How many times do you think Scott Shane is going to smear me in the New York Times (my comment on the first time is here) without bothering to even try to create the appearance of journalism by contacting me for comment?
Answer: as many times as he wants, because he is accountable to no one except his hard-Left masters, and they don't care how viciously biased he is, as long as he serves their agenda.
"To Fight Radical Islam, U.S. Wants Muslim Allies," by Scott Shane in the New York Times, August 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON — Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism.
This is ridiculous on its face. We are not to cast "broad suspicion on Muslim Americans," or else they will become alienated and this will fuel "extremism" -- in other words, this inappropriate casting of suspicion will provoke some Muslims to turn to jihad. Yet by what criteria are we to distinguish between Muslims in the U.S. of whom we should be suspicious, and those of whom suspicion is unjustified, because that suspicion will provoke "extremism"? Wouldn't a Muslim who would turn to violent jihad because he is unjustly suspected of an affinity for violent jihad be a justified object of suspicion?
And since no criteria are offered for non-Muslims to use to determine which Muslims are justifiably suspect and which aren't, the implication is clear: no Muslims are justifiably suspect. There is no "extremism" among Muslims in the U.S., except that which is provoked by non-Muslim "suspicion." Naser Abdo? Abdulhakim Muhammad? Naveed Haq? Nidal Hasan? Daniel Boyd? Faisal Shahzad? James Cromitie, David Williams and Onta Williams? Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh? Pshaw. It is only non-Muslim suspicion that provokes "extremism" among Muslims, not anything that is happening in mosques or anywhere among Muslims in the U.S.
The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I. Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.
Yeah, one nutcase who supposedly found incitement to violence in my (and others') defense of human rights and freedom versus 17,000+ jihad attacks since 9/11, carried out explicitly and proudly in the name of Islam and with reference to Islamic texts and teachings, and the government should change its focus. And don't worry: it will.
Meanwhile, the "biased and ill-informed literature" in question includes my books, but neither Scott Shane or Denis R. McDonough nor anyone else can show any inaccuracy in any of them. It is noteworthy that in this torrent of abuse and scapegoating over the last couple of weeks, blaming me for the Norway shooting, no one has come up with any gotcha quote from me -- no incitement to violence, no broad-brush demonization of all Muslims (although it is routinely alleged that I do this), and not even anything false. The windy "refutations" of my work that are available online are generally windy tu quoques that point the finger at the West and Christianity without ever genuinely showing that what I say is false. And the numerous jihad attacks that happen worldwide on a daily basis show that lo and behold, for some reason many Muslims have misunderstood Islam in the same way I have. No one ever explains how they have so drastically misunderstood their peaceful religion in such large numbers, or why the misunderstanders themselves consistently claim for themselves the mantle of Islamic authenticity, and in that generally go unchallenged by their peaceful brethren in the West.
But the demonization continues apace, and the Big Lie that I am a racist and hatemonger is repeated endlessly, despite the fact that I have consistently, over ten books, hundreds of articles, and 25,000+ blog posts rejected racism and firmly advocated for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. It may be that this campaign will succeed, and all counterjihadists will be finally discredited. Then all will be well, eh? "Islamophobia" eradicated! And then the world will wake up the next day and find that the jihad continues and Islamic supremacism still advances, and there will be no one to speak up for and defend freedom.
Don't believe me? No problem. You'll find out soon enough. But remember one thing also: in Hamas-linked CAIR's recent report on "Islamophobia," it made the unexpected admission that not all criticism of Islam constituted "Islamophobia." But did it offer any examples of critics of Islam, or of jihad, or of Islamic supremacism, who were not "Islamophobes"? Why, no. It didn't. And that's because it couldn't. Its assurance that not all criticism of Islam was "Islamophobia" was just window dressing for the Leftist suckers who make up its audience, when in fact Hamas-linked CAIR and its allies defame as racist and bigoted anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against the jihad in any way. And sure, they can demonize us, marginalize us, and cut us off. And then make no mistake: if you resist them, your turn will be next.
Mr. McDonough said that Al Qaeda had a “bankrupt ideology,” but that accusing the entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism could “feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.”
No one I know has ever accused the "entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism." I have never done that, and challenge Scott Shane or anyone else to show that I have. But here again, does McDonough's mouth connect to his brain at all? He is saying that falsely accusing peaceful Muslims of "complicity in terrorism" could make them turn toward...terrorism? So then how peaceful were they in the first place?
See, I am being accused every day now of being complicit in mass murder and even of being a murderer myself. Yet there is no amount of this defamation that I could be subjected to that would ever make me become a murderer myself. There is no amount of lies and abuse they could throw at me that would ever make me turn to violent "extremism" myself. And I think this is true of most people -- at least most who are sane. Yet McDonough and Shane seem to take it for granted that false accusations against Muslims will make them kill, and that instead of telling the Muslims in question to get hold of themselves and be reasonable, this means we have to tiptoe around them and avoid saying anything that even appears to be a false accusation -- and we even have to stop telling truths, for fear they will fuel "extremism." After all, the U.S. government and the media are engaged in a massive operation of denial of the obvious fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. And why? Because they are afraid of fueling "extremism" by appearing to associate Islam with terrorism. And so Islamic jihadists can associate Islam with terrorism all day, but we are not allowed to notice.
This is madness.
Instead, he said, Muslim Americans should be treated as a crucial ally of the government in combating extremism....
Fine. Such as who? Hamas-linked CAIR, with its "Don't Talk to the FBI" poster? MPAC, with its hollow and deceptive condemnations of terror? Exactly which Muslim group in America has actually shown itself to be a "crucial ally of the government in combating extremism"? Can McDonough answer that? Can Shane?
Since the Fort Hood attacks, there have been a number of foiled plots by radicalized Muslims in the United States, as well as by extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideologues.
Far more of the former than of the latter, but Scott Shane will not tell you that.
Conservative critics of the Obama administration, including Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, have accused it of political correctness in avoiding applying the “Islamic” label to plots and attacks by Muslims. Mr. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has held a series of hearings focusing exclusively on the threat from Muslim extremists, drawing fire from Muslim groups. In March, on the eve of Mr. King’s first hearing, Mr. McDonough spoke at a Virginia Islamic center to reassure Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism without practicing “guilt by association.”...
No reassurance was offered to non-Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism by doing anything effective to call Muslim groups in the U.S. to account for their deceptive and empty support for anti-terror efforts.
