| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A poster at this website recently asked: "There is an excellent PhD just waiting to be written re. the peculiar mental pathologies that Islam inculcates in its adherents....Has that PhD been written?"
Yes. Here and there. Look at Andre Servier's book, now on line (put online by a JW poster alerted to its merits). Look at "The Arab Mind" by Patai; figure out where he avoids the word "Islam" and supply it yourself. Other books -- such as that by John Laffin -- limn the same, sometimes better. Studies of the Qur'an have been completed that show how replete with aggression the text is, and which draw the obvious conclusions -- the conclusions that so few in Washington or other Western capitals will draw, or even dare to think much less talk about -- but at the moment the names of the Danes and the Dutch authors involved escape me.
It's all there. How Islam discourages free inquiry at every step. How Islam encourages submission to the blind and irrational (or at least not necessarily rational, but rather whimsical) will of Allah. How Islam encourages intolerance of others and an inability to compromise, but rather inculcates a zero-sum view of the world as divided between the victor and the vanquished. It starts with Believer (victor) and Infidel (vanquished), but can also be seen in the way that various groups of Muslims naturally treat each other.
Look at the Fast Jihad (Hamas) and the Slow Jihad (Fatah or PLO) in Gaza. Look at Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq (not to mention Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, and even Yemen). All of it clearly related -- and yet somehow never related -- to not merely the tenets, but what has been carefully described here about two thousand times as the "attitudes" and "atmospherics" of Islam, which arise naturally out of the canonical texts -- Qur'an and Hadith and Sira -- and the most authoritative commentators on those texts.
Tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam -- they are all part of the same thing, and they can all be seen at work in societies suffused with Islam. There are those most suffused, with legal systems closest to the Shari'a: Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sudan, Pakistan. And now Somalia may be added to the list. There are those only slightly less complete and fanatical in their adherence to Islam: Egypt, Jordan, the U.A.E., the so-called "Palestinians" in those territories some call "Palestinian"; areas of Iraq under local control of local Shi'a (as in Basra) or Sunnis (as in Ramadi). Then Islam is observed less still in Morocco and Algeria and Libya (where the colonel has his own ideas, some of them hardly Islamic at all). Then there is still another group, with Tunisia and Oman being even milder in their Islam. In Tunisia this is the result of secularizing Bourguiba and the Destour Party and now Ben Ali, who runs a police-state designed to keep Islam down. Oman is a special case because of the influence both of Ibadiya Islam and Sultan Qaboos's wisdom. Then there is Syria, with its Alawites needing to preserve the role of the local Christians who are no threat to Alawites and who can help withstand the Sunni Ikhwan; Turkey, with its Kemalism tattered but not completely torn; and assorted non-Arab Muslim states, such as the "five stans" of Central Asia, in which so much stamping out of Islam (as of all religion) was accomplished by the Soviets during the basmachi uprisings, and where a non-Muslim population in Kazakhstan, for example, as well as the intelligently secular Kazakhs, have helped to keep Islam down as a political and social force. Indonesia, meanwhile, until recently managed, partly under Dutch rule, and then under the secular Sukarno, to constrain Islam because there was another, non-Arab identity and history to appeal to, whereas Arab Muslims have an ethnic identity that overlaps almost completely with, and reinforces and is reinforced by, Islam.
And so on.
But start with those books. Then go on from there.
Do you think anyone in the Pentagon or the State Department has managed to produce a list such as that above, with a sliding scale that measures the suffusion of a particular Muslim society or state with Islam? It would take a minute. But they don't do it. They don't even think in those terms. And if you think they could produce such a list, and what's more, offer a coherent explanation with reference to local histories as to why one country is this way and another that way, you are far too hopeful. Whatever your worst fears about the level of understanding in our government may be, they do not come close to the awful truth.
"The Awful Truth." A wonderful movie in which Irene Dunne sings a funny song to a bunch of stuffed-shirt swells before Cary Grant again carries her off in his automobile. Funny for the movie.
Not so funny when it applies to that State Department, that Pentagon, that Congress, that Washington press corps.
Posted by Hugh at December 17, 2006 4:28 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
BINGO!
Glad someone is addressing this at length...the mental pathology is unmistakable.
It's called Malignant Narcissism...and it's merely primary to a host of other secondaries.
It's so blatant a blind man can see it.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 17, 2006 4:59 PM
Thank you for the reference books Hugh.
Here's a small window from Mark Twain and Gagdad Bob:
In his book Freud, Women and Morality: The Psychology of Good and Evil, Eli Sagan uses a wonderfully illuminating example from Huckleberry Finn, in which Huck is in the midst of a moral dilemma between what his superego wants him to do--return the slave Jim to his master, Miss Watson--and what his conscience is telling him--that Jim is a human being just like him, and that it would be evil for him to assist in re-enslaving him. First we hear Huck dealing with an attack from his superego as he considers returning Jim:
"The more I studied about this the more my conscience [actually, the superego] went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven, whilst I was stealing a poor old woman's nigger that hadn't done me no harm, and now was showing me there's One that's always on the lookout, and ain't a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared."
Clearly, Huck is under assault by his tyrannical superego for violating the racist ethic of his culture. The omniscient superego ("watching all the time") slaps him in the face, accuses him of wickedness, and causes him to become immobilized with fear. He proceeds to write a letter telling Miss Watson where Jim can be found. But as he does so, his conscience--not superego--begins to nag him. He lays the letter down and "set there thinking":
"And went on thinking.... and I see Jim before me all the time... we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him.... I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me... and see how glad he was when I came back out of the fog.... and would always call me honey and pet me, and how good he always was... and he said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world... and then I happened to look around and see that paper."
Caught between guilt from doing something at variance with what the superego is demanding, and an awakened conscience telling him to do the right thing, what will Huck do?
"I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied it a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: 'All right, then, I'll go to hell'--and tore it up."
