Partying like it's 1984. Of course, many of these terms are euphemisms employed in the first place to dodge the heart of the matter, Islamic jihad. But euphemisms themselves eventually begin to take on too much of the connotation of the words they replaced, and it's soon time to roll out a fresh batch of non-offensive terminology. Eventually, this list will also require revision and supplementation... at taxpayer expense. But maybe, just maybe, it will keep some Misunderstander of Islam from becoming "radicalized."
No, scratch that. Apparently you can't say "radicalize" now, either. "Don't call extremists 'extremists'," by Graeme Wilson for The Sun, December 4:
MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist - in case they offend Muslims.
An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.
They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.
As opposed to violent moderation? Or non-violent extremism? Is the latter ok, then?
Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an "explicit link" between Muslims and terror.
Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it "splits the community".
Islamophobia is also out as it is received as "a slur that singles out Muslims".
It's hard to make heads or tails of that one; the use of passive voice doesn't help.
The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.
The guidance was branded "daft" last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: "Unless you can describe what you're up against, you're never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can't do that if they have one hand tied behind their back."
The Home Office said: "This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else."
The secret weapon, the fruits of the Manhattan Project of the 21st century: "appropriate language."
That Which Must Not Be Named...
George Orwell was a visionary.
His timing was off target by about 25 years.
With a British General Election coming up in 2010 the Labour Party is desperate to retain the islamist vote, and also to avert attention from the evil effects of its deliberate multiculturalist policies involving unrestricted immigration of races and peoples antipathetic to the indigenous native population's cultural, christian heritage.
The Brits are increasingly ridiculous. but Obama is on the same path. Anyway, this video is more pertinent than ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44&feature=player_embedded
Be brave and use accurate language. Don't be cowed by these twisted politicians.
I fail to understand why the society can't act now, Britain has basically become lawless third world country in Europe. It is the closest thing to Swat valley. why can't the voters show the party or parties that shield these murderers an exit?
ISLAMIC TERRORISM is committed by MUSLIMS who have become RADICALISED by reading the Koran and following the orthodox version of Islam told to them by their imams. The ISLAMIC TERRORISTS who commit acts of violence are the 'RADICAL MUSLIMS'. These are the people who want to impose sharia law on us by the use of force and terror. The 'moderate Muslims' are those who want to impose sharia law on us gradually, by means of demographic conquest and increasing demands to change our society to suit them. Ultimately, they are all ISLAMISTS.
How did Arnold Toynbee put it? "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." This is just another nail in the coffin that our leaders want us to jump into.
well just D***,,,,errrrr....well just darn.....
All this fear of M***** terrorism, errrr.... Asian terrorism seems to be working for the M******, errrr....Asians.
The sooner you start openly identifying the problem, the easier it becomes to solve the problem...
Countries are starting to wake up....you can see the banning of minarets, the banning of the veils and burkas...
It is a start.....Banning Muslim Immigration should be high on the list....but it isn't...Unbelievable.....errrr....darn.....
Head in sand ????
NO
HEAD UP ARSE !!
The last sentence in The Sun article quoted the Home Office as saying "This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else."
Indeed it would. But not calling things by their proper names promotes fuzzy thinking and does nothing toward having a "counter-terrorism impact." Indeed, how can one hit a target if one is prevented from identifying it? This is yet another example of Muslims at work behind the scenes to force restrictions on discussions that might involve well deserved criticism of Islam and their precious prophet. It's getting tiresome having to deal with the drip drip drip of day in and day out Islamic dissembling, in addition to the outright violence. Screw 'em.
With the UK government spending huge amounts of money on Muslim advisers, the Quilliam Foundation for example headed by Ed Hussain author of 'The Islamist', it isn't surprising that any term not acceptable to Muslims will be changed on the pretence that such words give offence. They tried to separate Muslims from jihad and Muslims from terrorism sometime ago but it failed because the media refused to buy it and strangely the BBC failed to use the new terminology.
