New Army manual orders soldiers not to criticize Taliban, pedophilia, or Islam, or advocate women's rights

The manual is a backhanded indictment of Islam. Let's see: one must support the Taliban, oppose women's rights, oppose condemnation of pedophilia, oppose homosexuals and their rights, and befitting a true tolitarian society, absolutely no dissent or even comment on Afghan society or Islam is permitted. What a wonderful means to show the true face of Islam.

The manual is a backhanded indictment of Islam. Let's see: one must support the Taliban, oppose women's rights, oppose condemnation of pedophilia, oppose homosexuals and their rights, and befitting a true tolitarian society, absolutely no dissent or even comment on Afghan society or Islam is permitted. What a wonderful means to show the true face of Islam.

This should be called the Dhimmi Manual.
m

“mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct”---

Psychological projection. We're talking about savages who are into bacha bazi

http://images.alarabiya.net/5b/b2/640x392_53349_254409.jpg

If anything, the sole mention of homosexuality will give them priapism.

“mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct”!!!

Do they have the right to read islamic "holy" scriptures?

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/was-muhammad-gay.html

Don't advocate women's rights....

How I have to utter a bitter laugh. This is the manual of the military under an administration that wants to be the rainbow coalition. This is what our army must say when our SecState is Shrillary Brassvoice Rodham.

Shortly after 9/11, we were subjected to a parade of Afghan feminists (all seven of them) telling us how evil the Talibs were. I suppose it was to make us men all so chivalrous and protective of the poor downtrodden dears--perhaps a little like Klansmen standing up for white Southern womanhood after watching _Birth of a Nation_.

And now these shrill, angry, punk-haired, clench-lipped vixens who scream "Keep your f---ing laws off my body!" at every pro-lifer they meet are in power, and they're servile to a culture which has never made more than a slum surrounded by desert (at least after running out of Dhimmi). Were it not for the horrors that Sharia rule would unleash on all of us, I'd almost wish that the American feminist movement could live under Islam.

Might we please see the translation of the corresponding handbook of the Afghan Army addressing these same matters? There would probably be complete coincidence.

A few months ago Andrew Bostom and Diana West reported on a US Military manual that contained, buried deep in its voluminous pages, damning data about this matter. This latest attempt by the US Military must be a recognition of the fact that their men and women who are just regular grunts who don't have stars in their eyes or up their asses have in fact seen Muslims up close and personal, and have recoiled at what they have seen; and so the US Military is trying to pre-empt what basic human feeling and rationality necessitate when being plunged into an evil and unjust society who murderously hate us, in order "win their hearts and minds":

As West aptly put it: "...the U.S. Military conducted interviews (of course buried in a report few are reading and left untouched by the mainstream media) of American military personnel about how they felt trying to “win the hearts and minds” of creatures who have no hearts or minds..."

Here are some quotes from that report:

Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF [Afghanistan National Security Forces] units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes.

Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen [in Islam] as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such "trivial matters," and deeply resent any interference. [So much for "not condoning the torture"...-- Hesp] This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members.

US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly.

Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study, there have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi, as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys…

Similarly, US soldiers…mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant.

They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide.

They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society.

US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

[End quote]

These aren’t “extremists” or “Salafists” – these are the ordinary “moms and pops” which our men, under our insane COIN policy, have to try to befriend, sit on mats in yoga-style and drink tea with, and spend our blood, money and precious time helping to become human.

[For the source and much more: http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2218/Dying-over-the-Truth-Murder-Inside-the-Wire.aspx ]

This is what happens when the President becomes the Muslim Brotherhood's Stooge and Hillary Clinton becomes the Muslim Brotherhood's whore! Every thing now is to promote Islam in the U S. Obama say's it is in the Holy Quran, respect it.

Nothing wrong with the old maxim: Kill the enemy and break his stuff.

This aberration of an American president and his Chicago clique, have managed to convince 51% of our citizens that he alone knows what's best for us. His masterful demagoguery made him a hero, an avenger, a Robin Hood and to some, their lord and savior. Congress our Constitution and the rest of our American citizens, means nothing to him.

We are truly a nation divided.

Did it mention hugs? Hugs are important too...A hug a day keeps the jihadist at bay...

If you're covering up and making excuses for pedophilia, it's crystal clear you've lost your moral compass, you've lost your soul and you've lost your built-in crap detector you were born with.

Ah, it's come to this at last. Well, hopefully this is the bottom of the barrel respecting obsequious behavior, brown-nosing behavior, towards a religion which is twisted and perverse to its very core, reputedly founded by someone with the character of a monster. But who knows? Man has the capacity to soar to great heights but also to depths hitherto unknown. It seems that the clueless dhimmis of our age are exploring the possibility of even deeper depths.

Pathetic. And exceedingly dangerous to the preservation of liberty. But again can be seen that evil, in this case Islam, is not the ultimate problem but rather the running of interference for evil is.