Huck revokes the lie, stands up to the superego, and makes the decision to do wrong, to "take up wickedness again" by helping to free Jim.
One can only wonder. How many in the Arab Muslim world are ready to give themselves over to sin by making peace with Israel? How many are prepared to bear the guilty attacks from the superego for treating women equally? How many will stop confusing the lies of the imam with the truth of God? How many will "go the whole hog" and toss a brick at al Jazeera?
- excerpt from One Cosmos blog; by psychologist, Robert Goodwin
Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 6:24 PM
Hugh, what has happened to the Western ability to see through the fog of an issue and analyze it correctly? Has that capability become a "private" one, limited to individuals who think for themselves and small groups of like-minded people, with no influence on public policy at all? Is there any Western leader who could write the modern equivalent of "Anti-Machiavel" and explain why they do not follow the policy prescriptions put forward here at Jihad Watch? What is the historical maximum time that a people can say the emperor is fully clothed and not buck naked?
As a "generation x-er", I do not want to spend my entire life worried about Islamic terrorism or being afraid to live in one of the West's great cities because of their invitingness as targets. Yet, when I compare this war to the Cold War, at least on a general level, I don't see how it can last less time than the 50 years of the Cold War, especially since we don't name the enemy and we don't implement the best policies, so I probably will have to spend my entire life worrying about it. We can't even utilize one of our main advantages during the Cold War, as it was exemplified by the "Kitchen Debate" in which the superiority of our system of production was displayed because these religious fanatics don't seem interested in material progress except insofar as it can help them blow up stuff.
Posted by: venividivici at December 17, 2006 6:44 PM
I had a discussion with a business associate years ago who happened to be a psychologist.
Her analysis of the Muslim mind went like this:
'Because the Muslim woman's empowerment in society is relegated to the coat-tails of the men in her life, and because the polygamy in Islam renders her position in the marriage perpetually insecure, her path to empowerment is invariably through her sons. Consequently, she indulges them all through their childhood.'
'These boys grow up feeling entitled to their whims, and when they enter adulthood and find the real world unaccommodating, they are prone to a sense of betrayal, despair and rage.'
Posted by: Cornelius at December 17, 2006 6:47 PM
The book by Andre Servier that Hugh referred to is "The Psychology (Mind) of the Musulman." It is out of date and out of copyright so I put it online here:
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com
It is all online there, all text. The download a copy site no longer works. I had not looked at it in many months and need to fix the download link but you can read it all online there. Not very long.
John
Posted by: John Sobieski at December 17, 2006 7:06 PM
Good post. I have always assumed that it would be impossible to get such an un-PC thesis approved by any doctoral committee - no matter how well researched and argued. It's good to hear a few have managed it.
Thanks for the link John, I will read.
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at December 17, 2006 7:23 PM
It's really a pity Hugh can't tranform himself into a fly and get into the ears of the right people in DC-the IQ level there would improve immeasureably.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 17, 2006 7:48 PM
Thx, Hugh.
As to what about Islam appeals to people, it may help to look at which groups are especially attracted to it, to name a couple: American Blacks and low-caste Hindus come to mind. Of course, Islam is a means of escape from the Hindu caste structure, and Blacks probably like the non-racist egalitarianism within Islam, as well as the fact that Muslims tend to be drawn from darker Third World types.
But also, Islam is a power ideology, and that must make it appeal to the powerless. Think of Joseph Goebbels, the non-Aryan looking nebish with the inferiority complex who became a fanatical Nazi. Islam has real nebish appeal! Just think of all those put-downs of non-Muslims in the Koran and Sunnah. Just convert and you're a member of an elite, with the right to subjugate, maim and kill. Good deal, better than the Hell's Angels.
at December 17, 2006 7:55 PM
"what has happened to the Western ability to see through the fog of an issue and analyze it correctly?"
-- from a posting above
I don't know. Mass democracy and the degradation of the democratic dogma. Everyone has an opinion apparently equal to that of everyone else. The failure or inability to teach literature and history properly. The failure to understand how to take in data and weigh it.
It is not only the matter of Islam. It is also the problem of anthropogenic climate change, or global warming. The fear of inteligently looking at the data, or if not able to interpret it oneself, the unwillingness to trust those who have the right to expect that they have earned our trust, including the many sober scientists, with no axe to grind on either side, who slowly and grimly came to the conclusions that they have come to, but that others, with axes to grind, insist must be a misunderstanding of the data, must be based on some hideous anti-capitalist conspiracy. A refusal to believe, because it is all too painful to contemplate.
In one case, that of Islam, the result could be the end of the West, with all of Europe, and all of Russia, islamized, with terrible consequences for the peoples there and those Infidels who would remain, weaker and more isolated and more threatened, in North America. In the second case, that of irreversible and major environmental change, the result could be all kinds of extreme weather, the melting of the ice caps or a great deal of them, and with that even more warming (as the sun's heat would no longr be reflected from the white of those caps) and so on.
In the first case, anyone can do the work to find out about Islam and the history of Islamic conquest. In the second, many cannot or think they cannot learn enough about the science to adequately understand what's what on their own. Often that is true, but they are capable of doing the same kind of quality control that they do when deciding whether they wish to go to, or retain as their doctor, this dermatologist, that cardiologist. You pick up things. You examine what studies were done, what boards taken, whether the doctor in front of you is also a believer in UFOs or happens to be a Grateful Dead groupie, or is entirely sober, and what's more, finds his work of undiminishable interest and gives every sign of keeping up with the literature. And then you figure out whom you should trust, as you figure out whether or not James Hansen or Kerry Emanuel or someone else makes sense, or whether you believe those who pooh-pooh this whole "global warming" business.