Labour also have at least two Muslims in prominent positions within the cabinet. One being Shahid Malik, Justice Minister who ran up the highest expenses of any MP in the recent scandal and who wants the Islamic flag flying over Downing Street. The other Muslim is Sadiq Khan, Minister of Transport who sat next to Brown on the front bench during Prime Minister's Questions knowing it would be seen by the Muslim population throughout the UK. Brown and his cronies are playing a dangerous game which hopefully will backfire at the next election.
New-speak.
"Islamophobia is also out as it is received as "a slur that singles out Muslims"."
Now they're terrified of even using "Islamaphobia", because it's too Islamaphobic! HAHAHAhahaahahahahaha!! Monty Python couldn't make this stuff up. Hard to believe that this was a nation that ruled one quarter of the globe in the not too distant past. Now they're terrified of a tiny population of barbarians in their midst. Although I shouldn't single out the UK, as all of us in the west are in that position to one degree or another.
Good. Good. Now let us move on to a related subject:
Words Not to Say When Discussing Murder
First and foremost, we must stop the use of the term “murderer” or “murder suspect” or “convicted murderer.” These terms tend to alienate the so-labeled persons in such a way as causes society to think these persons may have done something WRONG. This may result in horrific consequences such as: pouting, temper tantrums, and whiney complaining. We strongly suggest the use of the term “post-life facilitator.”
Second, we must stop using the term “murder victim” as this gives an unwarranted sense of moral superiority of the “death-enhanced individual” over the “post-life facilitator.”
Third, it is not appropriate to use the term “murder trial” for obvious reasons. This term should be changed to “post-life transition incident seminar and discussion panel.”
They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence.
Of course we need to ignore the Quran and the examples of Mahounds behavior...9:5-8:12-8:39, and more than a hundred other verses that 'seem' to advocate violence, but actually don't...And we can ignore all the acts of violence carried out daily, by Mahoundians, which are justifiable as self defense. For some strange, mysterious reason, The Religion of Peace, is under attack by kufr. Jihad is called for, Islam is only defending itself, because...
Noble Qur'an:2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."
SHHH, don't tell The Home Office about this. It will give them a severe case of cognitive dissonance...Like a loud clanging going off in their heads...Or maybe they already have that, which is why they stagger around and mumble a lot...
Britain, your government has surrendered. What say you?
Brit Labor gov't needs to go now! vote out the bums!
Brit Labor gov't needs to go now! vote out the bums!
MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist - in case they offend Muslims. They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence.
The flip side to this appeasement policy is that it absolves the "larger" muslim community from any responsibility for the jihidis in their midst. Not that they would really do anything about them anyway but at least they had to do a rug dance every time one of theirs killed or was caught attempting to kill. Now they don't have to even bother - "You see! That bomber was simply a brainwashed criminal bent on violent extremism. To suggest otherwise is...community cohesion-phobic!"
there has never been a government so determined to deny facts..when it fails ill demand a refund
You know, the other day, while reading the local classifieds, it occurred to me that "discrimination" is a very selective thing.
I'm renting a very old house now, because because discrimination against people like myself bars me from renting anything better.
Most places for rent say "No smokers, no pets". I smoke and have two cats.
Discriminating against against people who smoke and love their animal companions is considered OK, and the landlord has absolute right to discriminate against me.
If I had a house to rent, I'd probably get arrested if I said "No Muslims".
But smoking and pet-keeping is a choice, you say?
So is adhering to a religion.
Discriminatory language? Get stuffed.
"They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism."
And if we don't talk about it, it cannot possibly be. And why alarm the public? What good would that do, if people became alarmed and, what's more, began to investigate, began to read about, what Islam inculcates, what the texts of Islam contain? That would never do.