A National Security Council expert on extremism who helped devise the new strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the administration was aware of “inaccurate training” on Islam for law enforcement officers. He said the administration would compile “gold standard” materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.A January study by a liberal research group found a pattern of misleading and inflammatory training about Islam across the country, and a 2009 F.B.I. training document obtained recently by the American Civil Liberties Union gave a provocative account of Islam. That F.B.I. PowerPoint presentation was used for classes for law enforcement personnel at the bureau’s academy in Virginia, but it is no longer in use, according to the bureau.
The F.B.I. document recommended two books by Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month. Mr. Spencer, who operates the Web site Jihad Watch, has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions.
Yep. But Scott Shane thinks it pertinent to drag Breivik into this piece anyway, since he can't find anything actually "misleading and inflammatory" in what I write. Breivik will have to serve. And he will. Now at last the media and its Islamic supremacist allies have someone other than Tim McVeigh to cite as evidence of "right wing extremism." And they will ride it for all it's worth.
Imagine this absurd lede:
"To fight Nazism, U.S. wants Nazi Allies"
Same diff.
A question for the MSM. What came first? Jihad or Islam. If jihad, then it's nothng to do with Islam. If Islam, then jihad is connected to Islam.
So, to solve the problem of jihad, it would make sense to check out Islam and highlite the jihad connection(s) within it, wouldn't it?
MSM clowns!
To the NEW YORK TIMES: Please study your history. To appease a bully is to encourage him, whether it's a Chamberlin giving in to Hitler or the U.S. (or Europe) acquiescing to fascist Islam. The result is the same: total destucion of our way of life, our freedoms and our social mores. Islam is violent because of its theology NOT because of perceived insults/ resistance.
'the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people' are Islamophobic thought-crimes, because Islam can only maintain itself by thuggery, censorship and intimidation , with the most violent sociopaths rising to dominate their dysfunctional communities. As the cult is devoid of any rational, aesthetic, ethical or cultural content, without constant thuggery and intimidation there would be nothing left, and people would leave it in droves.
"Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger". Not anti-Jihad, not anti-Islam, not anti-Islamic-supremacists, not pro-Freedom, not pro-Western values blogger, no, just "anti-Muslim". An easy to remember, easy to understand label for the already primed and prejudiced readership of NYT.
Don't believe me? No problem. You'll find out soon enough. - Robert Spencer
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams quotes
I see this attack the messenger slime as fearful people with wet pants...The only reason that they think that accusations against Islam will stir more trouble is because they fear they are right...That Mahoundians are so touchy and violence prone that anything anti-Islam might send them into a frenzy of murder and mayhem...And it might, which is a good reason to be realistic about it instead of soiling their jeans and quaking in fear...
Islam terrifies Shane, he is to petrified to rock the boat of Islam, but he is perfectly willing to attack the messenger...And why is that? It's because Spencer presents no threat while Islam does...This makes Shane a wet pants coward...
Or so my mother told me...
"Wouldn't a Muslim who would turn to violent jihad because he is unjustly suspected of an affinity for violent jihad be a justified object of suspicion?"
Mr. Spencer, I am happy to see you are using almost verbatim my standard reply to multikulti bozo's argument that it is our suspicion of jihad that makes a jihadi from otherwise peaceful and tolerant muslim.
If only we made an effort to dismiss our experience with muslims and pretend for a few more decades that we are getting by just fine the islamization of the west could continue smoothly and there wouldn't be a need for armed jihad while Scott Shane would be appointed to a position of Ueber Dhimmi by New York's imam. After all, it is peace that we want most, no?
10 years after 9/11 a Muslim in the white house, a Mc Donut in charge and another Walter Duranty at the New York Slimes.
WTF is wrong with America?
Now at last the media and its Islamic supremacist allies have someone other than Tim McVeigh to cite as evidence of "right wing extremism." And they will ride it for all it's worth.
Contrast this with the huge media cover-up of the identities and Islamic motives of the perpetrators of the Beslan child-rape, torture and murder orgy: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/beslan-child-rape-torture-enforced.html
As the seventh anniversary of Beslan falls at the beginning of September, the public needs to be reminded of this atrocity and especially the media's double standards.
WTF is wrong with America?
Our 'elites' in government, academia, and media are lying down in 'submission' showing the white of their bellies, to hide the yellow of their spines.
That's not my America, nor yours. Vote 2012.
What I found interesting is that the NYT is not allowing comments with this article. If you read the comments from readers about a poll of Muslim Americans and about the famine in Somalia you would know why.A majority of the comments were anti-Jihad and questioned the motives of American muslims and muslims in general.This was pretty stunning from readers of the NYT.If it can happen in comments from the NYT clearly the genie is out of the bottle about Islam.
Let's see...so if my boy was getting bullied for his lunch money at school, I should tell my son to just quietly give his money to the school thugs so he doesn't get beat up more.
Is that it?
What's happening to Robert Spencer reminds me of what happened to Alexander Solzhenitsyn after he gave the Harvard Commencement address in the late 1970s, 1978 I believe. In that address Solzhenitsyn criticized Western liberals for their ignorance and smugness. Well, the liberals didn't like that one bit and began smearing Solzhenitsyn, principally by way of calling him an anti-Semite. Solzhenitsyn's response was a challenge: Find anything in his writings or statements which were anti-Semitic. No one ever did but the smears continued. Many folks, however, including myself, took notice of the liberal smear machine in operation. Well, Robert Spencer is experiencing the same kind of slimy attacks but with different accusations, e.g., racist (God knows how this charge continues), hatemonger, etc., but by the same group overwhelmingly---Western liberals.
Really, the only thing that can be done is what Robert Spencer has already begun doing and that is continually pointing out that there is nothing in his works or statements that reveal any kind of bigotry or uninformed criticism of Islam. Spencer has also indicated that he is a lover of free speech and wants Islamic supremacist designs dealt with in a non-violent manner. These themes must be stated many times over. Eventually, the truth will win out (I think it already is) and the Left will be shown to most to be irresponsible, ignorant and often times downright mendacious in the way they go after Spencer. After all, Robert Spencer has one very powerful ally on his side which will never desert him---the truth. Still, it must be withering to have to put up on a daily basis with all the distortions about oneself and this is all the more reason why I have developed such a deep admiration for Robert Spencer.
It's worth remembering that Scott Shane is also the NYT writer who brought us "As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear," about the Muslim Brotherhood.
That's the one where he compared the Ikhwan to evangelicals and cast the Catholic Church as "encompassing" beliefs without a distinction between orthodoxy and heresy to draw another false analogy:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/new-york-times-muslim-brotherhoods-intentions-unclear.html
Shane also relied in that story on the word of an Emory University researcher who describes Hamas as a "national resistance fighting Israeli occupation."
From that, his bias becomes quite clear.
Lie down for jihad? Not a chance.
It's pathetic that this current "administration" and its media lap puppies are such gutless wonders.