Democracy was not cut out for such problems. And then there is the low quality of most, though not entirely all, of our "taking a leadership role" so-called leaders. They have had five years to study up on Islam. In both parties, in both the Executive branch and in Congress, they haven't done what they should. They have neglected their duties. They have not fulfilled their duty to instruct, and to protect, those whom they claim to lead. So far they have largely failed. We are, at the moment, on our own.
Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 8:18 PM
There had/have been laws in place preventing us from effectively instructing and protecting the masses...that's why we pushed for the Patriot Act, which the left has so violently opposed (which makes me suspicious of their motives,but that's another issue)...some of the rules of engagement have become so cloudy with BS (read thatas political correctness) that it's like being told:
"I before E and sometimes Y and on odd-dated tuesdays and even-dated thursdays and every other day of theweek..." (WTF??? NOW we have to get in touch with a killers "sensitivities"!!! BS!)
Before that it was:
1) Kill the enemy
2) Destroy their stuff
Duty is one thing...being expected to accomplish a mission with hands tied behind your back, then being labeled a failure because of said ridiculous rules is entirely another...especially when I have found that the worst accusers of "failure" came from the very same folks who pushed for the PC-rules to begin with...and that is exactly what happened.
(Hugh, though your take on the leaders is pretty accurate, WE've been studying up on it for a LOT longer than 5 years...myself=31, which encompassed much of my career. Their inability or unwillingness to listen to us has proven discouraging. WE didn't fail...the idiots who pushed these restrictive & ridiculous rules on us failed the people, and got a free pass in the process. I also enjoyed the comparison on "global warming" but that theory is another forum entirely http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236598,00.html
We're cut out for it,alright...political correctenss is NOT.
at December 17, 2006 8:57 PM
Actually, the failure of masses to understand anthropogenic climate change, and to listen to the professional contrarians and charlatans, as opposed to the scientists who must be listened to, is exactly like the failure of many to listen to those who have, without parti pris, studied Islam -- not necessarily at the level of Joseph Schacht -- and not only the belief-system, but also the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally arise from it, and not only that, but also the history of Islamic Jihad-conquest, and then of subsequent subjugation of the non-Muslim peoples reduced to the status of dhimmi, a permanent condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity relieved only, at times, by the benevolence of this or that local Muslim ruler.
And the Great Alliance could or should be formed between those most worried about climate change, and those most worried about Islam, or those who worry about both. Why? Because in both cases, one of the main goals will be to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, in the first case to reduce the man-made component of climate change, and in the second, to deprive the world-wide Jihad of the money weapon. It doesn't matter what the mixture or difference of motives may be: the end result will be the same.
Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 9:03 PM
On our own. Yes we are,
we are at war and the naked emperor
stands preening before his subjects.
A small group around the globe sees clearly
but we have no power except our pen.
When we use it correctly
and, all work together from the highest ground,
the force behind the energy of the idea
pierces the mind of the body politic
and change occurs. It is our weapon
of mindful mass construction.
We are on our own but we are not alone,
and our forces increase daily.
at December 17, 2006 9:14 PM
Hugh - For what it's worth, I think the comparison is valid. Denial is denial.
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at December 17, 2006 9:43 PM
Sorry, Hugh,
"Anthropogenic" climate change? We know you know your history, but evidently not your pre-history, or your geology, or your paleo-climatology. Abrupt is the way it happens, has happened through-out geological time-space. Just a fact, that. I'm with Senator Inhofe on this one friend; anthropogenic climate change is just narcisism writ large, very large; on a par with medieval geo-centrism. Utter hubris. I'm interested in saving the planet alright, but from Islam. That represents an act of will. To believe one can direct the climate, well, that's something else again. Willfullness? Petulance? Self-absorption? You might even consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to be at work here. You might as well relax and enjoy the weather, you're not the big, bad wolf.
Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 17, 2006 9:51 PM
At another website to which I contribute you can find replies, and then my replies to those replies, to a posting all about global warming. The site is:
www.newenglishreview.org.
Then you must click on "Author Archives," then my name, and then scroll down to December 15 to find my posting about global warming -- that is, about anthropogenic climate change --a phrase the poster just above does not like.
Those who are not in complete agreement with Senator Imhofe on this matter may stay to read, but those in such agreement are likely to have their teeth set on edge.
at December 17, 2006 10:09 PM
To save some time, here's that posting:
Re: Is "global warming" the new Black Death?
One cannot be too much of an alarmist about global warming. The science is in. No one of sense challenges it. It is only in the popular press that some do, and the only reason the pretence of the matter being still "debatable" is because the press, radio, and television think a debate is necessary. And then there are those who think that if one is alarmed about global warming this must, of course, have something to do with political attitudes -- as if it were all an overblown joke, made up by crazed environmentalists are hereby assigned the task of sitting in on a course of lectures by James Hansen, or by Kerry Emanuel on hurricanes (Atlantic and Pacific), or by a thousand others.
The press may have covered this matter as badly as it covers so much else. Sometimes sensationalist, sometimes pooh-poohing, sometimes making the wrong claim. But the problem is there. Judging by the level of political leadership -- of those "taking a leadership role" -- it may not be addressed in time. It may be too late. Not something to joke about, unless one's taste is strictly for gallows humor.
at December 17, 2006 10:10 PM
And here, from www.climatechange.org, is a relevant recent posting about Senator Imhofe's recent hearing on global warming, in which pride of place was given to contrarians dead set on denying what is now no longer debatable except in the popular press, and apparently in Congress:
Inhofe’s last stand
Filed under: Climate Science Reporting on climate— gavin @ 2:52 pm
Part of me felt a little nostalgic yesterday watching the last Senate hearing on climate change that will be chaired by Sen. James Inhofe. It all felt very familiar and comforting in some strange way. There was the well-spoken 'expert' flown in from Australia (no-one available a little closer to home?), the media 'expert' from the think tank (plenty of those about) and a rather out-of-place geologist. There were the same talking points (CO2 leads the warming during the ice ages! the Medieval Warm Period was warm! it's all a hoax!*) that are always brought up. These easy certainties and predictable responses are so well worn that they feel like a pair of old slippers. Of course, my bout of nostalgia has nothing to do with whether this was a useful thing for the Senate to be doing (it wasn't), and whether it just provided distracting political theatre (yup) in lieu of serious discussion about effective policy response, but even we should sometimes admit that it is easier to debunk this kind of schoolyard rhetoric than it is to deal with the complexities that actually matter. The supposed subject of discussion was 'Climate Change in the Media' though no-one thought to question why the Senate was so concerned with the media representations (Andy Revkin makes some good points about it though here). Senators have much more effective means of getting relevant information (knowledgable staffers, National Academy of Science reports, the presidential office of Science and Technology etc.) and so this concern was concievably related to their concern with public understanding of science..... or not.