But why talk about "violent extremism"? That's the favored term, I note, of Obama: "violent extremists." Even that's just a little too violent and a little too extreme. So just modify it a bit -- no one will ever notice. Call all those who pursue Jihad through terrorism not "violent extremists" but "moderate violent extremists." Save the term "violent extremists" for those who, someday, if the American and other Western governments do not begin to exhibit a sooterkins of sense, will use those weapons rolling around in various holds in the listing ship of Pakistan, or those who, because of American and Western confusion and fear and an abdication of responsibility at 1930s levels, are unwilling to prevent Iran, with its crazed and murderous regime, from acquiring such weapons and then....then doing what it has to bring back the Hidden Imam, and give us the last scene in Dr. Strangelove.
But for the everyday Muslim terrorists, the ones who have committed thousands upon thousands of terrorist acts all over the world -- you can find the lists by googling -- in Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, and plotted thousands more, the terrorism that kills "only" one man (say, Theo van Gogh) or "only" two dozen insufficiently fanatical Muslims in Somalia or Pakistan, or "only" hundreds of the non-Muslmi enemy in London or Madrid, or "only" 450 non-Muslim Yazidis in northern Iraq, or "only" 3000 people in New York and Washington -- don't confuse them with the people who may use whatever weapons of mass destruction they can get their hands on or are permitted -- in awful slow-motion, with no one intervening -- to produce, the "violent extremists."
Call them, instead, the "moderate violent extremists." And still better, if the body count of the victims is under, say, ten (we can discuss later, we can quibble, about where to draw the line) then call them the "moderately violent moderate extremists."
There. That should satisfy everyone in the British government behind the laughable lexicon approved above. It should satisfy those in the American government who are so very eager to do the same.
And leaves only us -- only you, and only me, and, in the Western world, hundreds of millions of people left on our own, abandoned or led astray or betrayed by so many who claim to be able to protect and instruct us. For every day, with each new story (the story, for example, of Nidal Malik Hasan, and the quite-avoidable victims of a dozen kinds of what some like to call "political correctness" -- which is now reaching suicidal levels)of some folly, by people in the security services, or in the government, who simply cannot allow themselves, apparently, to study the ideology of Islam, and who think, furthermore, they can continue indefinitely to keep others from doing so, to keep us from doing so, to keep all of us permanently confused and quavering in the semidemihemi dark.
No. We're not going to go along. We're not going to allow people much more stupid and much less informed than those whom they are attempting to bamboozle, to tell us what to think, or how to speak correctly, about Islam, and its most murderous adherents.Or, for that matter, and more importantly, about all the other ways, all the other instruments, not requiring the use of direct violence, through which the the same goals as those who use terrorism -- are pursued.
"Head up arse" is offensive to some, don't you know? The proper term is "capital anal insertion." Get with the program! :-)
Radical Muslim.
Redundant adjective.
There are so many words gone **** -
I can't ***** about thoughts I can't ***!
You can't make evil ****
With bippety *** -
This is Freedom of ****** gone ******.
Whether it's called excrement or s*** it still smells, and you won't want to step in it.
I wouldn't want to be an ordinary criminal because people would start to think that I was a moslem
Whilst I would like to "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" for terrorism, might I ask how many of the "more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots" are NOT Muslims?
If we're not careful we could all end up metabolically challenged.
Terrorist atrocities are almost exclusively perpetrated by muslims worldwide. I still find it perplexing that the Western press refuses and our governments will defame fellow citizens for raising the alarm about islam or for any questions about islamic immigration.
I have argued before that our press today has become the institutional equivalent to the censor in Ancient Rome. The press has usurped for itself the right to regulate public morals. We call it “political correctness,” but it is really a censorship by which our press and its political elite cronies in government claim the right to censor and chastise for its own perverted concept of the public good.
What edicts concerning islam has our press censored? The censor will not allow islam itself to be defined as bad. The censor will not allow the description of infidel murders by muslims as “islamic” terrorism. The press refuses to castigate a group of a billion for their religious behavior or religious beliefs on the dictum that it is impermissible to castigate a group of a billion muslim adherents for the behavior or beliefs of even several hundreds of millions.