So, what are the American soldiers fighting for in Afghanistan? If they are not allowed to talk about (forget the word "to defend") women's rights, crime against children etc, better just pull out the soldiers and let the Afghan women and children live in hell, and even better, keep pouring tons of money to the Afghans so that they can continue to oppress the women, children and non muslims. At least no American soldier get killed in Afghan, eventhough it won't make a single non muslim American a better friend of any good muslim.
Sorry to say this, but Americans are so stupid that they choose Obama as their president.

New Army manual orders soldiers not to criticize Taliban, pedophilia, or Islam, or advocate women's rights
............................

Uh—what are fighting for, again? Note, I'm not even asking if it is attainable, just what the point is, if we cannot so much as verbally assert any of our own values.

I wonder if implying 9/11 was a bad thing is similarly verboten?

More:

Total capitulation. "New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban"
............................

Up until recently, even those who were loath to say anything critical of Islam itself—still desperately wanting to believe it a "religion of peace"—understood what a horror the *Taliban* was.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was *the most horrifying Shari'ah state of modern times*—an utter hell of women forced into faceless Burkhas, sexually abused "dancing boys", forced child marriage, slaughter of minority Shi'ite Hazara, mass public executions in the soccer stadium well-meaning Infidels had built for them, and the stoning of women in the streets.

If we cannot criticize the bloody *Taliban*, then we have well and truly submitted to the savagery of Islam.

More:

Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.
............................

This horror *does* go much further than the previous administration's—they--entirely foolishly, it must be admitted--wanted to consider most Muslims to be decent "ordinary moms and dads" who completely disavowed the barbarism of a "tiny minority of extremists".

This vision was foolish, and it was deeply mistaken—but it was still fundamentally decent.

This administration appears to understand much of the horror of Islam, and **to approve of it**.

This is many, many times worse.

More:

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
............................

What *absolute crap*. Many unfree people misunderstand *our* culture, believing that freedom is nothing but license.

This annoys and alarms me no end—and it further annoys and alarms me that many Westerners do nothing to disabuse these people of their errors.

Does that mean that I am going out and slaughter people because they are ignorant of my culture? **Of course not**. Not least, because such barbarism would completely go against the civilized culture I embrace.

In fact, with references to pedophilia and the oppression of women, it seems than many soldiers understand all too well aspects of the "culture" of Afghanistan—and of Islam itself.

More:

The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
............................

And when we show them that we properly respect their "culture"—including their "Allah-given" right to murder us for daring to attempt to defend ourselves against Jihad—will that make us stop attacking us? What utter madness.

More:

More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”
............................

Ah, yes—if only American troops responded with a smile and a nod rather than a look of disgust when they learn that their Afghan "partner" is going to spend Friday night beating his wife, raping pre-pubescent boys, or stoning the village "whore" to death, all would be well...sarc/off

More:

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
............................

The most appalling mixture of grotesque cynicism coupled with utter naïvité—an unpleasant mix we're seeing more and more of of late. It rather brings to mind Neville Chamberlain crowing "Peace in Our Time" after having thrown Czechoslovakia to the Fascist wolves. *Ugh*.

More:

At least one high-ranking military official had the backbone to publicly criticize the new manual, albeit through a spokesperson. U.S. Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, doesn’t endorse it and rejected a proposed forward drafted by Army officials in his name. “He does not approve of its contents,” according to a military spokesman quoted in the story.
............................

A small amount of sanity, at least...

More:

Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims...
............................

Somehow "combating terrorism" under Obama sounds an awful lot like surrendering to it...

The man who wears the 'Golden Wedding Ring of Allah', has a doctrine of 'protect the image of Islam at all costs'...The costs are, American lives, and American money, possibly American freedom...If you wear his wedding ring and you protect his image, you must believe in Allah...
If you believe in Allah, you will obey him...Not the US Constitution...But don't blame me, I voted for Roseane Barr...She and Cindy Sheehan would have put a stop to this nonsense...

This is unconditional surrender to Islamic barbarism. Avoiding all crucial topics, to what avail? History and experience tell us, the more they get the more they want. They're bottomless barrels. More Islam and more sharia.

Thanks dear Wellington for the term "built-in crap detector", stored it. That's very useful. Hope you're fine.

Shouldn't make war with Taliban--make love with them.

ebonystone, LemonLime, Wellington,

Nice thread you have running there. I'd like to add a comment.

Remember Colin Powell's dictum "If you break it [an Islamic society] you own it?" Hopefully more will come to see that it is already broken, and so we don't need to own it.

Our "leaders" know damned well that were all of these dhimmi behaviours adopted by our troops, the back stabbing murders by Muslims would continue, probably at a faster pace.

The authors of this booklet and military brass who promote it should be shot at dawn. We have seen the enemy and it is the Commander in Chief and his generals.