Naomi Oreskes did a good job on the context and provided useful rebuttal to a frankly ridiculous claim that contrarians were not getting any air time on the networks. One point she could have raised was that when Patrick Michaels made the same complaint to CNN - that their climate news stories weren't 'balanced' - a quick scan of their interviewee lists revealed that the scientist most frequently on CNN .... was none other than Michaels himself. A result somewhat at odds with his standing in the community or expertise, but ample evidence for the 'false balance' often decried here.
As for the scientific content, with the sole exception of Dan Schrag's statements, it was a textbook example of abuse of science. Two exchanges summed it up for me. In the first, Bob Carter insisted that CO2 always follows temperature for the ice age cycles (which are paced by the variations in the Earth's orbit and for which CO2 is a necessary feedback) and seasonal cycle (related mainly to Northern hemisphere deciduous trees) . Both statements are true as far as they go - but they don't go very far. Was Carter suggesting that the 30% increase in CO2 decreased after 1940? or that it has stopped increasing in recent years (since he appears to also believe that global warming stopped in 1998?). As an aside by his criteria it also stopped in 1973, 1983 and 1990.... only it didn't. Of course, if this wasn't what he meant to imply (because it's demonstrably false), why did he bring the whole subject up at all? Surely not simply to muddy the waters....
The second great example was Carter making an appeal to authority (using NASA and the Russian Academy of Science) for his contention that world is likely to cool in coming decades. Of course scientists at NASA are at the forefront of studies of anthropogenic climate change so a similar authority would presumably apply to them, and the Russian Academy was one of 11 that called on the G8 to take climate change seriously, but let's gloss over that inconsistency. The nuggets of science Carter was referring to are predictions for the next couple of solar cycles - a tricky business in fact, and one in which there is a substantial uncertainty. However, regardless of that uncertainty, NASA scientists have definitively not predicted that this will cause an absolute cooling - at best, it might reduce the ongoing global warming slightly (which would be good) (though see here for what they actually said). Two Russians scientists have indeed made such a 'cooling' prediction though, but curiously only in a press report rather than in any peer-reviewed paper, and clearly did not speak for the Academy in doing so, but never mind that. Of course, if Carter seriously thought that global cooling was likely, he should be keen to take up some of James Annan's or Brian Schmidt's attractive offers - but like the vast majority of 'global coolers', his money does not appear to be where his mouth is. It's all classic contrarian stuff.
With the new Senate coming in January, it seems likely that this kind of disinformational hearing will become less common and more climate policy-related hearings will occur instead. These won't provide as much fodder for us to debunk, but they might serve the much more useful function of actually helping craft appropriate policy responses.
Ah... truly the end of an age.
* If needed, the easy rebuttals to these talking points are available here, here and here."
I was unable to put in the links for the last sentence. The interested should go to www.climatechange,org, and click away.
Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 10:14 PM
The operative word is anthropogenic. Climate change is with us, and not even Inhofe denies that. I will check out your stuff though, Hugh, but jeeze, all of this CNN this, and NASA that, and the passing of the retarded Republican guard schtick, is just pouring it on a little too thick. Louis Aggasiz spent most of his adult life fighting the same battle: that stassis is the natural order of things. It wasn't and it isn't.
Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 17, 2006 10:31 PM
"But also, Islam is a power ideology, and that must make it appeal to the powerless".
jewdog-
You nailed it. It has the same appeal as Nazism to people with low self-esteem. The Nazis also attracted the criminal mind, a mind that does not take responsibility for actions, shifts blame to victims and requires the world to accommodate to its beliefs.
Totalitarian belief-systems appear to be an ideal refuge for wandering criminal minds, for those in mental, emotional or actual prison. Take a criminal mind, give him rationalizations for murder, tell him God and the Fuhrer say its OK, wrap the whole thing in a package of ritual, and the results are demented and lethal.
Posted by: Frank at December 17, 2006 10:42 PM
There seem to be an inordinately high number of off-topic posts on this thread. Perhaps one of the moderators could do something about it.
Anthropogenic climate change. Sheesh.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 10:44 PM
Mohammad and Hitler both understood the hypnotizing power of ritual. Bowing to Imperial Mecca is one of those rituals that are used in the belief-system to reinforce it and to remove critical thought and create an illusion of community. Hitler also used ritual to that end. The role of ritual appears to be crucial in belief-systems.
Posted by: Frank at December 17, 2006 10:50 PM
By this time at this thread you are either pleased to find that you agree with me about this matter, or are horrified by what these postings reveal about me, when all along you had assumed I might be sane. What? He turns out to be a treehugger? An alarmist? A Kyoto-booster? Doesn't he know the hockey stick is broken? Doesn't he know that 1,000 years ago it used to be green in Greenland? Doesn't he know it is cold today in Wagga Wagga? A believer in that so-called "anthropogenic" "climate" "change"? My. One begins to wonder if I am to be trusted in my remarks about Islam if, at the same time, I actually believe all that nonsense about global warming, actually think that people working away at MIT or the National Academy of Sciences could possibly know what they are doing, when Senator Imhofe thinks quite otherwise.