Let me propose again that henceforth we refer to muslim atrocities worldwide against infidels as “MBB” or “MUSLIMS BEHAVING BADLY.” This may skirt censorship rules.
Terrorist atrocities are almost exclusively perpetrated by muslims worldwide. I still find it perplexing that the Western press refuses and our governments will defame fellow citizens for raising the alarm about islam or for any questions about islamic immigration.
I have argued before that our press today has become the institutional equivalent to the censor in Ancient Rome. The press has usurped for itself the right to regulate public morals. We call it “political correctness,” but it is really a censorship by which our press and its political elite cronies in government claim the right to censor and chastise for its own perverted concept of the public good.
What edicts concerning islam has our press censored? The censor will not allow islam itself to be defined as bad. The censor will not allow the description of infidel murders by muslims as “islamic” terrorism. The press refuses to castigate a group of a billion for their religious behavior or religious beliefs on the dictum that it is impermissible to castigate a group of a billion muslim adherents for the behavior or beliefs of even several hundreds of millions.
Let me propose again that henceforth we refer to muslim atrocities worldwide against infidels as “MBB” or “MUSLIMS BEHAVING BADLY.” This may skirt censorship rules.
Terrorist atrocities are almost exclusively perpetrated by muslims worldwide. I still find it perplexing that the Western press refuses and our governments will defame fellow citizens for raising the alarm about islam or for any questions about islamic immigration.
I have argued that our press today has become the institutional equivalent to the censor in Ancient Rome. The press has usurped for itself the right to regulate public morals. We call it “political correctness,” but it is really a censorship by which our press and its political elite cronies in government claim the right to censor and chastise for its perverted concept of the public good.
What edicts concerning islam has our press censored? The censor will not allow islam itself to be defined as bad. The censor will not allow the description of infidel murders by muslims as “islamic” terrorism. The press refuses to castigate a group of a billion for their religious behavior or religious beliefs on the dictum that it is impermissible to castigate a group of a billion muslim adherents for the behavior or beliefs of even several hundreds of millions.
Let me propose again that henceforth we refer to muslim atrocities worldwide against infidels as “MBB” or “MUSLIMS BEHAVING BADLY.” This may skirt censorship rules.
Winston Chruchill and others of his political era referred to them as "Mohammadans". Now I suppose it is illegal to use that descriptive?
Why not call a "spade a spade"?
The Islamic ****'s are engaged in "jihad", are they not?
So if they are Islamic and they are engaged in Islamic jihad then "are they not Islamic jihadists"? And why all the fuss from the Islamic community?
Then again...Is it actually the Islamic community that is raising the ire, or is it the Brisih Homeland Security that is creating this "Islamophobia"?
Islam is a political ideology that uses its religion to usurp a populace and, as far as I am concerned, if I wish to criticise or belittle Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Cosa Nostras, Imperialists, Sandinistas, Contras, the Queen of England even, I have that right.
If I wish to criticize Islam for its criminal and politcal ideologies, I will do so also, and nobody is going to stop me via a court of law.
What Do They Have In Common?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44
Gotta love that sketch!!!
This is dangerous, when you continue to regulate how people talk about the doctrines of a murderous ideology, while protecting said ideology as a minority group .... this disconnect from reality will continue to be an "explosive" issue until it is properly dealt with.
Terrorist atrocities are almost exclusively perpetrated by muslims worldwide. I still find it perplexing that the Western press refuses and our governments will defame fellow citizens for raising the alarm about islam or for any questions about islamic immigration.
I have argued that our press today has become the institutional equivalent to the censor in Ancient Rome. The press has usurped for itself the right to regulate public morals. We call it “political correctness,” but it is really a censorship by which our press and its political elite cronies in government claim the right to censor and chastise for its perverted concept of the public good.