On page 672 (992 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, he says

...kill those who disbelieve in God.

-- Quoting Islam

I feel so sorry for the brave young men and women in our armed forces. What they have witnessed in the hell on earth inhabited by muslim savages is enough to scar them emotionally for life. Damn Obama, his minions, his czars, his union thugs, his lackeys, the idiots who voted for him, and his fellow communist democrats. If they actually believe cultural insensitivity on the part of our soldiers is causing attacks by lying, devious, savage muslims, they deserve to be shot.

Islam is a scourge and Islamic culture is pure filth; sickening, putrid, and obscene. It is insane to expect young American soldiers to ignore the inhuman behavior of muslim beasts practicing their filthy, immoral culture. They aren't machines devoid of emotions, they are superior human beings who have been thrust into a hellish world full of monsters that they never knew existed. I'm sure the horrors they have seen will haunt them the rest of their lives. Why should any decent human being be 'sensitive' to a culture of evil? There is no reason for our armed forces to be in Afghanistan, none whatsoever except maybe to blow it off the map.

Remember, too, how long this kind of nonsense has been going on:

At least since the phrase "war on terror" was coined to avoid associating Islam and violence.

And let's not forget that American military personnel have been forced for several years now to don clean, white gloves prior to handling Gitmo detainees' taxpayer provided copies of the Qur'an (though it just doesn't seem to register with the folks who concocted that directive)because those troops are--according to Islam--filthy and unclean.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/09/20050609-092940-3178r/

Wow I never thought I'd see the day! ...thanks nobama.

Have tried to post the following comment at another site, but the site owner seems to be rejecting it, so I hope I'll be indulged for posting it here, since it's somewhat relevant:

The two alternatives

1. There are as many Islams as there are Muslims;
2. There is only one Islam

are both inadequate to the truth. Why do these two alternatives appear, and why are they both inadequate?

As to the idea that there is no single Islam, what should be said about it? To support the idea, some point to the varied behavior of Muslims and the contradictory aspects of the Koran (tolerant verses as against totalitarian verses). Other people then claim the contradictions are resolved by the Qur'an itself, and point to the Qur'an's doctrine of abrogation (cancellation): totalitarian verses produced later in Muhammad's career cancel tolerant verses produced earlier in his career. From that point of view, there seem to be no real contradictions and only one Islam.

But then, if one looks further, one finds that the doctrine of abrogation is only part of the reality. Bill Warner, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and doesn’t pull punches when talking about Islam, knows about the doctrine of abrogation, but balances against it a couple of points. First, that despite the doctrine of abrogation, many Muslims take everything in the Qur’an as eternally true. Warner thus concludes that Islam is dualistic, not logically consistent. A Muslim can believe two contradictory things at once, so long as the contradiction is present in the Qur’an. So while the doctrine of abrogation does to some extent resolve contradictions, it is simultaneously true that it doesn’t — that the whole Koran, including the contradictions, is considered by Muslims eternally true. Allah is so dictatorially all powerful that he is not bound by anything, not even logic. From this point of view, then, there seems to be more than one Islam, and perhaps many Islams.

But having found the Qur'an contradictory and dualistic, rather than single, how does Warner deal with the dualism of Islam? Does he claim there is no single Islam? No. That would be far too imprecise an answer. Warner was a scientist, and tries to drill down into the details. He takes a statistical approach, and looks at the Trilogy of core Islamic texts — Koran, Hadith, Sira — quantitatively. He quantifies how much of the Koran is tolerant and peaceful, versus how much is totalitarian and violent. He accepts that Islam is contradictory, is tolerant yet totalitarian, but he points out that the percentage of tolerant statements is quite small, while the percentage of totalitarian statements is quite large. So although he doesn’t say there is one Islam, he does find an overwhelmingly predominant form of Islam. I don’t know his percentages, but they show that Islam’s texts are far more totalitarian/violent than they are tolerant/peaceful. He finds quantitatively something like 95% violent totalitarian, 5% tolerant peaceful. One can check out his website for his various numbers and how he gets them.

So Warner's view, by getting into specifics, really transcends the debate about whether Islam is One or Islam is Many.

Another "meme" that influences this whole debate is what might be called the "decontructionist" meme. Even if you don't know what "deconstruction" is, there's a good chance that its claims have seeped to some extent into your consciousness, as though by a sort of cultural osmosis. The deconstructionist meme is that a text can be understood in an infinite number of ways and can mean anything,

If one thinks about it though, that is a gross exaggeration. While texts to varying degrees have elasticity of meaning, that elasticity is not infinite, and that is even more true with texts that are not largely poetic or mythical in content. The Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira are full of quite literal commands and statements. Some degree of variation in interpretation is possible, but the core texts and past history do tend to channel interpretation within a certain range of possibilities. For example, there are no Muslims anywhere who say that Muhammad was made of green cheese. Nothing in the core texts of Islam can be interpreted to mean that.

