stop people based on appearance.

    “At the moment we are stopping middle class, white pensioners and while we are searching their vehicle another car with four men of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance goes sailing past towards the airport and we have missed them.”

    The officer, who asked not to be named, added: “The police on the ground want to do their job but we are being hampered by the rules.

    “We are told that there is no intelligence to indicate what a bomber may look like. But you only have to look at all the people who have been linked to or convicted of terror-related activities in this country to see that there is a definite profile.”

    Tory MP Philip Davies said: “I agree with him completely. It makes my blood boil. In a nutshell, what police officers are being told is put political correctness above the security of people in this country.”

    Alan Gordon, vice-chairman of the Police Federation which represents rank and file officers, said: “I have supported the idea of profiling. It seems absolute common sense.

    “Why are we having to stop cars with little old ladies in when we “currently have a profile of terrorist suspects?

    “Some will say it is racist and that the terrorists may well decide to change their profile to overcome that. But it seems ludicrous that we are not allowed to use profiling to target the common risk in this “current climate.”

    Ian Johnston, the Chief Const-able of British Transport Police, faced criticism in the wake of the 7/7 Tube bombings in 2005 when he said his officers would not shy away from targeting those groups who posed the greatest threat. He said police checking passengers would “not waste time searching old white ladies”.

    Home Office minister Hazel Blears first backed his comments then said police should not use “racial profiling” just days later.

    Muslim groups and campaigners warn that profiling simply plays into the hands of the terrorists.

    But the senior police officer said: “Whether we like it or not, the terrorist threat at the moment comes from the Asian community.

    “Of course, it is not all of the community but we must not be afraid of speaking the truth.

    “We are stopping people we know could not possibly be linked to terrorism but once we have waved their car down we have to treat them according to the rules. That means interviews, searching the car, examining luggage. That can take up to 30 minutes and then there is 30 minutes of paperwork as well.

    “It is a disproportionate response to the “threat” posed by a retired couple on their way to a holiday.”

    A spokesman for the British Transport Police said the policy of blanket searches acted as a general deterrent to terrorists by showing that anyone could be stopped.

    And a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said it was vital that Britain’s anti-terrorist tactics did not become “predictable”.

    She said: “The problem is that this debate is taking place at the extremes ” profiling on racial grounds alone or stopping everyone in some sort of misguided attempt to prove we are not being racist.

    “Either approach, in isolation, is simply not sensible. Stop people merely because they are of a certain race and we play into the terrorists” hands ” we become predictable and they change their tactics.

    “Stop everyone, and again we play into their hands ” they want to “terrorise us into suspending our freedoms. We must ensure our tactics are not predictable. This might suggest random searches mixed with targeted is the right approach.”

    Khalid Sofi, chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Racial profiling would result in increased racism and has the potential to be predominantly used against Mus-lims and ethnic minorities.

    “It would have an impact on the confidence in communities of the police. What we need and what we would want is an intelligence-based and evidence-led approach.”

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/12372/Terror-search-fiasco

  2. says

    Robert,

    Maybe Krueger was watching you on Cavuto yesterday, where you debunked the poverty-terrorism link myth.

    Better to plagarize than provide an Islamically uneducated individual thought. Unfotunately, Krueger is grasping at straws, all of them short.

  3. says

    “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he says, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”—Alan Krueger

    Gee, I hope some of the folks who are trying to stifle Jihad Watch, and the opinions of its readers take careful note of this theory.

    Someday soon, we’ll be the ones being driven back by thugs with batons and helmets, tear gas and water cannons, as we stand together with our signs, protesting our loss of free speech.

    I don’t know about everyone else here, but I’m moving toward “malcontent”, and my movement in that direction is accelerating.

    How long do you suppose it will be, before certain authors and books are banned? Like the nuke question: Whom do you think will be banned, first?

  4. says

    Someone needs to e-mail Mr. Princeton Alan Krueger this little rhyme:

    “The Koran – Muslim Holy Book is it’s name / Terror and Murder are it’s game.”

    IOW, it’s the Islamic ideology, stupid!