What edicts concerning islam has our press censored? The censor will not allow islam itself to be defined as bad. The censor will not allow the description of infidel murders by muslims as “islamic” terrorism. The press refuses to castigate a group of a billion for their religious behavior or religious beliefs on the dictum that it is impermissible to castigate a group of a billion muslim adherents for the behavior or beliefs of even several hundreds of millions.
Let me propose again that henceforth we refer to muslim atrocities worldwide against infidels as “MBB” or “MUSLIMS BEHAVING BADLY.” This may skirt censorship rules.
"I still find it perplexing that the Western press refuses and our governments will defame fellow citizens for raising the alarm about islam or for any questions about islamic immigration."
We were putting a list together which explains this phenomena. This is what we boiled it down to:
#1 Muslims are a "minority ethnic" group, and therefore their ideology is immune to critical review.
#2 Cultural elitism on our part, where Islamic culture is seen as inferior, and as such Muslims aren't expect to behave in ways that conform to western standards of civility.
#3 Fear/confusion/ignorance.
#4 rational vs tribal thinking
Thanks to Hesperado, Demsci, Eleanor, Ethoman
These explanations were detailed well of this link. It would be nice to perhaps collate this when we are done in one post. Anyone else have something to add?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/islamic-world-rages-about-swiss-minaret-ban-while-persecuting-non-muslims-wholesale.html#comments
The MSM, leftists, and Islamic apologists et al have essentially lost the debate in rational public discourse in the analysis of Islamic tradition, and jurisprudence in regards to Islamosupremacism, and religiously motivated acts of violence. In their death throws they are becoming more and more desperate, and ridiculous. This is why they have to prosecute Geert, and regulate the debate on speech codes, and and other idiotic manipulations. They have lost, and they know it.
OT
But a counter to the PC thought of the thread. I got an email from a friend who knows a friend if you know want I mean. Please read all, it is not a solicitation for money or chain letter in the narrow sense. I did not include the authors name or phone number but they were included in the email.
-----------------------------------------------------
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.
Thanks ethoman for incorporating my reason and for placing it at #1.
To reiterate my argument in a nutshell, I place that reason (which I think is best described as anti-racism, where the racism in question is not actual pernicious racism, which all rational people are against, but is an irrationally and hyper-sensitively perceived and trumped up "racism") at #1 because without it, the other reasons would not be sufficient to explain, much less motivate, the phenomenon of the entire West persisting in its denial of the danger of Islam and of Islam's concrete carriers, Muslims.
In addition, I'd suggest another secondary reason to add to the list: It's closely related to #1 and dovetails with it:
A profound and logical aversion to the implicit condemnation of millions and millions -- yea, hundreds of millions, perhaps the whole lot of them, 1.2 billion -- of people who are spread out all over the world in at least 57 countries in which they form sizeable populations, and in most other remaining countries in which they are minorities. (And, of course, this aversion becomes enormously intensified when those millions and millions of people being the potential object of condemnation are "ethnic" people.)
When I say that this aversion is "logical" I don't mean that I agree with it; I mean that this aversion correctly perceives the implications of the still inchoate anti-Islam movement.
This aversion is logical because even when Islam-critics insist that they are not condemning "all Muslims" (as for example Robert Spencer or even more so, Daniel Pipes do), the logic of the criticisms which are tantamount to condemnations (for who wouldn't condemn -- and would only restrict themselves to mere "criticism" of -- pedophiliac child marriage, honor killings, lapidation, discrimination against women and minorities, and commands to kill outsiders in putatively holy texts?) cannot help having an open-ended appearance, pointing to a wholesale condemnation of Islam itself, not just parts of it, and to a wholesale condemnation of all (or at least most) Muslims.
As much as some anti-Islam critics (like Spencer) insist they are not indicting Islam itself nor are they indicting all or even most Muslims, the hyper-sensitive PC MC crowd remain suspicious -- and rightly so: for the logic is on the side of the suspicion.
Orwell was an optimist.