Collectively, they are an embarrassment to the United States, which fought for and has retained its liberty for 235 years.
With ideas like this, they demonstrate that not one set of balls would be found among the lot of them.
Wyatt Earp... "The fight has commenced, go to fightin' or get away".
""Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger". Not anti-Jihad, not anti-Islam, not anti-Islamic-supremacists, not pro-Freedom, not pro-Western values blogger, no, just "anti-Muslim"."
Congratulations, Slamdunk,
You picked up on what, to my reading, was the only part of the story that was anything but a report on the attitude and actions of the current administration.
Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, is the one making most of the accusations and innuendos in the piece. Perhaps most of the focus should go on him, rather than the author of this particular piece.
Also, I agree with the administration that terror alertness should not be confined to Muslims. There have been 35,000 people killed in the Mexican drug war in the last 5 years, as opposed to 17,556 attacks by Muslims since 2001. The Mexican drug cartels would have no scruples whatsoever in mass murder in the US if they thought it advanced their goals and they could get away with it. We can and should profile people by their behavior, but profiling them by their religion or religious garb is sure disaster.
Spot on Islam_Macht_Frei! Looks like, the Socialist Democrats, the corrupted Dhimmi SLAVES of Caliph Hussein Obama, that most evil suspected agent and Trojan horse of the Muslim Brotherhood, think bowing to Islamic Nazis, will surely please Hussein. You see, these Dhimmis in reality, don't want the Islamic Nazis to be defeated! Too much Arab-oil money at stake!
Good catch, ma'am.
Five years ago, I wrote an op-ed for my paper, the East Valley Tribune, criticizing the pusillanimity of American journalism in its reaction to the Danish Muhammad cartoon uproar and warning that it "set a dreadful precedent, one certain to haunt us all in the years ahead." Shortly thereafter I resigned from the paper in protest over my putative superiors' refusal to print any of the cartoons with another piece I had written about the affair. It gives me no satisfaction whatever to see that my grim prediction has been borne out in spades: in its treatment of Islamic supremacism, American journalists have progressed from mere pusillanimity to active complicity.
Oh yeah, do we have Mexican drug cartels bombing, torturing, kidnapping and murdering innocent human beings all over the world especially women/girls and non-Muslims, in order to please the most evil god (i.e. the Devil) like how the Muslim fanatics/terrorists are doing? Don't forget too, that a lot of the Mexican drug cartels are now being sponsored by Hezbollah; thus the evil method of beheading being used now, especially on poor Christian Mexicans - to eliminate as many Christian Mexicans as they can!
Anyone who speaks the truth about islam is sure to be vilified - Mr. Spencer, Pamela, Geert Wilders, (Fjordman who has dropped this moniker and gone into hiding) are the most publically prominent speakes of this truth and so logically take the brunt of such vilification, however unfair this may be. They need to be growing even thicker skins because it is going to get worse before it gets better.
RonaldB sez:
"There have been 35,000 people killed in the Mexican drug war in the last 5 years, as opposed to 17,556 attacks by Muslims since 2001."
17,556 attacks by Muslims killed way more than those killed in the Mexican drug war. You are barking up the wrong tree here, Fido.
These Mexicans don't have a dirty book that demands world domination and our enslavement. These Mexicans don't follow Quetzalcoatl's commans to kill and die to make his religion supreme and I don't think they have 72 houris waiting for them in the afterlife.
"Oh yeah, do we have Mexican drug cartels bombing, torturing, kidnapping and murdering innocent human beings all over the world especially women/girls and non-Muslims"
Well, so far they're confining themselves to Mexico. But, they do murder, torture, and kidnap innocent Mexican citizens, including women and children.
My point was that organizations like the Mexican drug cartels, whether influenced by Hezbollah or not (and they don't need Hezbollah to teach them how to kill, torture, and mutilate) present potential terrorist threats and should be viewed accordingly. Would you feel better knowing your plane was hijacked by a drug dealer's stooge, rather than by an Islamist?
you sir, have certainly walked the walk and not just talked the talk.
i tip my hat off to you, SIR!
Robert, hang in there.
Whenever MSM cannot find facts to back up their world-view, they make personal attacks on people who refute their world-view.
When they have nothing to base their personal attacks on, they make up stuff (anti-islamic).
No matter how loudly the MSM howls, finally, truth shall prevail and we have truth on our side.
"17,556 attacks by Muslims killed way more than those killed in the Mexican drug war. You are barking up the wrong tree here, Fido."
I've been looking at the anti-jihadist websites to try to get a summary statistic of the number of people killed by Islamist terror in the past 10 years or so, and I don't seem to be able to come up with one. If you have one, post it and let me know.
Spot on sheik yer'mami! RonaldB there seems to love being ignorant of the reality of worldwide murder, rape, kidnapping torture and slavery by Muslim fanatics/terrorists, all in the name of Islam - and thinks Hezbollah's sponsorship of Mexican drug cartels, which include teaching them how to behead as many poor Mexican Christians as they can, as if a joke!
Here's the evidence of savage Islamic terrorism GLOBALLY - but I bet you will ignore this! At - http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3254
10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 -60,000 dead and 90,000 injured
November 15, 2007
A Grim Milestone Ignored
By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, November 15, 2007
The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with "grim milestones" in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another "grim milestone" is reached – the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.
The chronicler of this bloody tally is Glen Reinsford, editor of TheReligionofPeace.com, who began compiling and updating daily a detailed list of reported incidents of violence and terrorism around the world targeting non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Because of space limitations he only posts the past two months worth of attacks on his websites main page, though he has archived all of the incidents from past years (2001-2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). He also maintains a banner graphic with the updated number of attacks, which people can post on their own websites.
When asked what prompted him to begin such a labor-intensive undertaking, Reinsford identifies the tepid response to Islamic terrorism by otherwise outspoken Muslim groups, with one organization particularly in mind:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations. After 9/11, I kept an eye on them and was quite disgusted by their lack of moral perspective. They complain about issues that affect Muslims which are quite trivial, on average, compared to what is happening in the name of their religion. They do occasionally denounce terror in a general, somewhat ambiguous, sense but there is an obvious lack of passion. Their real interest is themselves.....
"Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization"..
How many more radicals,yes islamo-radicals, were just created using this "combative" phraseology. If I were a muslim on the verge of acquiring sjs (that's Sudden Jihad Syndrome,Shaney)I'd be pretty upset that I'd have to be "combatted" against at all, hence very tempted to triggering my "inner jihad" much more outwardly!
Watch your language there Shaney! Be nice you idiot!Sheez!
I want to thank you Robert. Because JW assuredly has become a great school; not only of thought but for global conscious awakening.