And while Lewis Caroll or some other fantasist might be able to conjure up an almost infinite range of theoretically possible interpretations of Islam, most such possibilities are simply never considered by Muslims, because most are as improbable as claiming that the core texts mean Muhammad was made of green cheese. We should not go to the deconstructionist extreme of suggesting that anything can mean anything. Islam is a definite historical reality. The fact that one or two Muslims here or there might have a totally anomalous interpretation of Islam is barely relevant, unless by some miracle that anomalous interpretation should grow to become mainstream.

So is there one Islam? Are there many Islams? The answer is closer to the first, but the second has some validity. But one must not lose sight of the fact that there are overwhelming commonalities of interpretation among the majority of Muslims everywhere. Totalitarianism seems to be the majority interpretation. There is an objective reason for that. Islam is objectively a totalitarian movement for the most part, based on its own texts. Islam's totalitarianism, while sometimes somewhat in abeyance, has always been dominant in the long run, because it has always been dominant in the core Islamic texts.

This is a generational bondage problem that never ends. They are trapped. Somebody needs to tell them the truth in a way that they can comprehend -- that their lives are a deplorable mess created by Muhammad and that there is a better way for them and their children to live.

Maybe soldiers aren't the ones to do the truth-telling to them, but somebody must do it somehow. Leaving the people in this state of deception is not helping them.

Muhammad and his utterances must first be thoroughly discredited to those people and then publicly thrown onto the scrap heap of history so that nobody ever takes them seriously again.

There is no military solution to this problem of Muhammad and his utterances.

I think Ali Sina's bold statements at the following link are pertinent.
http://alisina.org/blog/2012/02/07/setting-muslims-free/

Excerpt from Ali Sina regarding release from generational bondage:

"Those who read my articles, at first get very upset. But if they don’t give up, eventually they will see the light. When they are set free they will become very grateful to me and I feel good about what I do. I think nothing gives one more satisfaction than liberating someone. Think about the joy you feel by setting free a trapped bird and see it fly. I get 100 times more satisfaction when people write to me and say Ali, I owe you my freedom. I am not just setting that person free, but also his children, his grand children and his great grand children, generation after generation, and also people who he will set free. I am setting thousands of people free through him. Can you put a price on that? There are some things in life that are priceless."

Avoid mentioning homosexuality? Welp, so much for repealing "Don't ask, don't Tell"!

All commanders of American troops in Afghanistan will henceforth be issued with large rolls of duct tape, to be applied to the mouths of all personnel under their command.

There have been reports of Canadian troops suffering from PTSD resulting from the sickening and depraved acts they were forced to witness in Afghanistan. I imagine many American troops have been affected in the same way. This latest directive will make the troops feel even more impotent and useless. We have to get out of that islamic sh*thole now.

I would expect that the next move will be to identify the soldiers who already know the truth of Islam, and send them to re-education camps, so they can get their minds right...

Why are we even over there in the first place? Evidently it is not because we care about the women and children or we would openly address the abuses inflicted by Islam. The administration is acting hypocritically, claiming to care about the people, then not caring about the people.

If Islam is so benign then we can pull out of these countries and save our economy.

So which is it? Are we fighting a war against savages, or are we fighting a war for no reason and wasting American money?

traeh, three points for now:

1) Warner's theory of Islamic dualism may or may not be accurate; it's certainly ostensibly so, but there are other ways of looking at the data. Firstly, there is the fact of Islamic abrogation, which has been attested as an Islamic practice in developing legal interpretations and fatwas (though many Muslims slyly through taqiyya try to conceal this practice). By the practice itself and by the Koranic verse they use for it, it's not so much a paradoxical dualism, but rather it's the belief that Allah can, and did, change his mind about certain things. In effect, what Allah revealed through his abrogation of his own words was the mirror-image opposite of the Judaeo-Christian principle of the universalization of God's Covenant with Noah (OT) and Jesus's Gospel through Paul's exegesis (NT): to wit, the universalization of perpetual violent warfare to bring the whole Earth under submission and prepare it for the Final Jihad of the Last Days, which will finally end all jihad so Muslimkind can relax and enjoy itself carnally for eternity in Paradise (while the remaining filth and traitors -- viz., the rest of Mankind -- must suffer dreadful physical tortures in Hell for eternity).