Well, to madden such people even more, I will post here a very funny list prepared by Coby Beck, which offers a point-by-point rebuttal to the same dismal set of objections raised by those who deny the existence or significance of anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately, the links at each line do not remain, have to find Coby Beck's "How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic" on-line and then click on the links offered there to find out more.
One will notice that the same 15-20 basic objections of the doubters, the contrarians, are constantly repeated, and that very repetition creates a kind of nightmarishly nonsensical poetry, but one that is also funny, and then funnier, and by the end, very funny indeed. So here goes:
Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
Stages of Denial,
Scientific Topics,
Types of Argument, and
Levels of Sophistication.
Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
Stages of Denial
There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren't even sure
Contradictory evidence
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't be sure
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The hockey stick is broken
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
It's part of a natural change
This is just a natural cycle
There's global warming on Mars, too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human's
The CO2 rise is natural
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
It's not caused by CO2
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There's global warming on Mars, too
CO2 lags, not leads
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It's the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
A warmer world will be better
The effects are minor
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Change is normal
Climate change can't be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is ineffective
It's someone else's problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Action on global warming is suicide
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
This is just a natural cycle
A warmer world will be better
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Some sites show cooling
Atmosphere
Extreme events
Temperature records
One record year is not global warming
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Storms
Droughts
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is ineffective
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
The models don't have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
There's global warming on Mars, too
It's the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 lags, not leads
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Natural emissions dwarf human's
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
The hockey stick is broken
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
Ice ages
CO2 lags, not leads
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
Geologic history
A warmer world will be better
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
A warmer world will be better
Action on global warming is suicide
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human's
It's the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Cherry Picking
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
This is just a natural cycle
Kyoto is ineffective
There's global warming on Mars, too
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 lags, not leads
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human's
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren't even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is ineffective
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Underdog Theories
Crackpottery
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Action on global warming is suicide
There's global warming on Mars, too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can't even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human's
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It's the sun, stupid
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
This is just a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
A warmer world will be better
Kyoto is ineffective
CO2 lags, not leads
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never causes temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Scientific
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
at December 17, 2006 10:54 PM
This thread might better be called "An Inconvenient Truch".
Hugh, I am not horrified that you are passionate about "anthropogenic climate change". I'm just uninterested in reading about that at JW. That doesn't mean I am not interested in buying the first commercially available (read serviceable) all electric car that can go 150 miles, or that I would like to see Western companies not use ME oil even for jet fuel or plastics. It also does not mean I won't still send a big fat check to JW as soon as I get the proper address confirmed (check your mailbox).
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 11:10 PM
..."An Inconvenient Truth".
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 17, 2006 11:19 PM
I always trusted my uncle Tom Kemp about certain things and not others. Just a little too over the top sometimes. When he stuck to fishing he was infallible. Lets get back to jihad.
Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 17, 2006 11:20 PM
You have a point. However, my several postings about global warning were the natural result of a previous posting, in which I was responding to criticism of my discussing similarities in the reaction of many both to Islam and to global warning. I have mentioned this similarity before, and have also mentioned that I thought an alliance, between those who wish to reduce oil consumption because they wish to deprive the Muslims of the money weapon that has been so effective in paying for mosques, madrasas, weaponry and weapons projects, and an army of Western hirelings, and those who wish to reduce the use of fossil fuels for quite different, environmental reasons. There is no reason why such an alliance should not be created. It is only this silly idea that "conservatives" (whatever they are) worry about Islam and "liberals" (whatever they are) worry about climate change as part of a larger environmental movement, that prevents what should otherwise be an obvious and powerful political alliance from being formed.
And since I had also, in a posting above, noted the same kinds of denial of the threat in both cases, in one case a denial of Jihad itself and of the effectiveness of the many instruments of Jihad, and in the other the denial of the mounting evidence for global warming, not among scientists but among those who repeat the kind of potted objections, all of them answerable and answered, listed in Coby Beck's guide that I posted above. And in both cases our leaders, our takers-of-a-leadership-role, have shown themselves unequal to the tasks at hand. But now I've had my say, and those who wish to see any further remarks by me on subjects other than Islam can go to that website I noted above (www.newenglishreview.org), and get as mad or as glad as they choose.
Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 11:29 PM
There is no reason reason why such an alliance should not be formed. I am fully in support of it, as I am fully in support of the mission of Jihad Watch, to which I have donated cash. Your insight is noted and appreciated, yet, as you are no doubt aware, it is a cross-cultural notion in which one need not be a a true-believer in the anthropo-part to support. Thank-you Hugh for your dedication, I quote you often.
Emerson.
Posted by: Emerson Twain at December 17, 2006 11:44 PM
Mr. Emerson Twain writes:
The operative word is anthropogenic. Climate change is with us, and not even Inhofe denies that.Mr. Twain, perhaps you are familiar with the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity? That's what you (and the unlamented former Sen. Inhofe) are pushing.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the Keeling curve. Where's that growth in CO2 coming from, if not from our own conversion of carbon in the ground to carbon in the atmosphere? How about all the other greenhouse gases, like nitrous oxide and sulfur hexafluoride; do you think nature makes much of those? Don't you realize that today's concentration of CO2 is 25% higher than at any time in the last million years? That's definitely anthropogenic.
As for the "warming" part, calculations of the likely effect of CO2 emissions date back to Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century. He was working with pencil and paper, but he got amazingly close to today's models.
Now, I'm not going to go further here. I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist. If you have not closed your mind to information, you should take account of what actual working climate scientists (NOT paid shills for coal and oil interests) are saying. The best place to go for that is probably Real Climate. Go there, use their search function, and you will (may?) be enlightened.
If your position is due in part to the belief that we cannot both solve AGW and eliminate oil imports (the latter requires e.g. coal-to-liquids), consider my proposal to deal with both at once. I made it easy for you; the link on my name takes you straight to the post at my blog (also duplicated at The Oil Drum).