Hesperado,
"In addition, I'd suggest another secondary reason to add to the list: It's closely related to #1 and dovetails with it:
A profound and logical aversion to the implicit condemnation of millions and millions -- yea, hundreds of millions, perhaps the whole lot of them, 1.2 billion -- of people who are spread out all over the world in at least 57 countries in which they form sizable populations, and in most other remaining countries in which they are minorities."
I'd say this lies in the larger category of fear. Fear on many levels, fear of a reality which would make the banshee tune of CAIR, and ISNA so appealing. When you come to realize that Orthodox Islam is a supremacist political organization itself, and a threat to western society not only externally, but internally as well, one might be open to suggestion, any suggestion no matter how ridiculous, or contrary to realistic examinations they might be. Accepting such suggestions might be a cowardly attempt to defuse reality, trading reality for comfort.
Then you have guys like Robert, who are more interested in the truth, don't shy from it, or flinch no matter how horrible. As an anecdote I do remember Robert did post a point by point policy that governments could use to begin to combat Orthodox political Islam. Without a real policy that addresses the reality of the supremacist and political nature of Islam, there will be a conflagration, no matter how many words idiots want to forbid. Guys like Robert have to be careful not to get involved too heavily on the topic of policy, because it degrades his ability as an impartial messenger, which he needs to be.
Don't forget "man made disasters"|instead of terrorist attacks and "overseas contingency operations"| instead of the war on terror (that in itself was a stupid term, a war on a tactic of war). Those are two of the favourites of the obamateur administration = slightly ot but I thought worthy of mention on this thread.
Very insightful 10:45 AM post, Im.mad.as.HELL! You're right. What the "peaceful" majority thinks hardly matters if the narrative and politics are controlled by a violent minority who presumes to speak in their name and can gain control of the political process.
OT: Islam is different from Socialism or Communism or any of the Leftist -isms rooted primarily in intellectual models that organize the world according to large-scale class and economic forces. Islam has outlasted such transient political fads, which are largely based on incomplete understandings of the full set of forces that dictate human endeavors, and continues to exert a hold on a billion people not because it is intellectually appealing to them, nor because it is in any way superior to all other religious systems, but because that is the belief system they were born and brainwashed into and to which they individually feel an emotional bond. Except for the small minority of intellectuals who conceive them, Leftist economic and political theories, being primarily of an intellectual nature, simply cannot compete at the "hearts and minds" level with earnestly believed religions.
It's interesting that the intellectuals, who are very good at dissecting and understanding and articulating how things work within the physical and economic realms, are less successful within the social realm, in particular having a blind spot when it comes to understanding the forces of religion. Given their druthers, rationalists would like to dismiss religion entirely, but as they are finding out to their great distress, religion cannot be so easily ignored. Most arguments for seem not to be able to work from a rational point of view, and most arguments against seem to miss entirely the central point of religion that makes it so appealing to those who "get" it.
In linear mathematics there is the concept of "basis functions" from which all other functions can be built up by a suitable linear additive combination. If the basis functions are chosen properly such that every possible arbitrary function can be so represented, the full set of basis function is said to be "complete." If they are not complete, then they are "incomplete" and there are some functions that they are unable to represent. The part of those functions that cannot be represented by the incomplete basis set is said to comprise the "null space." In this language, Leftist intellectuals generally assume they have identified a complete set of basis functions that "span the space" of reality. In fact, as is obvious even to casual observers, there is a considerable null space that the basis functions provided by economic and class models do not span, and that they are effectively blind to. It is as if there were something that had no name, but without a name to encapsulate it and be a handle that can be used to recall its properties from memory when it is not longer directly in front of us, it doesn't really exist.