  5. says

    An honor worth defending

    By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags, then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming “Long Live the Queen!” each time the flames shot up.

    This would be the equivalent of what hardline Muslim students did in the eastern Pakistani city of Multan, to take just one example, when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting “Kill him! Kill him!” in response to his recently bestowed knighthood.

    Such raging crowds, of course, rarely appear in the modern West (unless as soccer hooligans). But they have become a common site across the Muslim world every time a pope, some cartoonist or, now, the British queen, step over some line in the sand drawn by the forces of intolerance.

    As with all wars, symbols are important. But this is especially true in the Muslim mind which is governed by a rigid code of honor and shame. In this context symbols are not just images, but a matter of life and death.

    The honor-and-shame code affects all Muslim societies from top to bottom – family, tribe and the Umma, or the Muslim nation. The queen, in this view, added insult to injury by honoring him – a slap in the face of 1.5 billion Muslims. In the tribal mindset – and Islam is a tribal religion and political movement combined – if one’s icons are destroyed without consequence then one has essentially surrendered.

    Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons – such as when the queen is burned in effigy – by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.

  6. says

    “But officers carrying out spot checks at key sites have been told not to target people based on their ethnicity or age.”

    Holger Dansker–

    Now I want to bang my head against my desk!

    Maybe the only way around the “no profiling” insanity is to stop everybody. If this were implemented, I don’t think it would be long before the general public got the point, and turned toward their leaders for a realistic remedy.

    Oh, I know I’m dreaming. But, it feels better than banging my head…

  7. says

    So the introduction of Sharia Law (which is what many terrorists want) would enhance civil liberties and political rights?

  8. says

    David Wessel is a pointy-headed intellectual. Too busy sharpening his head to fit in the small hole of his academic discipline to ever be bothered reading the 7th Century drivel of some epileptic, illiterate, sexual deviated, Arab supremecist serial murderer and his gang bangers.

  9. says

    “Khalid Sofi, chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Racial profiling would result in increased racism and has the potential to be predominantly used against Mus-lims and ethnic minorities.”

    ….let’s see…just who is creating 95% of world wide violence on a mass scale in todays world?….why…it appears to be Muslims….

    …it seems only logical to start profiling….

    …call it racism…or call it survival…it needs to be done…Ban Muslim immigration..

  10. says

    “The Wall Street Journal’s dogged cluelessness about the jihad ideology never ceases to astound me, and here we go again. ”

    Now that murdoch’s takeover of the WSJ looks like a done deal, don’t look for that cluelessness to change. he has a track record of kowtowing to the chinese & saudis. when my subscription runs out at the end of the month, I won’t be renewing it, & will let the journal know exactly why.

  11. says

    Recent economic numbers just released from al-Queda Institute of Slightly Faulty Facts show that unemployment for terrorists has reached an all time low of 4.5%. The proverbial full employment. It’s a job but somebody has to do it. Terror..is job one.

  12. says

    “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he says, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”

    Ah, I see. If we just allowed Muslims to protest more, terrorism would stop.

  13. says

    Ignorance has no bounds.

    But let us turn this to our advantage and start the buzz about sharia law, the beating of women, stoning of women for adultery, the duality between believer and kafir, bring it on mohammed, let’s talk about equality.

  14. says

    “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he says, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”

    Yes, those British, American, Canadian, Australian, etc., secret police have got to stop throwing Muslims in prison for writing letters to newspapers, phoning radio and TV call-in shows, conducting pro-Hezbollah marches, protesting against book store owners, contacting their government and school board representatives, voting in free elections, attending the mosque of their choice, sending their children to Islamic religious schools or homeschooling, phoning family back home and generally talking amongst themselves anywhere in public.

    Only when these actions are no longer prohibited by law will Islamic terrorism end.

  15. says

    He might want to start with Sura 9:5, and do a search on all of its implications online.

    Then 9:29-30.

    That’ll take about a month.

    Then he might want to read the Koran.

    As previous generations read Mein Kampf, Mao’s book on Guerrilla Warfare, Sun Tzu, and Clauswitz.

    Instead of remaining a Halfwitz.