We could beat both global warming AND eliminate oil with just the technology I know about. There's more I don't know about, which is going to make it even easier... if we have the resolve. But to make it happen, us engineers and scientists need you to exercise two powers on our behalf:
at December 18, 2006 12:00 AM
I like to part, for the evening, with all possible rancor dissipated, knowing full well I have a talent to infuriate. And with your kind words, the verbal equivalent of a making-up handshake (I'm trying to shake your proffered hand right back, but it's a little hard from this distance) you've taken the lead and done the handsome thing. I will try not to mention global warning quite as much as I permitted myself this evening at JW(must be the effect of some articles I just read, programs I've seen, the anticipation of preventable but unprevented future disaster), placing such musings at another website, and like a good shoemaker, at this website will try to stick to my last.
Posted by: Hugh at December 18, 2006 12:08 AM
Tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam -- they are all part of the same thing, and they can all be seen at work in societies suffused with Islam.
...........................
These atmospherics are what the philosopher Ayn Rand refered to as a "sense of life". (I don't agree with all of Ms. Rand's philospophy, but I do consider this a really useful concept).
While she considered it ideal (as do I) that people's philosophies be consistent and well-thought out, she came to realize that many people hold a concious--often received--philosophy that may well be at odds with their sense of life.
She was from Russia herself, and knew that many Russians, even those who supposedly held quite a rational philosophy, were quite pessimistic and suspicious in their attitudes, and it colored everything they did. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, tended to have an open, optimistic view of life. Often even when their concious philosophies were quite irrational, they tended to behave in a fairly rational manner. Even when their actions were also irrational, Americans tended toward a somewhat more benign form of the irrational--such as believing they were lucky, for instance. (These examples are a bit simplistic, but you get the idea.)
She believed, though, that the existence of this dichotamy in a person , whether his "sense of life" was better or worse than his given philosophy, often caused great strain in an individual (just such as the poster Malinois illustrates above in the case of Mark Twain's character Huck Finn).
A person may follow his own better sense if pushed, but this is extremely difficult if it means defying society or respected persons or institutions which handed down the dominant philosophy.
I think this is why you so often find otherwise decent Muslims who will not stand against the uglier aspects of Islam in a crunch. Of course, many are simply scared of the consequences (with good reason, given the violence of so many of their co-religionists and the constant threat of being accused of apostacy). But I think in many cases it is much more than that. A Muslim who has thought and behaved in a decent manner much of his life has little to fall back on in times of crisis but Islam itself--and we know what an ugly philosophy this is.
In addition, of course, often the "atmospherics" are ugly in and of themselves. Throw in Arab tribal customs of incessant warfare, or Afghan customs of mistreating women, and things get even nastier.
...............
from above:
...Blacks probably like the non-racist egalitarianism within Islam
.............
Jewdog, good post. But I must question your assertion that Islam is non-racist. Generally, it holds Arabs to be superior, and the Koran itself makes much of its being "received" in Arabic. Often East Asian Muslims are regarded with some suspicion (of often not being fervent enough) and Blacks, even Black Muslims, are often held in open contempt. Look at the situation in Darfur.
Posted by: gravenimage at December 18, 2006 12:48 AM
Hugh
You bring up a good point about why Conservatives who oppose Jihad and Liberals who oppose consuming Islamic fuels (read fossil formations that happen to be buried under the empires of dar-ul-Islam) shouldn't let their other differences prevent them from forming an alliance. I am somewhat ambivalent about the evidence, given the cyclical nature of climate change, and the evidence that we have the capability to cause it; but granting that for the moment, there are even other more natural alliances that should be taking place between us and sections of the Left:
at December 18, 2006 1:31 AM
anthropogenic climate change:
I got a one track mind, im just starting to take a good bite into discovering islam.
I dont know much about global warming or birthin babys!
Ive read somewhere the earth began its life as a ball of gases a "big bang" occurred and the earth was very very hot for milliniums, it cooled and life came dragging itself up out of a bowl of warm soup!
Then came upon the face of the earth a terribly hugh meteor that hit the earth and caused a hugh cloud of dust to cover the earth for many many years blocking the suns rays from reaching the earth and caused the earth to freeze and life ended.
Ive read somewhere that a single valcano eruption spews more poisonous gases into the earths atmosphere than all the automobiles and trash burning powerplants and coal stoves will in a hundred years!
Ive read that somewhere out there in space is a hugh meteorite heading towards earth as if earth has a target painted on it and it will strike, if not it , its brother or sister not far behind it, and it also will throw a hugh cloud of dust over the earth, blocking the suns rays from reaching the face of the earth and cause another iceage! The scientist say it is not a matter of if, but when this will occur!
An old wise man once said:
give me the courage to change those thing i can change!
give me the patience to accept those things i cannot change!
Give me the wisdom to discern between the two!
I believe, if couragous enough we can stop this world from being destroyed by islam!
If the earth gets warmer i suggest bigger and better airconditioners!
If the earth gets cold and dark i suggest more coal burning stoves a hugh flashlights!
Give them fair warning we "islamophobes" will not tolerate anymore muslim terrorist attacks and the senseless slaughter of innocent unarmed men women and children anywhere on the face of the earth by allahs satanic worshipping minions!
at December 18, 2006 1:57 AM
"There is no reason why such an alliance should not be created."