2) With his theory of dualism, I think Warner is trying to make Western sense of the Muslim mind. But I would maintain the Oriental mind doesn't need to make sense in our linear, oh-so-sincere way: it operates in a more sinuous, serpentine fashion, sly eyes ever ready to pounce on the bottom line serving power, greed, rapine, lust along with the constant fears of paranoia -- a logical paranoia that knows all too well that other Orientals around one think the same way. In this mindset and worldview, the only order injected into this personal, societal and moral chaos is two-fold: from the bottom up, so to speak, in the base drives of the Id; and from the top down, from various forms of tyranny in the Strong Man who seizes power. The theology of Islam only changed this dynamic by codifying both sides of this chaos -- rather exacerbating the fundamental disorder than curing it, as Western political science has worked out over the centuries. The Islamic exacerbation in this regard is paradoxical in that by intensifying the power dynamic (more power to the Strong Men in great part through a deeper enmeshment with the dictates of the Strong God as explained by his Pupper Master Mohammed; and more license given to the deadly vices of human nature as long as those vices serve the overall power -- which in turn has a relentless totalitarian-supremacist logic, perpetually voracious for more power until all Mankind submits.

3) Finally, I just wanted to make sure you agree that in Islam, totalitarianism is necessarily -- not just peripherally or accidentally -- physically violent. And that is the only significant problem we should have with Islam; for if they believed and desired totalitarianism, but didn't also believe in forcing that on people through terror-cum-physical violence, then Muslims would just be some kooky cult that poses no danger.

P.S.: By "Oriental" I am including the entire Orient, but would add that non-Muslim Oriental cultures have in various ways over the millennia tried -- and to a great extent succeeded -- to develop ways to refine some of the rough edges out of this fundamental psychological/sociocultural nature of theirs, in ways that in many ways have indeed brought degrees of genuine order analogous to the order divined through (ancient) Israel, Christianity, and Graeco-Roman philosophy -- including aspects of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Tao. While these movements are not perfect and have, at times, colluded with the baser Oriental nature, they also brought varying degrees of good reform and growth to it, often to raise it to a luminously useful and wise contributor to the ongoing mystery of Mankind; whereas Islam was, uniquely, an utterly deleterious and depraved force for not only doing nothing to reform the Oriental mind, but actually to degrade it to its worst possible form in a self-perpetuating malignancy whose raison d'etre is a metastatic voracity with a hormetic telos thoroughly destructive in its means and end, as is the mind of the mythical Satan who simultaneously wants supreme power and knows, deep down, that he can only win by making everyone -- the whole cosmos -- lose, including himself (or, to put it more colloquially, Satan knows that the only way he can win is by "dragging everyone down to Hell with him" -- which, needless to say, would be the gold standard of the Pyrrhic victory). Metaphorically, this is motive of everything a Muslim thinks and does, insofar as he is Muslim; even if he may not fully realize the ultimate destruction his own Id (Satan) has in store for him, whereby Paradise is really an inverted mirage of Hell.

But, .....these are a few of my favorites things.........

Your truly,
Mohamed

LemonLime, I enjoyed your comment. It's fascinating.

As to the first half of your point #1: In the comment to which you are responding, I discuss abrogation in relation to Islamic dualism. Looks as if you didn't notice that.

As to your point #2: you start by writing

With his theory of dualism, I think Warner is trying to make Western sense of the Muslim mind. But I would maintain the Oriental mind doesn't need to make sense in our linear, oh-so-sincere way...

I'm glad you later in your comment point out that the "Oriental mind" is differentiated and that the non-Islamic portion of that mind has risen to become sometimes a "luminously useful and wise contributor to the ongoing mystery of Mankind."

As to what you say about the Islamic mind not needing to make sense in our "linear, oh-so-sincere way," again, I'm not sure you saw what I wrote about this in my comment: Warner's point about Islamic dualism is precisely that it's very non-Western, because so comfortably acquiescent to self-contradiction, so long as the contradiction is in the Qur'an. Islam's Allah is so imperious that he does not obey anything other than himself, not even Western logic.

As to your third point, I think that every totalitarianism is inherently and fundamentally violent. That's part of the essence of totalitarianism. This applies to Islam and to totalitarianism in general.

As to your last paragraph, I enjoyed the inspired and powerfully pithy ruminations about Satan. Worth remembering.

From the article:

"A new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban"

Have you ever laughed as much in your life. Wonderful.

On a slightly related topic, in Syria, it seems the 'banned' Jabhat al-Nusra group is really rather popular with the other rebel groups.

More than 100 Syrian opposition groups, including armed battalions and civilian committees, have signed a petition expressing solidarity with Jabhat al-Nusra and denouncing the recent US decision to officially designate the al-Qaeda-linked group a terrorist organization.

Which just goes to show how radicalised the rebels are.

So, begs the rather obvious question, what are numerous NATO member states doing, supporting such Mujahideen? Remember that the US has coordinated the flow of weapons from Gulf Arab states to rebel groups whilst other NATO states have been even more supportive of these 'heroic, freedom loving' Mujahideen

NATO: the Jihadist's best friend.

It's as if 9 11 never really happened.

traeh,

Continued:

"I'm not sure you saw what I wrote about this in my comment: Warner's point about Islamic dualism is precisely that it's very non-Western, because so comfortably acquiescent to self-contradiction, so long as the contradiction is in the Qur'an."