As a matter of fact, I am of the group you call the people of the ‘Left’ But I think my left eye sees clearer than my right eye. Well, it doesn’t matter.
It has come to my understanding that a great deal of politicians in your Country, especially in ‘your’ White house; writers and media professionals like Scott Shane of New York Times, are either not as vastly educated as they claim or, have been - even before commencement in their career, became subdued spiritually by the diabolic powers of Islam.
(Diabolic powers?) Yes!...Just wait till I inform you of what Islamic "Malamis or Imams" - as we call their priests; do, globally in that regard; like burring of camels and other animals on daily basis around the world. And of course, the popular 5 (Five) times a day meetings in mosques; in the name of praying diligently to Allah, when indeed it is 5 (Five) times a day, deliberation and planning sessions on how to win or subdue the nearest kafir in the neighbor-hood.
Well, you are different. You are a ‘God-sent’.
For the amount of attacks you receive from the people around you that normally suppose to hail you – the likes in MSM; I would like to remind you that a prophet is never respected in his own town. (…. well, except in the case of Mohammed)
In-fact, the shameful thing about American is that their leaders have eaten their brains in burgers and have so soon forgotten that the drum of Mohammed - the original spiritual and political founder of Islam's killing policy, sounded on their ear drums on 911.
Why do you think we call the king-pin of 911 "prophet / sheik OsBAMA bin Ladden"
Yes! It could be possible that the whole World, not only Americans shall forgive, forget and throw into history books - 911. Yet to forgive and forget the ideology of Islam that gave birth to it and many, since then - is but "non-attainable madness"
In my part; from all Westerners that support Sharia and all its dark powers in the United States of America, I would like them to tell us how many souls that (Isa –Jesus) wasted.
Please, on behalf of my family and all living dominated people in the World today, I send you our sincere greetings and encouragement.
We can and should profile people by their behavior, but profiling them by their religion or religious garb is sure disaster.
Religion is behavior.
Thanks for the reference, katharina,
And would appreciate leaving out maligning personal remarks.
He is saying that falsely accusing peaceful Muslims of "complicity in terrorism" could make them turn toward...terrorism? So then how peaceful were they in the first place?
EXACTLY!!!! Why is it so hard for these leftist morons to understand this very basic simple and irrefutable truth?!?!?!!! I'm a freakin cable guy and understand completely.
Papa Whiskey said:
"American journalists have progressed from mere pusillanimity to active complicity."
Or, could we say active duty/open rebellion against America? Loyal Americans ARE at war with Islam, regardless of Hussein Obama's hopes to run out the clock on us.
“Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
;)
I have a question. How do you separate Islam and terrorism when the Koran contains many spiritual jewels such as "I have been made victorious thru terror". Or "Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"? I would love to hear the answer to that question. That's a riddle even the riddler from Batman would be proud of.
Islam from terrorism I mean.
Let's see...so if my boy was getting bullied for his lunch money at school, I should tell my son to just quietly give his money to the school thugs so he doesn't get beat up more.
Is that it?
PorkFatRules,
That's it. It's what the police tell us to do all the time isn't it? You're held at gunpoint. You give the assailant what he asks for in the hope that he will leave quietly. Your son's life is worth more than his lunch money.
The alternative is to carry a weapon and kill those who threaten you, a la Charles Bronson. If your son retaliated he would become the bad guy faster than you could count to three. It's the world we live in.
Denis R. McDonough of the government says Islamic extremism is still the biggest threat and he paints the picture of a triangle; America and it's citizens versus Al Quaida and it's allies and 3rd the Muslim Americans. And he wants to prevent them being alienated, disenchanted, disenfranchised and choosing the other side. And he in effect asserts that writing against Islam, which is in favor of his and our own democratic laws and values, will cause the American Muslims to become more violent. While they can in large proportions be won over as our allies against co-religionists. But without any significant irrevocable separation from them.
But is all of this true? Do Muslim Americans view themselves as Americans (as McDonough seems to think) or as Muslims (as their prophet and Ihsanoglu of OIC demand)? The possibilities to stay connected with the Muslim world are now huge and well used and so the risk that Muslim Americans identify more with Islam than America, regardless of the attitude of the American government and media, is also enormous.
If the government wants to respect Islam, it could also say that it respects it when people are not happy with the democratic government system, laws and values, but hey, just admit it then, and we will work something out. But quit denying what the Holy texts and so many Islamic leaders and followers are declaring on a global scale.
Robert Spencer also reports about Islam on a global scale and it is much more accurate pointing out behavior of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam in countries where they have majority and power than in countries where they have to fit in as minority (but still with big connection and loyalty to their Ummah).
On a global scale there are demonstrably many victims and potential victims of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam and also ex-Muslims. And this government policy, by trying to exonerate and appease Muslims, is thereby obstructing justice for these victims, safety for potential victims and showing disrespect to ex-Muslims (but that's OK, they are not prone to terrorism, sarc. off).
And then there is the idea that there is nothing wrong in belonging to an organisation, Islam, with the name Muslim, when that organisation forbids leaving it, and so harbours all sorts of oppressors, killers, anti-democrats, idiots etc, calling themselves also Muslim. What decent human tolerates that in his/ her organisation anyway?
The realisation should dawn on politicians, that it cannot anymore demand of its citizens trust of all Muslims with no demand for efforts on their part. Like initiating and joining a new Islam, under the name Democratic Muslims, with clear doctrine and clear democratic enforceable conditions upon membership of that new organisation, which can keep the innocent tenets of Islam.
And continued membership then of the old Islam-organisation, which is either proudly anti-democratic or at least criminally prone to anti-democratic interpretation, attitudes and acts, should be in itself be reason enough to question the loyalty and integrity of Muslim Americans in the future.
It's the old "shoot the messenger", but applied only to certain messengers.
When Allah told the angel "kill the non-believers", that was o.k.
When the angel told Mohammed that Allah told him "kill the non-believers", that was o.k.
When Mohammed told his followers that the angel told him that Allah told him "kill the non-believers", that was o.k.
When the imams tell Moslems that Mohammed told them the angel told him that Allah told him "kill the non-believers", that's o.k.
BUT, when Spencer or Wilders say that the imams tell Moslems that Mohammed told them that the angel told him that Allah told him "kill the unbelievers"; then that's NOT o.k.; it's racist, bigoted, and hateful, and Spencer and Wilders deserve to be persecuted, vilified, and threatened.
Somehow the hundreds (or more likely, thousands) of imams (and other Islamic leaders and spokesmen) throughout the West can spout their hate and bigotry, and the left-wing political establishment and media never make the slightest objection. But when a few observers point out the hate the imams are spouting, then it's the observers who must be threatened into silence. The West is losing all sanity.