  16. says

    WHAT ATHEISTS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND…

    What makes a person willing to strap a bomb to himself and go out killing any number of strangers in the name of Allah has absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties, poverty, or even “discontent.”

    There are exactly three elements flourishing within the person who decides to become a suicide bomber, and they are none other than: faith, hope and love.

    Blowing one’s self up for Allah is an ACT OF WORSHIP if nothing else. The most idealistic, devout and zealous devotees to Islam are the ones who actually carry out these acts of violence. It does not matter, as studies have shown, whether they are rich, poor, educated, uneducated, happy, discontent. What DOES MATTER is the measure of their DEVOTION to Allah, and their own personal sense of CALLING to serve him.

    Faith is the very basis for all of their religious actions, including blowing themselves up and killing infidels in the process. Hope that they shall enjoy an eternity of ease and wealth motivates them and makes the decision to lose their life all the easier. Love for Allah and Mohammed is what separates them from their Muslim peers. It was Jesus who said “Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay his life down for his friends.” What is sickeningly evil about it, of course, is that their love for Allah is expressed in a way that only a DEMON gOD would call for devotion…the senseless murder of innocent people, including children and babies.

    The hard part of the puzzle which most people will never face up to is that these acts of worship which we call “terrorism” are actually heroic acts of love and devotion to Muslims. ANd the Muslims who condone terrorism are not deluded. THey are devotees of a Satanic religion. They know their Koran, make no mistake about it. They know that they are commanded by Allah to make war with infidels until there are no more infidels left to kill. Giving them money, or anything else of this world, will not dissuade them from acts of terror…it’s a faith thing, you wouldn’t understand.

    The only solution is that people need to STOP BELIEVING in the Koran, pure and simple.

  17. says

    “Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as “significant” reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.”

    Someone needs to ask the good Professor why it is that suicide bombers go to their deaths screaming “Allah Akbar!”, and not “Freedom and and economic justice forever!”

    He might ask himself also how many pre-death videos he’s viewed in which the martyrs complained about political or economic oppresion in their socities.

    I believe it was H.G. Wells that said “some ideals are so preposterous that only an intellectual would believe them.”

    Like so many intellectuals, the Professor seems to be more comfortable with the preposterous than with the facts.

  18. says

    Is there a precedent for this? this insanity and denial to face our enemy and recognize him?
    I mean did people say WWII and the Holocaust were NOT a symptom of Nazziism ? did people say that democracy was NOT a result of Totalitarianism and monarchies ? were the Salem witch hunts and other Inquisitions NOT a symptom of the Ills of Christianity at the time? WTH? why can’t we say that Terrorism is NOT a symptom of Poverty , or that it is NOT a symptom of Western policies. Why can’t we say that Terrorsism IS a Result of the twisted Violent teachings of the
    “Perfect example for human behaviour” ???

    seems to be a recent phenomena that even when your enemy has the knife at your throat you believe that it’s not really happening and that loving him will do any good.

    I don’t think the Romans were confused when the Barbarians were at the gates, and the denial to address Hitler’s provocation was not due to a lack of recognition of his Evil.

  19. says

    Lack of civil liberties, that’s the problem. I guess the janjaweed in Darfur are killing Christians because the Janjaweed feel deprived…this is sick stuff.
    Tookson, I agree with the worship and faith part, but not about the ‘love’ part. What muslims feel about Allah, Mohammad is not ‘love’. Love doe’s not react by killing. Love is not lethal. Love is not a pzz poor attitude. Islam is a self serving vehicle to get one into Allah’s heaven, and love has little to do with it. Supreme selfishness, resulting in death and destruction, is not love. It is gross materialism of the worst kind. Allah’s book calls for this approach, and ‘love’ is nowhere to be found…According to Tabari, Mohammad said, that Allah said, that a ‘true believer is one who says the prayers, pays the jakat (tax) bows in homage and renounces agreements with Jews’.
    There is no mention of love being a requirement…

  20. says

    Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons – such as when the queen is burned in effigy – by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.

    Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

    Whatever we do helps them recruit more jihadists.