We may just have to agree to disagree. I don't see a contradiction in the Islamic mind/script in this regard, for that implies that they are half-believers in goodness, and they surmount this 1/2 goodness + 1/2 evil by fusing the two in contradiction, rather than working it out as the West has done. I think their belief in goodness is 0%, so there's no half to be in contradiction with for them. There is, however, lots of seeming goodness, which Westerners either stupidly think they see, or hope to find, in Islam. The seeming goodness is all deception, in the interest of an underlying evil. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

P.S.: I'm glad you noticed my saving grace for the "Oriental". I wanted to add that when I say "Oriental", I didn't mean to neglect embracing all non-Western cultures as well, from the Pacific to the pre-Columbian Americas to Africa; though those seem to have not attained the degree of advances which the non-Muslim Oriental cultures did -- of course, nothing close to sinking as low as Islam, which is the absolute Nadir of Mankind (if it even belongs there at all).

The minds that cooked up Islam did so, I am convinced, in *conscious rejection* of and conscious antipathy toward the Biblical paradigm. I don't believe the people who wrote the Quranic foe-fic (and the rest of the Islamic 'trilogy') messed up the Jewish and Christian material they incorporated, out of innocent ignorance...I think they knew damn well what they were doing. They, whoever they were, said, 'Evil [and it was the Biblical definition of evil], be thou my good', and they created something that is a set of consistent reversals and deliberate blasphemies and turnings-upside-down not unlike the Black Mass.

That seems pretty undeniable. As you know, the Qur'an explicitly rejects the central tenets of Christianity. We are told that God has no son, that Jesus was only a prophet, that he did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected.

Joel Richardson finds a whole pile of what you called "turnings-upside-down", when he compares the Islamic and Biblical narratives of the end times. The reversal seems so detailed that it seems it must be intentional:

Summary of Comparisons Between the Islamic and Biblical Narratives of the End Times:

Bible: The Antichrist is an unparalleled political, military, and religious leader that will emerge in
the last days.
Islam: The Mahdi is an unparalleled political, military, and religious leader that will emerge in the
last days.

Bible: The False Prophet is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last days who will support the Antichrist.
Islam: The Muslim Jesus is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last days to support the Mahdi.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet together will have a powerful army that will do great damage to the earth in an effort to subdue every nation and dominate the world.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will have a powerful army that will attempt to control every nation of the earth and dominate the world.

Bible: The False Prophet is described essentially as a dragon in lamb’s clothing.
Islam: The Muslim Jesus comes bearing the name of the one that the world knows as “the Lamb of God,” Jesus Christ. Yet the Muslim Jesus comes to murder all those who do not submit to Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet establish a new world order.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus establish a new world order.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet institute new laws for the whole earth.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus institute Islamic law all over the earth.

Bible: The Antichrist is said to “change the times.”
Islam: It is quite certain that if the Mahdi established Islam all over the earth, he would discontinue the use of Saturday and Sunday as the weekend or days of rest, changing to Friday, the holy day of Islam. Also, he would most certainly eliminate the Gregorian calendar and replace it with the Islamic calendar currently used in every Islamic country.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will both be powerful religious leaders who will attempt to institute a universal world religion.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will institute Islam as the only religion on the earth.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will execute anyone who does not submit to their world religion.
Islam: Likewise, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will execute anyone who does not submit to Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will specifically use beheading as the primary means of execution for nonconformists.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will use the Islamic practice of beheading for executions.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews as possible.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will kill as many Jews as possible, until only a few are left hiding behind rocks and trees.

Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will attack to conquer and seize Jerusalem.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will attack to reconquer and seize Jerusalem for Islam.

Bible: The Antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish Temple as his seat of authority.
Islam: The Mahdi will establish the Islamic caliphate from Jerusalem

Bible: The False Prophet is said to do many miracles to deceive as many as possible into supporting the Antichrist.
Islam: The Mahdi himself is said to control the weather and the crops. His face is said to glow. We can also assume that since Jesus is viewed as having been empowered by Allah to work miracles when He was here on earth the first time, He will most likely be expected to continue to do so when He returns.

Bible: The Antichrist is described as riding on a white horse in the Book of Revelation.
Islam: The Mahdi is described as riding on a white horse (ironically in the same verse).

Bible: The Antichrist is said to make a peace treaty with Israel for seven years.
Islam: The Mahdi is said to make a peace treaty through a Jew (specifically a Levite) for exactly seven years.

Bible: Jesus the Jewish Messiah will return to defend the Jews in Israel from a military attack from a vast coalition of nations led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet.
Islam: The Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist, will gain a great Jewish following and claim to be Jesus Christ; he will fight against the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus.