"There have been 35,000 people killed in the Mexican drug war in the last 5 years, as opposed to 17,556 attacks by Muslims since 2001."
Yes, but that's 17556 attacks, each with AT LEAST one fatality. The RoP website doesn't give (at least that I can find) a total of fatalities, only a total of attacks. But it does give a summary of the past week, and of the past month: for July there were 167 attacks, with 705 fatalities, or 4.2 fatalities/attack. If these figures are typical, they amount to over 8000 fatalities/year. Or over 40000 for the last five years, slightly more than in the Mexican drug slaughter.
Still, I agree with you that the Mexican situation is very serious, and that the administration needs to deal more vigorously and effectively with the Mexican drug gangs. Instead, BHO's BATF only sells them more guns and reduces the border patrols.
Scott Shane in the NYTimes article called Robert Spencer "an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month."
Re the "repeatedly cited" accusation, which I see has now been downgraded from the false and misleading "64 quotes" claim, once again I provide a link to my brief assessment of this claim:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/horowitz-the-character-assassination-of-robert-spencer.html#comment-807394
Re the "anti-Muslim" accusation, here's what Spencer wrote on the "About Robert Spencer" section of the Jihadwatch site:
"Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts."
[...]
"It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.
"Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."
"In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html
Is opposing jihad and sharia "anti-Muslim"? Does this mean that some secular Muslims who oppose sharia and militant or political jihad to establish sharia are themselves "anti-Muslim"?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/remembering-tashbih-sayyed.html
Once again, it appears that Shane's political biases against and personal hostility toward Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch is driving him to insert angry and false accusations. Spencer is not "anti-Muslim." He has made this clear in his writings, and has addressed this type of accusation in the "About Robert Spencer" section of the Jihadwatch website. Shane is, at least nominally, in the role of a journalist writing about Robert Spencer. Thus it is a reasonable expectation that Shane has read at least the basics about Robert Spencer, including from the "About" section, a kind of section which is standard on most websites. He's either failed to read this (and other writings by Spencer showing that he is not "anti-Muslim"), or he has read it and decided to reject it and press ahead with his own accusations anyway.
Shane added: "Mr. Spencer, who operates the Web site Jihad Watch, has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions."
If Shane can note what Spencer says about opposing violence and Breivik's actions, why does he fail to cite what Spencer says about not being "anti-Muslim"? Why does Shane present his own personal judgment (anti-Muslim) as a fact, when it is contrary to the facts about Spencer's views?
I suspect this is due to a combination of Shane's own animosity toward critics of Islam generally, which fits with the general policy at NYTimes, and his now personal animosity toward Robert Spencer after being criticized at the JW site previously (e.g., see Marisol's comment above) and recently in these latest responses to Shane's unwarranted accusations against Spencer.
The idea that, at this point, Shane's writing about Jihadwatch and Robert Spencer can be viewed under the category of straight journalism is laughable. The guy has actively embroiled himself in a battle against Jihadwatch and Robert Spencer. That Shane is allowed to use his position as a journalist at a major news source to continue what appears to be, at least in part, a personal vendetta suggests, as Robert indicated above, that this is part of a conscious and deliberate agenda of the NYTimes, which is probably being driven by political biases and agendas.
Thank, ebonystone,
I like your inferential calculations, which seem about right to me.
My guess is that we need to accept that our security is precious and comes above political correctness. Then, we can focus adequately on both Islamic and non-Islamic threats. We should begin with Muslim immigration. Why should we buy the problems that the European countries are having, when we can shut off Muslim immigration and not affect the rights of Muslims who are already citizens, and not cause harm to any Muslim non-citizen?
What Robert does is a service not just to the American nation but the people of this whole wide world. He is true and unbiased in every aspect of his writings and speeches against the evil spirit of Islam. I have read his articles for almost 4 years now and haven't found anything Racist or inaccurate. Robert Spencer is merely reporting what has been evident even before he was born and by evident I mean the evil and thuggish history of Islam! He hasn't invented anything new and is trying his best to warn the West of the implications involved in sleeping with the devil called Islam! He along with a handful of people are championing the cause of humanity and are the heroes of these times! The west should learn from the experiences of Asia with Islam and derive lessons from it rather than trying to extinguish the flames of resistance like Robert, Pamela, Geert and countless other people who risk their lives daily for a just and good cause. That Norwegian is a work of devil, an accident and has no bearings of Robert's views. I believe that the one's who support CAIR, show Dhimmitude are as much criminals as Islam and Breivik are! I do my bit to support Robert's cause by citing his books and website to friends and family. Yes, his fans and supporters are growing Around the world!! To hell with the biased media, we the people are aware of the truth and we are the real power, not the idiots who control lying news channels or printed rag! On with truth Robert, blaze the criminal Islamists with your pen and words, we are with you and you're Not Alone! The path to realisation could be long and difficult but history tells us that Truth prevails over Evil! God bless you!
"A January study by a liberal research group"(c)
A study (that is something that implies knowledge) and modern American liberal whatever are two incompatible things, in fact, they are mutually exclusive. Especially when dealing with Islam.
"Now at last the media and its Islamic supremacist allies have someone other than Tim McVeigh to cite as evidence of "right wing extremism." And they will ride it for all it's worth."
Let us not forget what day it is today. Yes, it is A-day, the day the Japanese felt the wrath of the Christian God. A day which will not live in infamy but in triumph and victory.
I thought I had read all there is to read about the justification for dropping two nuclear weapons over the civilian population of Japan to force the enemy to unconditional surrender.
But no. There is a new connection here by implication linking right wing Christianity not only to the Christian McVeigh and the Christian Templar Breivik, but it seems that 'Jesus loves Nukes':
"For 20 years the course on “Christian Just War Theory” was taught by chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to those who would turn the key should World War III break out.
The training, which used passages from the Bible and religious imagery to demonstrate the moral justification for atomic warfare, has now been suspended.
The Air Force acted after receiving an inquiry from Truthout, a news website which first broke the story.
A PowerPoint presentation which was part of the course had consisted of 43 slides which included references to Biblical figures like Abraham and John the Baptist, and paintings of the Visigoths attacking Rome in AD410.
Instructors quoted St Augustine’s just cause for war, telling them it was right “to avenge or to avert evil, to protect the innocent and restore moral and social order.”
They also recounted how, in the Book of Genesis, Abraham had organised an army to rescue Lot, and how there were “Old Testament believers who engaged in war in a righteous way.”
Officers were also told that in Judges, God is “motivating judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors,” and that there was “no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history.”