    We refuse to fight on their level and that makes us look weak and so they turn up the pressure.

    We get down in the mud with them and they can say that we are out to destroy Islam and so they get more “peaceful Muslims” to join the fight.

    Walid Phares distinguishes between the “hundreds of thousands of conservative Muslims” who pray five times a day and the “jihadists, an ideological group”. (Once again, it’s not Islam but a radical ideological movement.) Then he says that frustration over a perceived injustice or wrong in the world (Kosovo, Iraq, Gaza, etc.) can turn a peaceful Muslim into an ideologue and then he becomes receptive to the jihadists. So what will be the next “frustration” that will turn how many “peaceful Muslims” into jihadists?

    One of the doctors in Glasgow supposedly was from a prominent Sunni family that had prospered under Saddam but lost everything when he fell. A new life in London apparently wasn’t enough for him. The doctor didn’t want to kill people, but he wanted to die.

  21. says

    Its Islamic Theology Stupid!

    That’s the cause of this violence. There is so much anti-non-Muslim verses in the Koran and this teaches a world view where Muslims are superiour in value to non-Muslims. Islam is a supremicist religion and must be opposed since this theology will continually spawn violent ideologies. If these elements in the Koran are repudiated by Muslims then we can live together in peace.

    Islam is the only major religion without the Gold Rule. Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and especially Christianity all teach the equal value of all human beings. Sure, each group will psychologically fall into seeing their own group as better, since all human beings make this error. Their religions however fight against this idea, with the exception of Islam.

    This is why Muslims are so quick to offense. “How date and inferior people offend us!!!!” We are not full human beings until we are Muslim therefore we must act our place. It is like a black man offending a white racist, the white racist will be %1000 times more offended than an offense from a supposed equal. That is what this all is about. Why it is a misnomer … Islam, even in its peaceable forms is often extremely racist due to the failings of its perverse theology.

  22. says

    These PC ivory-tower knuckleheads will say anything other than, “It’s the Koran.”

    That could be offensive!

  23. says

    Duh Swami:

    Excellent point, and I cannot disagree w/ your logic. Well said.

    I guess what I meant by love in this context was that laying one’s life down for Allah, as evil as he is, is an act of love for Allah and simultaneously an act of murder and hatred toward non-Muslims–which reveals the true nature of Allah more than anything else. Loving Allah = murdering the innocent.

    Death is Satan’s dominion. (Hebrews 2:14)

  24. says

    “Let me be a slave to Allah or I kill us All!”

    Someone needs to ask the good Professor why it is that suicide bombers go to their deaths screaming “Give Me Sharia or Give Me Death!”

  25. says

    Tookson: WHAT ATHEISTS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND…

    Correction: WHAT LEFTY LIBERALS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND…

    I have no interest in religion, Im an unbeliever, but I have a pretty good idea how believing your god wants you to wage war on his behalf must have on these islamic killers. I’m baffled that there are still people who are still, STILL, apathetic about what we are facing.
    Im not sure what being an atheist has to do with anything.

  26. says

    “Allah is HAPPY when the kuffar is killed!”–imam al-Masri, from “OBSESSION: RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR AGAINST THE WEST.”

    While bozos like this guy Krueger label such gruesome homicidal conduct of Muslims ‘terrorism,’ most Muslims truly don’t see ANYTHING wrong with premeditated killings of non-Muslims. According to the Kuran, “paradise lies under the shade of the swords.” And by and large Muslims believe these and many other similar concepts in the Kuran– and act upon them.

    Did the Aztecs and Mayans or Babylonians see anything wrong with slicing up their ‘religious’ sacrificial victims? (No). Has it occurred to any of the western democracies’ supposedly brilliant sociologist scholars like Krueger that there could be a similar phenomena at work within Islam? Or will they continue grasping at straws in a pathological attempt to keep our eyes covered with wool?

  27. says

    Krueger, to create a general theory of terror, is sure to mention Israeli extremists, some of whom plotted and executed terror attacks against Palestinians.

    The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.

    Unfortunately for Krueger’s theory that lack of civil liberties causes terror, his citation of Israeli terrorists argues against his theory. Israel is an oasis of civil liberties in the middle east.