Bible: The spirit of antichrist specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.
Islam: Islam doctrinally and spiritually specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

Bible: The primary warning of Jesus and the Apostle Paul is to warn Christians of the abundance of deceit and deception in the last days.
Islam: Islam is perhaps the only religion on earth that practices deceit as one of its tools to assist its own ascendancy. It actually has a specific doctrine that allows and even calls for deception to be used to achieve its desired end.

Bible: The specific nations pictured in the Bible as part of the final empire of the Antichrist are all Islamic nations.
Islam: All Muslims are commanded to give their allegiance to the Mahdi as the final caliph and imam (leader) of Islam.

Bible: From the Bible and history we learn that the final Antichrist empire will be a revived version of the empire that succeeds the Roman empire.
Islam: The empire that succeeded the Roman/Byzantine empire was the Islamic Ottoman empire.

Bible: When the Antichrist emerges, a system will already exist that is poised to receive him as a savior and to give allegiance to him.
Islam: Islam is already the second-largest religion and will at present growth rates become the largest religion within a few decades. Islam awaits the coming of the Mahdi with universal anticipation.

-- From The Islamic Antichrist by Joel Richardson

Well, I can only see the first fifty comments on this thread. When I click on the new link to comments beyond the first fifty (the first time I've seen such a link at Jihad Watch, and the first time I've seen a page here limited to 50 comments), the link seems to go nowhere. So I can't see diddley beyond the first fifty. And I don't know if anyone will see anything I post further on this thread.

Well, for some reason, the "Newer Comments" part is stuck and won't allow me access.

I just wanted to say that my gross botching misspelling of "ostentatiously unostentatious" in my last post (to dumbledoresarmy) was the result of having typed probably 100,000 words all day today. It's a wonder I typed anything legible at all.

I recently wrote a long comment -- on Bill Warner's website -- in which I attempted to describe the mental transformations of the devastated ones who happened to be living in the pathways of devastators -- like Muhammad and his successors; Genghis Kahn (non-Muslim); Joseph Kony (non-Muslim?); and many others throughout history. This is a fresh rewrite of that comment, with some valuable parts of the original comment omitted.

In very-large numbers, those devastated ones -- who agreed to convert to Islam under Muhammad and his successors -- were somehow transformed into willing and even enthusiastic fighters who subsequently participated in the subjugation, rape, torture, mutilation, murder of millions of other devastated people. Somehow, those devastated and mentally-transformed ones became able to internally justify their newly-found depraved activities.

I believe the mental transformations of those devastated ones occurred through expert mental manipulation by the devastators, and by promises of future rewards, and by severe intimidation -- probably including intimidation that threatened wholesale murder of many others in the group if any one person misbehaved -- like what happened in at least one Nazi death camp where ten additional prisoners were murdered if any one person ran into the electric fence in order to commit suicide or otherwise attempt to escape. Devastators are expert mental manipulators.

The devastated ones could have chosen to be tortured to death and maintain clear consciences instead of becoming fighters in the causes of the devastators, but some of the devastated ones somehow chose to live and follow the depraved commands of the devastators.

I recall that some resident prisoners in some Nazi death camps participated in the offloading and routing of incoming people from the cattle cars at the death camps. If they all had, instead, collectively refused to participate in the Nazi activities and subsequently been murdered by the Nazis, then the death camps might not have been so successful.

Similarly, if Muhammad's, Genghis Kahn's, Joseph Kony's snared recruits had collectively refused -- with resulting torture and death -- to participate in future devastations, then the devastators would not have been so successful.

Refusal to participate with the devastators requires a firm personal conviction on the part of the snared devastated one that one's personal death is more noble than continuation of one's life with mandatory depraved participation in the subjugation, rape, torture, mutilation, murder of other devastated people.

I believe the choices presented to the devastated ones were not easy, but I believe many of the devastated ones throughout history chose to maintain clear consciences and die rather than participate in the depraved deeds of the devastators.

Devastated ones need to collectively band together and refuse to follow the commands of the devastators and subsequently die, in order to maintain clear consciences. I think that is the noble way to stop the devastators.

I recall an interesting story about self-sacrifice for the sake of others. It is about an ascetic who entered a Roman arena where murders were being committed. There, the ascetic himself was murdered, which resulted in 1) public outcry in the arena at the needless death of a holy man, and 2) the end of those depraved activities in the Roman arena.

I believe the ascetic had long-term vision, acted out of love for others, and died with a clear conscience. That was the golden rule in action.

I recently wrote a long comment -- on Bill Warner's website -- in which I attempted to describe the mental transformations of the devastated ones who happened to be living in the pathways of devastators -- like Muhammad and his successors; Genghis Kahn (non-Muslim); Joseph Kony (non-Muslim?); and many others throughout history. This is a fresh rewrite of that comment, with some valuable parts of the original comment omitted.