In the New Testament, they were told, Jesus used the Roman centurion as a “positive illustration of faith.” One slide read: “Revelation 19:11 Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior.”
The course literature also quoted Werner von Braun, the leading German rocket scientist who went on to work for the United States after the Second World War, saying that it was a “moral decision” to surrender his technology to the US.
Von Braun said: “We felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.”
Before the the course was stopped 31 nuclear missile launch officers, including Protestants and Roman Catholics, had complained to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a group that campaigns for the separation of church and state.
Its founder Mikey Weinstein said the officers were being told that “under fundamentalist Christian doctrine, war is a good thing”.
He said the officers found that “disgusting.” Mr Weinstein said: “The United States Air Force was promoting a particular brand of right wing fundamentalist Christianity.
“The main essence was that war is a natural part of the human experience and it’s something that is favoured by this particular perspective of the New Testament.”
David Smith, spokesman for the Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command, said ethics courses were “especially important” for nuclear missile launch officers.
But he added: “Our commander here reviewed the course and decided immediately that it was not appropriate for what we want to do.
“The use of Bible passages and other elements was just inappropriate. The military is made up of people from all walks of life, all faiths.” However, critics accused the Air Force of bowing to political correctness.
Commander Daniel McKay, a retired US Navy chaplain, said: “Why is it inappropriate to give our people guidelines that have withstood the test of time, to give us moral guidance?
“History will prove that if you stay true to God’s wisdom, it will serve us well and it has served us well.”
The nuclear bible: extracts
Religious references used in a PowerPoint presentation to teach US nuclear missile launch officers about the morality of war:
Augustine's Qualifications for Just War: Just Cause – to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order.
Luke 3:14 – John the Baptist does not tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army before being baptised.
Luke 7:10 – Jesus used the Roman centurions as a positive illustration of faith
Acts 10; 2, 22, 35 – Paul interacts with Cornelius, a Roman army officer known as "devout and God fearing."
Revelation 19:11 – Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior.
Abraham organised an army to rescue Lot (Gen 14)
David is a warrior who is also a "man after God's own heart."
(Quoted from article in The Telegraph August 5, 2011).
Nice try, to link Christianity and use of nuclear weapons on civilians on this very day, but everyone should know, that a (false) utilitarian justification was used for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Combined with a deflection of the truth calling Hiroshima a military base.
To my knowledge Christianity played no part in justifying this war crime and crime against humanity. The church strongly condemned the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.
A 1946 report by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgement of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
I could'nt agree more, even as an agnostic.
In 1943, don't fight Nazism. It will only provoke more Nazism. Sheesh!
Hello Ole,
I have to say I disagree with the assertion that the atomic bombing of Japan was a war crime and indefensible.
In terms of lives lost, there were perhaps 160,000 Japanese civilians lost in the atomic bombing. This is highly regrettable. However, US military intelligence reported that the Japanese were involving civilians in defense, and that a conventional invasion of Japan would cost hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and up to a million Japanese. The father of a friend of mine was in the military during World War II, and he told me there were miles of ships waiting for the invasion of Japan.
So, if you calculate purely in terms of lives lost, even enemy lives, the atomic bomb was by far the better choice.
I had another friend whose father was a scientist and who worked on the Manhattan Project. I asked him why we dropped the bomb directly on cities, and he answered that from everything he could deduce (knowledge on the Manhattan Project was strictly compartmentalized), those were the only bombs. If they used a demonstration bomb, that was the extent of their arsenal.
There is a book, "The Imperial Conspiracy" by David Bergamini, which pretty much asserts that the Nagasaki bomb was purposely dropped in an area of the city enclosed by hills, to limit the damage to the rest of the city. The purpose of the bombing was to end the war, not to kill Japanese. By the way, I also realize that the Americans were trying to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent the Russians from invading Japanese-occupied Manchuria, and thereby establishing a Russian claim to Chinese territory.
I realize that tu quoque is a bad logical argument, but it was pointed out that Japan killed more Chinese civilians, in unarmed slaughter, than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. True or false, the Japanese actions and propaganda gave the impression that the Japanese government did not give the lives of civilians a high priority. Again, if "The Imperial Conspiracy" is to be believed, the emperor and his counselors, in firm control of the Japanese government at all times, did toy with the idea of expending the entire population of Japan to defend their shores, even if futile.
I think the government has no business in using religious justifications for war actions. If the nuclear launch officers couldn't justify their position themselves, or in conferring with their chaplains or ministers, they should have gotten out.
Is it more moral to commit horrific actions to win a war, or to lose to a horrific enemy?
Gotta love the circular moebius-loop logic that the left-wing media and politicians come up with:
"If he knows that I know that he knows that I know he's a jihadi, then..."
"Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism."
Seems that this Obama administration strategy also underlies our foreign policy towards Israel.
AKA "Throw Israel Under the Bus," the same basic underlying principle applies that since the Muslim world hates the US for its support of Israel, the best way to get Muslim support is simply to sacrifice the State of Israel. Obvious and self evident, just keep the Muslims happy and never mind that Israel is our only reliable ally in the region.
Ole, I've read a little bit about Japanese peace feelers following the Battle of Okinawa myself, and have developed certain qualms of my own about the use of nuclear weapons on Japan --although I also admit that we cannot undo history.
But, if the chaplains at Vandenburg AFB really did teach a course on Just War Theory, my hat is off to them.
"Instructors quoted St Augustine’s just cause for war, telling them it was right “to avenge or to avert evil, to protect the innocent and restore moral and social order.”
That's a fair enough summary, I suppose.
However, in Mikey Weinstein's quote that the message was that war is fine according to fundamentalist Christianity sounds just a little bit like the kind of facile, seemingly clever quip that passes for wisdom or insight on the left.
And, can you deny that many of those who see science, the nation, economics, or their own security as the measure of all things, have been consistently pacifist, or as willing to engage of qualms of conscience as have invariably engaged Christians, including those of the most fundamentalist variety?
My parents, Alov Hasholom and Gud hville henne (yuan zhu ci fu yu tamen), were among the less-than-devout who welcomed the atomic attack on Japan. For now, I neither stand with them nor condemn them. That's just how things appeared back then to two Americans of that generation who had learned what the Old Country kin had been through and who remembered Pearl Harbor. My mother's brother had survived North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and our wonderful Soviet allies shooting at the train he was on delivering Lend Lease military supplies to them through Iran. After V-E, he got shipped home, and told to prepare to be re-deployed to the Pacific.