    In the case of theorists like Krueger and Gen. Petraeus’ counter insurgency advisor Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, they may not necessarily be engaging in denial about the role of jihad in Islam, but rather trying to craft more generalized theories that could be applied in other situations.

  28. says

    To be fair, he’s got that partially correct. After all, jihadis DO demand the God-given political “right” to impose Sharia law upon the world. Apparently many Muslim countries have indeed impeded the “civil rights” of Islamists and jihadis in pursuit of that goal. Which is why they’ve come to the west, where western countries like Britain have given them free reign in terms of their “civil liberties” to preach the overthrow of the state in favor of Sharia law.

    And which civil liberties have obviously not deterred them one bit in their willingness to resort to terrorism.

    Right there is where this genius academic needs to step away from his computer, and his aggregate statistical analysis, and the overhead fluorescent lights in his office, maybe even take a walk on the beach – and then do some serious rethinking of his hypothesis.

    P.S. Josephine – nice post :-)

  29. says

    Tookson…I was not challenging your credibility, I got your point as you explained it well. It’s just that as far as I know, love and attack cant exist at the same time in the same time-space. So what ‘loving Allah=murdering the innocent’, means to me that this is not ‘love’ at all, and Allah is not God at all. I am not arguing with you, I am expanding on your statement. If Allah is indeed a god that doe’s not exist, then it is impossible to love it. So what you described as ‘love Allah=murdering innocents’, is not love, as we may think of it, but a surrender (submission) to Allah’s doctrine, as written in his book The Quran. This makes them a slave to Allah…Abdallahs. No love is required for muslims to follow the instructions in the Quran about killing non believers. If God is love, and Islam is void of it, that makes Islam Godless, but they have plenty of h…,
    I dont want to use the ‘H’ word for fear of getting Robert banned in Madagascar…have a good day…

  30. says

    Tookson…I was not challenging your credibility, I got your point as you explained it well. It’s just that as far as I know, love and attack cant exist at the same time in the same time-space. So what ‘loving Allah=murdering the innocent’, means to me that this is not ‘love’ at all, and Allah is not God at all. I am not arguing with you, I am expanding on your statement. If Allah is indeed a god that doe’s not exist, then it is impossible to love it. So what you described as ‘love Allah=murdering innocents’, is not love, as we may think of it, but a surrender (submission) to Allah’s doctrine, as written in his book The Quran. This makes them a slave to Allah…Abdallahs. No love is required for muslims to follow the instructions in the Quran about killing non believers. If God is love, and Islam is void of it, that makes Islam Godless, but they have plenty of h…,
    I dont want to use the ‘H’ word for fear of getting Robert banned in Madagascar…have a good day…

  31. says

    To james martel, pythagoras and tookson. Spot on. I’ve just read V S Naipaul’s “Among the Believers”, having got onto it thanks to someone in this community posting a sample paragraph.

    When Naipaul went to Pakistan he visited an archaeological site – see Chapter 3, “The Little Arab”. At Banbhore, which contains the remains of what was thought to be the very first mosque built in the sub-continent, after the Arabs conquered Sind.

    I quote: “But there was the mosque, or the floor-plan of the mosque, modelled on the mosque of Kufa in Iraq: that was the treasure of Banbhore.

    “Kufa was associated with the rightly guided Muslims at the very beginning of Islam: it was one of the earliest military towns the Arabs established among the conquered peoples north of Arabia..Conquest first, Islam later; it was the pattern of Arab expansion. So Banbhore, repeating Kufa, and in the first history of Islam, linked Sind and Pakistan to the great days. The remains had been made neat, the floor had been re-tiled around the few old tiles that had survived.”

    “Fragments of decorated pottery lay all over the excavated town site. AND EVERYWHERE, TOO, MIXED WITH THE EARTH AND COMMONER THAN POTTERY, WERE CRUSHED BONES, WHITE AND CLEAN AND SHARP. AHMED SAID THEY WERE HUMAN BONES. But such a quantity! The bones weren’t only on the surface; the excavation trenches showed the mixture of bones and earth all the way down, the bones like a kind of building material. Had the town been built on a cemetery? But why were the bones so crushed?” And Naipaul ends the chapter “at Banbhore, a remote outpost of the earliest Arab empires, you walked on human bones”. And he calls the next chapter, “Killing History”.

    What’s also chilling about the book is that so many of the Islamic revolutionaries – and ‘ordinary’ people that he meets, some of them pretty unremarkable – keep bringing up the theme of mass killing as a necessity for creating the truly pure Islamic society. Remember: this was in the late 1970s, BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war.

    I’m not sure whether at that stage Naipaul had even read the Quran. I’m not sure how much of classic Islamic history and lit he had read. He looks at resurgent Islam ‘on the ground’, in the here and now. He looks at its fruit – and its fruit is apples of Sodom, dust and ashes. Its fruit is death, and more death, and people who talk earnestly of how “we have to do a lot of killing”.

  32. says

    Savitch: I like how you said it better than how I said it, thx for the correction. :)

    Dumbledoresarmy: That is soooo chilling. You’ve got to be sincerely sadistic to want to worship your god while standing on human bones. SICK!

  33. says

    Tookson has a point. Leftists (and many are atheists) don’t understand the zealotry of Muslims who commit these incomprehensible acts. They have to relegate it to mundane things like poverty and politics. Maybe it’s because they’re Marxist and it all comes down to economics?

    As a Catholic, I see Islam as a heresy. What’s a heresy?

    A heresy possesses a dim mirror of the Truth. It’s skewered and perverted and twisted.

    Islam also lacks a unified teaching branch which can control and guide its followers: knowing what is correct (or orthodox) and “pruning” away the lifeless or incorrect from the main body in order to preserve the Truth.

    In short, Islam needs a Pope.

    Now I know Evangelicals who are anti Catholic will probably freak out at this but if you look at Islam and even at some Protestant sects you will see that there are lunatic fringes. You don’t see that in the Church because the Church will cut them off.

    It might be easier to convert a Muslim to Christianity than to convert him to democracy. It’s certainly better than the reprehensible alternative of violently destroying Islam entirely.

  34. says

    Oh, yes – Muslims? Godless.

    As ex-Muslim Ali Sina says, “Allah is an imaginary God.”

    Imagine – all of their centuries of killing in the name of something that doesn’t exist.

    Pitiful. So pitiful. I can’t think of anything more pitiful than Muslims.

  35. says

    It’s certainly better than the reprehensible alternative of violently destroying Islam entirely.

    Posted by: atheling at July 6, 2007 9:22 PM

    What would be so “reprehensible” about destroying islam? If we didn’t live in a bizarre world of left-wing social engineering and cultural Marxism, we could easily protect ourselves from islam and muslims. When the breaking point arrives, the liberals will run and hide and the rest of us will defend ourselves and our way of life. Liberals are only good at vandalism and incendiary rhetoric; they eschew self-defense and war. That’s fine; let them be the first to die at the hands of their beloved muslims, then we’ll handle the muslims.

  36. says

    Tookson – it IS chilling. However, the floor of the 8th c mosque would have been tiles, and whatever they used to stick the tiles onto; the bones & earth mix would have been underneath that; in the rest of the town I’d assume it might be similar, flooring, areas of paving, possibly a layer of ‘clean’ earth on top.

    Naipaul’s account reminded me of descriptions I’ve read of the surrounds of the Nazi death camps – there are areas where the ground is grey, full of tiny tiny bone fragments, the crushed dust of the bones of the victims that was simply dumped. Makes me wonder whether they left piles of victims to rot somewhere, or burned them (but VSN says the bone fragments were white), and then when all that was left were ‘clean’ bones, deliberately smashed them…spread them out, mixed them with the earth, and built the garrison town on top.

    A pity the Pakistanis would never let a team of forensic archaeologists loose on that site. Drill holes, work out just how far the bone/earth mix extended, have a guess at how many tonnes of bone you’ve got, then do the sums to try and guess how many people that amount might represent. Run a carbon dating analysis on it, and check for DNA.