In very-large numbers, those devastated ones -- who agreed to convert to Islam under Muhammad and his successors -- were somehow transformed into willing and even enthusiastic fighters who subsequently participated in the subjugation, rape, torture, mutilation, murder of millions of other devastated people. Somehow, those devastated and mentally-transformed ones became able to internally justify their newly-found depraved activities.

I believe the mental transformations of those devastated ones occurred through expert mental manipulation by the devastators, and by promises of future rewards, and by severe intimidation -- probably including intimidation that threatened wholesale murder of many others in the group if any one person misbehaved -- like what happened in at least one Nazi death camp where ten additional prisoners were murdered if any one person ran into the electric fence in order to commit suicide or otherwise attempt to escape. Devastators are expert mental manipulators.

The devastated ones could have chosen to be tortured to death and maintain clear consciences instead of becoming fighters in the causes of the devastators, but some of the devastated ones somehow chose to live and follow the depraved commands of the devastators.

I recall that some resident prisoners in some Nazi death camps participated in the offloading and routing of incoming people from the cattle cars at the death camps. If they all had, instead, collectively refused to participate in the Nazi activities and subsequently been murdered by the Nazis, then the death camps might not have been so successful.

Similarly, if Muhammad's, Genghis Kahn's, Joseph Kony's snared recruits had collectively refused -- with resulting torture and death -- to participate in future devastations, then the devastators would not have been so successful.

Refusal to participate with the devastators requires a firm personal conviction on the part of the snared devastated one that one's personal death is more noble than continuation of one's life with mandatory depraved participation in the subjugation, rape, torture, mutilation, murder of other devastated people.

I believe the choices presented to the devastated ones were not easy, but I believe many of the devastated ones throughout history chose to maintain clear consciences and die rather than participate in the depraved deeds of the devastators.

Devastated ones need to collectively band together and refuse to follow the commands of the devastators and subsequently die, in order to maintain clear consciences. I think that is the noble way to stop the devastators.

I recall an interesting story about self-sacrifice for the sake of others. It is about an ascetic who entered a Roman arena where murders were being committed. There, the ascetic himself was murdered, which resulted in 1) public outcry in the arena at the needless death of a holy man, and 2) the end of those depraved activities in the Roman arena.

I believe the ascetic had long-term vision, acted out of love for others, and died with a clear conscience. That was the golden rule in action.

I'm having problems accessing the "Newer Comments" half (some new feature of Jihad Watch I guess) -- so all I can read are comments 1-50. There are nine more I can't see. When I click on "Newer Comments" that Allahdamned spiral symbol starts chugging away, deceptively telegraphing that a process has initiated which will soon yield some result (like access to the "Newer Comments"), but it never gets there; it's a cruel deception that just keeps spinning in perpetual motion like some kind of broken machine one wants to take a tire-iron to and really break.

Anyway, one more thought I had about traeh's initial comment about Warner, in which the problem of Deconstructionism and the resulting Infinite Islams was raised. That may be an abstract problem, but concretely, in terms of our Twin Problem of 1) self-defense from metastasizing Muslims and 2) our own societies persisting in obtuse myopia to the exigency of #1, the multiplicity of Islams only needs to generate two or three Islams to cause this problem.

I.e., as long as there is a generally diffuse and vague doubt about whether "extremist" Islam is representative of the majority of Muslims, then this doubt can be exploited to put all our weight on erring on the side of the TMOEWATHI meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam), leaving the vast majority of Muslims to fall into roughly two camps: a) decent harmless Muslims following a respectably decent and peaceful Islam, and b) relaxed, "lapsed" and/or "modernized" Muslims who supposedly aren't a danger.

This nice construction breaks down with Keystone-Kops regularity, of course, as we know from the mountain of reports at Jihad Watch, whereby those who maintain the construction routinely contradict themselves 1) by implying that both a) and b) type Muslims can "radicalize" at the drop of a keffiyeh (and, of oourse, if we "offend" them); and 2) by propping up the Hologram of a Peaceful Islam while simultaneously conceding that any and all attempts by Muslims to concretize Islam with fidelity are manifestations of an "ultra-conservative" reflex that is anti-liberal -- as though, gee what a surprise, being more Islamic is ipso facto being less liberal & humane. The paradox our PC MCs don't see in this regard is that, if by their logic there is an Islam followed and cultivated by the vast majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world, why would there be any problem at all in cultivating that perfectly benign Islam with more fidelity to its purity of doctrine? But of course, there are generated a vast multiplicity of mountains of problems in this regard, which have to be as incessantly swept under the carpet as they are churned out the other end by Muslims all over the globe putting Islam into practice.

So, PC MCs are simultaneously trying to maintain a desperate Fantasy & Fiction about Islam, while madly and ridiculously playing Whack-a-Mole and Plug-the-Leaks with the real Islam that in multifarious ways all around the world (and increasingly in our own world) keeps impinging on their colossal Bubble of Denial.

Trying to access newer comments