Well, then came the battle of Okinawa. In less than a month, over 100,000 Americans died on one very small island (and Dubya Bush will be forever execrated because fewer than 10,000 died in the seven years of war when he was CinC). Mother especially had premonitions that she'd never see her brother again should the US Army have to land on Kyushu. Others my parents knew and loved were already dead and buried all over North Africa, Europe, and the Pacific. But then, before my uncle could be deployed, Truman (after doing some mathematical extrapolations from the Okinawa casualties) ordered the A-bomb dropped, and before my uncle could be ordered to entrain for the West Coast, it was V-J day. Multiply my parents by a few million Americans in a similar situation back then.
My own recent qualms or no, I think I can understand how my parents and their felt and not judge them--especially when I once went into my place of work one morning and saw the Twin Towers go down on the news when I'd hoped I just be able to lecture on various issues in US foreign policy.
And, I have run into Chinese and Koreans who were pretty glad that the A-bomb got dropped on Japan when it did. If I were to voice too loudly my qualms about whether my country did the right thing by dropping the A-bomb too loudly, might I not by doing so, be telling my Chinese neighbors, whose parents may have remembered the Rape of Nanjing or flocked to the White-Sun-Blue-Sky-Field-of-Red flag to defend the Sacred Land from more of that sort of thing between 1937-45 to go *Cao ni lao niang [a nasty reference to mother incest]?
It's interesting to look at the cases you raise that were used by the Vandenburg chaplains in their Just War course.
Abraham's raid to rescue Lot wasn't a razzia to get loot from those rich kings of the east; it was to rescue an abducted kinsman, saving him from enslavement, or possibly even castration to serve one of his captor's harems. And yet Abraham also was not allowed to inherit the land God has promised to him, "for the sin of the Amorite is not yet full" (Gen. 15:16). The Shophetim of Israel fought invaders; they were not telling their people that invasion of the Aegean Isles and southern Anatolia (the homelands of the Philistines) or Arabia (that of the Midianites) was their sacred duty to spread the worship of HaShem. These are a far cry from the general hot-headedness and eagerness for war that we find in the Qur'an and Hadith--or, for that matter, in a lot of soicalist criticism.
Further, Abraham, after defeating Amraphel and his allies and rescuing Lot, honors Melchizedek, King of Salem, with a tenth of the spoil, but will accept no reward from the king of Sodom (also protected in the defeat of the eastern kings). This tells us that whereas unrighteousness is something to flee, righteousness and piety among those outside the covenant household should be respected. Abraham's call is not to be the subduer of nations, but to bring blessing to them. His war with the eastern kings was something forced on him; not the essence of his call.
And let's take a good hard look at Jesus' use of Roman centurion (Luke 7) as an example of faith. Quite contrary to Islam's presentation of Jesus as another Muslim Jihadi out to behead infidels or the Regressive Left's picture of him as a Palestinian anti-colonial revolutionary, this incident shows Jesus accepting the power of a non-believing state (Rome) as a protector of peace and prosperity for the Elect People of God (although I will concede that there is a likelihood that the centurion in question may well have ended up among the first fruits of Christianity's outreach to the Gentiles). This is similar to Jeremiah's exhortation to the exiles of Judah to work and pray for the shalom of Babylon (Jeremiah 28:4-7) rather than form a revolutionary cell to overthrow it--even though as God's prophet, Jeremiah could see a divine purpose at work that goes on long after Babylon crumbles into dust. This is why there is no contradiction between Paul calling on us to respect Roman authority as a minister to punish evil (Rom. 13) and John's warning that Rome is the city on which the Great Harlot sits (Rev. 17:9): let the nations reveal their true colors to us in God's time, and act accordingly.
Had I a farm and was in the mood to throw away one of the taboos of my faith (against gambling), I'd bet it that if you could scare up one of those military chaplains of yesteryear and ask him if engaging in war to spread the Evangelical or RC forms of Christianity should be a mainspring of US foreign and military policy, he'd probably throw up his hands and pop his eyes in horror, and quote Romans 12:18 at you: If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men (ASV). These men saw America as lying under threat, and, I'm afraid, I know too much of the history of those times to see them as entirely wrong.
I'd also look at the context of the times (the 1950's and '60's). In those post-WWII days, there were those who recognized that a Cold War had begun, and those who could not believe that our wonderful Soviet allies from WWII could mean us or anyone else ill. The latter dusted off the absolute pacifism that has also been a great temptation to Christians. Every American Christian was exposed to this question over the legitimacy of the state's waging war to protect itself and the people whose safety depends on it. This, I am sure, was the question the military chaplains at Vandenburg sought to address as they considered their duty in the training and pastoral guidance of the officers and airmen under their care.
So, of course, the wags of Progressive America come out and chide these men of God for loving war rather than being Quakers, Dunkers, and Mennonites--when, after June of 1941, the selfsame clever wags were screaming louder than anyone else for rivers, lakes, and oceans of German and collaborator blood and the utter destruction of Germany after their Soviet Holy Land was violated and their beloved Father Iosef Stalin betrayed by his buddy Adolf Hitler. And please never mind the murder of Poland, rape of the Baltic states, annexation of Tuva, and attempted rape of Finland.
You see, I've read some of our WWII propaganda. Believe it or not, much as I see what happened to my Old Country Jewish and Norwegian relatives under Nazi rule as an unspeakable crime (especially the murder of 6,000,000 or so Jews in the Shoah!), and glad as I am that our side won, I today wince at what our respectable writers and pundits said about the Germans and Japanese, especially after meeting some of the thoroughly decent grandchildren of people who shot at my uncle and survived his shooting back; and also being married into a Taiwanese family whose older generation both dutifully and unwillingly served the Mikado back then (Taiwan was ruled by Japan from 1895-45).
Further, Jim Wallis is not the only Evangelical to question the militarization of American society. There are plenty on the political right, too (heck, even some with clusters and stars on their shoulderboards!). Only our MSM cannot let the American public know that, lest it lose its favorite demon.
You know, Ole, I hear so many Progressives chiding me for taking a "simple-minded view of things" because I accept the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. Yet, they demand a simple-minded pacifism of me when my country and its allies are under threat, when they themselves might wax pretty bloodthirsty when something dear to their hearts is threatened (it's one reason why, as an adult, I ceased to take seriously the Marxist pretension of being the conscience of society).
I also hope that you now appreciate that the Christian Just War doctrine is not quite the same as Islamic jihad; and that the Old Testament wars are for a different purpose than the jihads ordered by Muhammad and the Islamic religion following him. For the latter, jihad is the essence of the faith; for the former, the Just War is something we get pushed into, but our ordinary stance towards those outside the faith is loving witness.
Yes, I also wonder about whether it was just or not to drop the A-bomb when we might have had Japan laying down its arms in both the Pacific and in China without the destruction of two cities. But I cannot be self-righteous towards that generation. Not at all.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the cruelest acts of war ever carried out. They also ensured that a lot of Americans, among whom I count myself, would be born because of the survival of their fathers.