Religions also have their own null spaces, of course, and by themselves have proved inadequate to address problems in the real, physical world. Rationalists like to dismiss and demean religion, as can be seen in the popular media. However, religions generally do a better job than pure secularism at providing structure and "meaning" to billions of individual lives in adulthood even if they all possess null spaces, some larger than others, in terms of the restricted basis set assumed by ultrarationalists (who sometimes seem as if they never grew out of juvenile adolescence, however high their IQ might be). For example, no level of understanding of Quantum Mechanics will ever come close to competing with the emotional satisfaction that comes from deep religious experiences, even for that very small minority who can plumb the abstract mathematics of the subject.
Out of all the various political documents around which various modern societies are organized, the U.S. Constitution seems to have come closest to recognizing that religion plays a special role in human affairs and needs to be protected, while at the same time placing restrictions on its historical predilections to try to rule the temporal world where it has manifestly mucked things up. Islam (unlike Christianity), being a religion where the ratio of the divine to corporal interests is very small, does not, and never has, tried to limit itself to personal matters and instead set itself on a course of political conquest.
A challenge to rationalists: Instead of dismissing religion out of hand as being some sort of useless remnant activity of the primitive limbic brain, akin to the appendix, or mocking and condemning it as did Freud with his "opiate of the masses" with its obvious deprecatory implications, why not stop trashing it and take a look at it as the foundation for rationalism, as the parent basis set that underlies it all? Rationalism, consequently, is not simply a replacement for, but is rather an extension of, religion. (Here, "extension" is used in its mathematical sense, and not taken to imply superiority or any of the other various types of moral qualities that may be attached to the word.)
How about not using the words "man" "men" "human being/s""sentient being/s" to describe Gordon Brown, the BBC, the UK police force, and even the FBI?
Certainly none of them - including the female politicians -act in any way that deserves these appellations!!
Speaking of offending Muslims, did you guys see this one?
Ohio grad students says he found camel with noose on dorm door
Posted: Dec 02, 2009 10:10 AM EST Updated: Dec 02, 2009 10:10 AM EST
CLEVELAND (AP) - An Ohio graduate student with a Middle Eastern-sounding name says he found a toy camel with a noose around its neck hanging from his apartment door.
Cleveland police are checking into the complaint by 29-year-old Fady Alghusain as a possible case of ethnic intimidation. There have been no arrests.
The man says he was shocked and hurt when he found the camel early Tuesday following a knock at his door. He told police he found no one in the hall.
Alghusain is a graduate student at Cleveland State University and founded an engineering firm named Amidac, which stands for American Middle Eastern Company.
Information from: The Plain Dealer
Ten bucks says he went to Toys R' Us, bought a toy camel and put the noose around it's neck himself. This article offers valuable information though. If this is all it takes to "shock and hurt" a man with a "Middle Eastern-sounding name" then I think we are onto something when the present conflict with Islam comes to a head. (Whaaaa.)
Oops, sorry, here is the link:
http://www.topix.net/state/oh/2009/12/ohio-grad-students-says-he-found-camel-with-noose-on-dorm-door
Oops, sorry, here is the link:
http://www.topix.net/state/oh/2009/12/ohio-grad-students-says-he-found-camel-with-noose-on-dorm-door
I can't wait for the British, if enough of them have any sense, to vote out these aweful Labour sellout politicians and ignorant morons and put in a truly conservative party with backbone and sense. These Labour menaces to civilization have tried so hard to swamp their land with 3ird world immigrants to keep them in power. But maybe Labour won't have enough of them in and voting by next election and maybe not enough of the native British population are continually stupid about Islam. There's hope.
Reply to Canto28
I'd love to be able to say the Brits will rise to the occasion in the next general election, but we're on a bit of a sticky wicket here I fear. You see, at the moment, the only party taking a credible stance against the tide of Islam is the British National Party (BNP) but their manifesto also includes policies that would target many other harmless nationalities and ethnic groups, based purely on their colour and/or racial heritage. Plus, the BNP are also hauling a nasty streak of anti-semitism in the mix too. Our unwillingness to unleash the Nationalists on other-coloured though otherwise benign members of our communities holds many Brits back from voting BNP. We're in a cleft stick, alright.