There is a little reason why: most of the people who are passionately occupied, or preoccupied, with the problem of global warming, also wear a large L on their varsity sweaters -- which means they must sneer at us and call us Islamophobic bigots, were they to lower themselves even to visit. And if one thinks one will win them over to our Islamophobic bigotry by sharing their environmental concerns, one doesn't fully appreciate how profoundly splanchnic is their PC.
at December 18, 2006 2:52 AM
What is probably more interesting, in light of the "global warming" debate, is that people in general are seemingly more willing and able to believe the impending calamity of "man-made global warming", in spite of science that is fuzzy at best (especially given that only a generation ago we were all concerned with the "certain" onslaught of "global cooling" and a new ice age), and is not likely to show substantive result for generations, if ever - than they are willing to believe in the EXPLICIT, easy-to-understand, you-can't-miss-it direct threat of ACTUAL destruction by a very real, very human enemy that we actually CAN do something about NOW, in real time - and without turning over the keys to our civilization to a group of socialist-luddite technocrats!
Personally, I am of the view that global warming, to the extent that it provably does exist, is in any event a natural cyclical process. Humankind's impact on that process can be likened to how throwing a bucket (or a barrel) of water into the ocean will raise the sea level - theoretically true, but in actuality insignificant. Taking our bucket of water back out of the ocean will be similarly insignificant, in the grand scheme of things.
There is more to be concerned with from the socialist totalitarians who wish to use any justification - the less understood the better (environmental science on one hand, Allah's will on the other) and use it as a means for exerting control and removing freedom from everyone else.
By all means, keep doing the research - but given that 20 years (even 500) is merely a "blip" in geologic time, I remain skeptical regarding our culpability. And given that Muhammad and his armies are headed our way, I think we'd better pass the ammunition and keep our powder dry ...
at December 18, 2006 6:03 AM
As an addendum, it might be worthwhile to point out that Islamist societies, like all totalitarian societies, have an abysmally poor record of environmental stewardship. Nor are they at all tolerant of reformers or activists of any stripe who are not involved in the promulgation of orthodox Islamic jihad.
In short, if we fail to deal with the more immediate threat, whether or not the other threat exists will be irrelevant.
Deal with the Islamist threat - then we can go back to bickering over the finer points of environmentalism - if it still matters.
Posted by: Breckshire at December 18, 2006 7:12 AM
As long as we're being "off the topic" consider that anthropogenic climate change may be true. The problem is disentangling the anthropogenic effect from the larger cycles caused by geological, astronomical and solar factors. How much of this warming is caused by human activity and how much by other factors? Are we in a natural cycle which will abruptly change and then work against the anthropogenic effect of unknown importance? There are too many unanswered questions.
One thing I am sure of is that we can't have the population explosion we are experiencing without some major environmental disaster occurring. Would that be global warming, some new plague welling up from billions of impoverished people, or some other effect caused by pollution, deforestation etc.? Thirty five years ago when we had "real" environmentalists, they were not afraid to raise this issue. Then a funny thing happened. First World nations stabilized and even began reducing the growth in their populations. All of the growth was now from the third world. And suddenly it became politically incorrect to even discuss this issue.
Now back to topic. The Muslims dominate fossil fuel production, so that it is a good idea to move away from petroleum consumption even in the absence of anthropogenic warming. In the same way, Muslims have some of the highest TFRs and population growth rates. Therefore a lot of our environmental problems (in addition to the other probelms) have their source in the Islamic world.
Posted by: RBLA at December 18, 2006 10:20 AM
I'm not so sure about the analysis at that website, John S.
It says this:
“Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality, or, more exactly, it is all that the unimaginative brain of a Bedouin, obstinately faithful to ancestral practices, has been able to assimilate of the Christian doctrines.."
Actually, there is just about nothing in the doctrines of Christianity that can be assimilated into Islam. Perhaps Judaism, but as far as I can see, the Muslims have no 'assurance' that is the bedrock of Christians, nor a concept of forgiveness, or vicarious atonement, all of which is hideous in the Muslims' eyes. Actually, I cannot find even one thing that is similar between the two religions.
at December 18, 2006 2:46 PM
Hmmm...
Let me see if I can help get this back on track, since such a hot-button topic won't be agreed to no matter what we say here...
(Frankly, we appear to be dancing around a more important issue)...here goes...
This is nothing more than putting a bandage on an arterial wound...now follow me on this...
Suppose, just suppose (regardless of where we stand on these peripherals), we "accomplish" some things we THINK will "solve the problem"...
1) Israel falls to the mOslems...will they stop their arabic imperialist expansion then? No, they'll merely feel even more empowered and move to retake all lands lost to them before, then onward from there...it won't end.
2) Suppose...we in the west find a way to suddenly cut off all oil revenues to the mideast states TOMORROW, presumably to cut off their money trail.
Do they suddenly go broke,and thus, toothless?
Nope.
Why not? Same reason Iran still is able to maintain its defiant rhetoric...it has apron strings to hide behind, as does the entire islamofascist movement.
That suddenly lost oil revenue won't last long, as there will always be someone to pick up the slack...as a matter of fact, the replacement customer is counting on it, giving them limitless oil supplies, thus unlimited resources, thus accelerating their own power base of rapid aramaments, to pursue what is actually THE upcoming main event of world events.
They're in just a position to accomplish it, too, letting the islamofascist vs west elements duke it out to exhaustion, while they quietly and rapidly build up while watching on the sidelines, laying both sides against the middle in asymmetric fashion as their own intelligence officers wrote...the same two officers who gave al-qaeda the idea of using low-tech, turning airplanes into ballistic missiles for buildings to try and foment a collapse of America, in 1999-a full two YEARS before 9/11 even happened.
Senior Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui were those people, theywrote the book on it, "Unrestricted Warfare" (including the asymmetric warfare now being used on the west via the islamofascist surrogates, desite the islamofascists own agenda), while their own country pursues a war machine, with their hope of being capable of taking us out without firing a shot,and thus, running the west out of their "sphere of influence" as planned by 2030 at the latest, as per their military memos whose code we cracked and have been reading every day since 1974 (the REAL reason they got so pissed off & held our EP-3 crew as long as they did).
Admiral Thomas Morer, before he died,was right:
"Beware of China"
Sorry folks...but we're dwelling too much on peripherals which won'tsolve the problem, but will only serve to bu us a short time/pause before even bigger events transpire...if not just simply replace one set of problems for an even bigger set of problems.
Cutting off their oil revenue won't end it all, unless we make sure nobody else will buy it either. Sad to say,that's simply not going to happen...which brings us right back to what I've zeroed in on in this post.
Your hearts are in the right place, regardless of your sets of beliefs...but heart won't solve this problem. It will only set the stage for the next level of conflagration, against an even more powerful foe: China
(if you don't think they're involved, you're not paying attention...the oil development deal with Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, Burma, Indonesia, hijacking the Spratly Islands, among others, as well as offering to finance Canadas entire pipeline to the west coast from their oil sands deposits are signd, sealed & delivered...and that's just for starters).
THAT is the realm I'M watching for...
We've gone off-topic by discussing a half-measure.
We can kill ALL the "beasts" very quickly and easily with a 1-2 punch...but I don't see that happening...too much money stands to be lost by the greedmongers like George Soros and his ilk.
But I'm happy to discuss it if requested.
;-)
Posted by: jcom972 at December 18, 2006 6:28 PM
I agree with the Emerson twain poster and the others who think Global Warming is off topic. (briefly, even if someone believes in anthropogenic climate change -- so what? I've read reports which argue that even if Kyoto were instantly implemented, any result would be minuscule...not a drop in the bucket to actually affect or mitigate "global warming." so, it's nada, nothing, zilch. Yet incredibly costly for developed nations which actually produce oil. Furthermore, the Kyoto Accord is such a flawed and useless document -- it needs to be scrapped as soon as possible. It hampers Western, oil-producing states and favors Arabs. For example, one of the biggest providers of Oil to the Americans -- not from Arabs -- it's from Canada, namely the province of Alberta (where I happen to live.) And, if Kyoto were adopted, what do you think will happen to the oil producers here? They will be penalized, taxed, etc., big time. Will Arabs pay a similar cost?? Forget it. Arabs will be laughing all the way to the bank. Kyoto is stupid and destructive and counterproductive. Others have argued that Kyoto is like socialism -- you give to so-called Third Worlders (that, ironically includes Arab states) while taking away from the wealthy. That's not what we need in our present crisis with islam.)
Anyway, back to the original article -- I've also thought that the current Islamism reflects psychopathy -- or what the retired Univ British Columbia researcher, Dr. Hare, terms "psychopathic personality disorder." Hare lists 22 traits or personality characteristics. It seems to catch in a profound and insightful way, "Islamism."
Posted by: J.S. at December 19, 2006 12:01 PM
On the subject of "psychopathic personality disorders", Nonie Darwish in her new book "Now They Call Me Infidel" offers a facinating insight into the Arab/Islamic mindset, from the perspective of someone who grew up in that world.
Essentially she points out that the entire culture and mindset is "shame-based", which is a tremendous dysfunction to begin with. However she also points out that what grows from this is an entire culture that is based and indoctrinated with deceit and deception, both of self and others, as well as a need to conquer or to tear down anyone or any country doing better than them. Add to that the Qur'an-ic blessings upon being "untruthful to infidels" if it suits your need, and the general view that openness and honesty are weaknesses inviting exploitation, and you wonder how we can ever hope to deal with such people at all, ever.
Her point is that not only is a hatred for the West in general (and Jews in particular) indoctrinated into the Arab/Islamic mind from birth, but that the obvious material and spiritual successes of the Westernized, non-Islamic world are a deep and profound embarrassment to the Islamic psyche, one which must be obliterated at any cost - not by building up Islamic societies and culture, which deny any responsibility for their predicament, but by destroying, conquering, and assimilating the successful Western ones.
In their view, since we're so successful, we MUST actually be Islamic (since Islam can only be perfect and successful), we're just too misguided to know it. It's therefore up to them (the jihadists) to bring us to a recognition of our place in the "one true religion" of Islam.
PsyOps and "propoganda" campaigns are not currently held in much esteem, but one begins to see where they must be seriously embraced in the future phases of this most modern "crusade" against jihad (hey, if they can have jihad, we can have crusades - unless they are infidelophobic, or something ... ;-))
The difference being, that the "propoganda" of the past that we've all learned to have such dis-regard for is founded in untruths and distortions. I don't think we have to lie to oppose the Islamist worldview and uphold freedom. We just need to do a much better job of defining and communicating that ethic of freedom, why it's worth supporting, and why it's a far better thing than what they're embracing now.
You probably won't convince the "true believers" - but you can work on those in the middle that simply gravitate toward the "winning" side (Islam after all has always equated military success with divine blessing).
As for the true fanatics, let's increase their opportunities to die for their beliefs (or in the paraphrase of Gen Patton, ".. It's not the job of the American soldier to die for his country ... it's the soldier's job to make the other dumb bastard die for his ..")
Maybe if the "Arab street" starts to figure out that they are only so much cannon fodder for leaders who are themselves obviously in no particular hurry to go meet Allah, no matter how many virgins are waiting, they might begin to re-think their support for those leaders and their calls for "jihad".
Posted by: Breckshire at December 19, 2006 5:25 PM
Good point...which reminds me of one major point as well...
What REALLY is bothering the islamists...
...threat...
...that threat is simple, while I'm sure the MSM won't admit this (for their own militant agenda reasons), it's inescapable...
The fastest growing religion isn't islam, contrary to the islamophiles and scaremongers...
...it's Christianity.
The spread of it not only increases the threat against them, but that of their entire power-n-control religious power base (aka, a racket), and it threatens to tear their own asunder.
That scares the hell out of them, and that is one major reason they've gone on their islamofascist rampage...
...they MUST win, or they lose EVERYTHING, including their own lives for defrauding their peers for centuries.
;-)
Posted by: jcom972 at December 19, 2006 7:31 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)