My own father was a gunnery officer on a destroyer-minesweeper that had been tasked with clearing the waters off the home islands of the Jap empire. Because of the vast areas that had to be swept and the limited time in which that had to be accomplished, a grim new method of deployment was devised. Instead of sweeping in an echelon formation that protected most of the vessels from risk, they were going to have to sweep line abreast, exposing them all equally. This was quite apart from the heavy kamikaze attacks that were expected. Anticipated losses from the minesweeping operation prior to Operation Olympic were on the order of 50 percent at a minimum. Fat Man and Little Boy forestalled this necessity, and my father lived to sire me.
Let anyone who doubts the subhuman villainy of the Jap empire peruse Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" or the history of Unit 731, which carried out fiendish experiments on hapless human subjects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 . Presented with the palpable prospect of annihilation, the Japs surrendered, the slaughter of the war in the Pacific ended, and in due course the vanquished regained their status as Japanese and became a prosperous and peaceful nation with which America has had no further trouble. As for leftist revisionists foreign and domestic, in the words of my late and honored father: "Fuck 'em!"
I wonder if it would ever be helpful to discuss with Muslims the implication of the verse:
106. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)
Is there a "Middle Way/Path" whereby we can climb out of a climate of conflict and fear?
Might the verse: "I want you to be happy, to laugh smile and rejoice that others may be happy by you." prove more productive in the development of enduring civilization?
Are people more attracted to war, conflict, sniper and tank attacks, or the power of wisdom, justice, peace and freedom to search for deeper understandings of true reality as Mr. Spencer alludes to?
Even the Muslim traditions acknowledge that the power of the pen is mightier than the sword?
Best wishes, TS
Ole:
No one in America celebrates "A-Day". In fact, the few of us who remember know A-Day is the term for the American landing on Leyte. At first I didn't know what you were alluding to, since Leyte happened in October 1944, not August.
Are you aware that three-fifths of all Japanese Christians died in the week beginning on August 6th, 1945? Not many people are. People should be. This fact is undoubtedly the most important connection between nuclear weapons and Christianity.
When America is finally nuked, will Muslims a year later say "...we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgement of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Boston and Seattle are morally indefensible"? It's very doubtful.
Are you aware that three-fifths of all Japanese Christians died in the week beginning on August 6th, 1945?
Got a citation for this little factoid?
Actually, Nagasaki was an important center of the Roman Catholic church in Japan. It still is.
Just as with Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer has a powerful weapon on his side: Truth
According to Homeland Security, the MSM, Democrats, Biden, Obama, etc., I am a terrorist for many reasons. Millions of non-Muslim Americans fall under the false label of "terrorist" and it is being picked up and used more often almost daily. In fact, looking at the Department of Homeland Security's own take on conservatives, we are basically all terrorists.
"Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."
So the more they call me and those like me terrorists, shouldn't we be running around doing suicide bombings, honor killings, burning down Mosques and FORCING Muslims to submit to Christianity or face beheading?
http://wcwb.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/im-a-terrorist/
Robert, "Never, Never, Never, Never, Never, Never, Never Submit." - Pigman paraphrasing Churchil
Hi PW.
From "Homiletic and Pastoral Review":
http://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250:the-catholic-holocaust-of-nagasaki-august-9-1945why-lord&catid=34:current-issue
"The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9 was considerably more powerful than the one dropped three days earlier on Hiroshima, where 140,000 of the city’s 255,000 inhabitants were quickly killed. However, technical and weather-related difficulties confined the Nagasaki count to 35,000 dead. Of the 12,000 Catholics in the Urakami district, 8,500 were killed....Of those who died in the bombing, some were actually worshiping in St. Mary’s Cathedral. Besides these immediate deaths, an estimated 200,000 people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima died from the effects of atomic radiation. Of those who survived, a high percentage lost family members or suffered permanent disabilities.
"Hiroshima suffered the greater death toll, but with relatively less physical damage to the city’s infrastructure compared to Nagasaki, because the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, though less powerful, was intentionally exploded at 1,850 feet in the air above the city. Nagasaki, on the other hand, suffered a direct hit in its Urakami district, the historic Catholic area, so that much of the surrounding city and population were relatively more protected by terrain...."
===================
Let's look at the core statement for our purposes:
"Of the 12,000 Catholics in the Urakami district, 8,500 were killed"
This is 71% of the district's Catholic population. The three-fifths number I cited earlier would have been 60%. Certainly Christians lived outside the blast zones in the two cities, but this was the most densely populated Christian population in Japan.
BTW, in trying to comply with your request for a citation I went to the web site of the Catholic Bishops Council in Japan. Interestingly, I found absolutely no mention of the nuclear attacks there, even though there is a reference to the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo. One must conclude that this reflects an ongoing stigma in Japan with this topic.
Another Catholic web site had census numbers for the two dioceses, but not before 1950. The most reasonable conclusion is that the earlier records were destroyed in 1945, and the publisher did not want to use estimates.
"Islam points to Anders Behring Breivik and Tim McVeigh to cite as evidence of "right wing extremism."
Extremism is not the correct definition of jihadists. Islamic jihadists target non-Muslims. They have been doing this since 750AD.. To date they have murdered over 260 million kafirs (non-Muslims). And the best Islamic defenders can come up with to compare to the jihadists are two men who murdered anyone who was there one time each.
That is the poorset comparison I've ever heard of. Breivik and McVeigh one time each killed anyone near by. Jihadists on the other hand are targeting non-Mulsms for the past 13 plus hundred years. To compare the two is both ignorant and foolish.
I suggest Scott Shane get his facts straight and in order before he shoots off his mouth.
I should also point out that Breivik and McVeigh were both non-Muslim and yet were arrested by non-Muslim law enforcment officers. I hardly ever see Muslim jihadists arrested by follow Muslim law enforcment officers.
Sorry Mr. Shane but we can all see that your bucket has several holes in it. While Mr. Spencer clearly has no holes in his bucket.
Just because Islam always says it is not guilty doesn't mean it's true. Islam always claims it is innocent. In fact Islam very seldom tells the truth no matter the subject.
Just what is it with liberal idiots like those who infest the White House and run the NY Times? If we don't fight the Fanatics take over and butcher us all, if nothing else what the Nazis did to the people of Europe should teach us that.
This opened my eyes to why Muslims flip out if you speak you mind about them.
13. Slander/Blasphemy: In shariah, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim, even if it is true: “… The reality of tale-bearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevent disobedience.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, r3.1)
Boykin, William (2010). Shariah: The Threat to America (p. 51). Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition.