I'm in a dilemma. On the one hand, reading this guy's gibberish makes me want to puke. On the other hand, I just had lunch---would be kind of wasteful...

Posted by: US_infidel at January 10, 2007 1:16 PM

History shows that people who tried the non violent approach, no longer exist....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 10, 2007 1:20 PM

Is singing Kumbaya optional or required in this course?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 10, 2007 1:22 PM

I just wrote the sweetest song:

'Why can't we all just get along, like Rodney King and Peanut Carter...."

Due to be released shortly!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2007 1:54 PM

Is the course taught in French?

Posted by: MP at January 10, 2007 2:02 PM

I wonder if they will discuss wiretapping and asset-freezing? Those things are non-violent...

Posted by: freedomschool at January 10, 2007 2:09 PM

Muppet !

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at January 10, 2007 2:09 PM

I am already looking for alternate education for my children. It seems that collegiate level educational institutions in this country are a colossal waste of time and money. With the mental depravation that these schools foster, I might recommend sniffing glue as an alternative. besides being cheaper, how much worse can it be?

Posted by: awake at January 10, 2007 2:12 PM

"mental depravation..."
-- from a posting just above

A splendid slip, or a deliberate petticoat?

Se non è fatto apposto, è ben trovato.

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 2:21 PM

Or perhaps you meant to write "depravation" and not "deprivation" and it is I who misunderstand. After all, in this case, the deprivation is in the depravation, and vice-versa.

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 2:24 PM

A degree in Peace Studies will come in very useful when you are confronted with an angry diner who has asked you for a water refill three times.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 10, 2007 2:30 PM

Fire the teacher. Someone that stupid should not be on the faculty. And it is no excuse to say that there are tens of thousands just as stupid. One has to start somewhere.

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 2:36 PM

Or perhaps you meant to write "depravation" and not "deprivation" and it is I who misunderstand. After all, in this case, the deprivation is in the depravation, and vice-versa.
Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 02:24 PM

Hugh,

Depravation was intended, not erroneously substituted for deprivation. I thought it quite clever and appropriate, but one needs to be brilliant to fool you with simple subterfuge.

www.dictionary.com is my friend.

"The deprivation is in the depravation, and vice-versa."

Well stated, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Posted by: awake at January 10, 2007 2:39 PM

I heard someone on here recently ask where have the hippies from the sixties and seventies gone?

Aside from being members of Congress, they also serve on City Councils.

I heard a radio comment that the City Council of Gainesville, FL (where the U of Florida is, Go Gators) spent an entire meeting writing a letter to the Federal Government that a Department of Peace was in order.
I guess this was more important than those pesky traffic issues.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Posted by: auntbea at January 10, 2007 3:28 PM

Nonviolent tactics can work when the opponent has a conscience, and is at least vaguely ashamed of himself. Anyone who thinks such conditions apply to Muslim terrorists is nuts.

Posted by: Karl Pov at January 10, 2007 3:31 PM

Is singing Kumbaya optional or required in this course?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

I have a non-violent response to this course. I am throwing up!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 10, 2007 3:42 PM

Nonviolent tactics can work when the opponent has a conscience, and is at least vaguely ashamed of himself. Anyone who thinks such conditions apply to Muslim terrorists is nuts.

Posted by: Karl Pov

I agree completely and was going to post the same thing. Nonviolence worked against the British Raj and against U.S. state and federal governments because of the principles those nations held in esteem. Nonviolence worked because equal justice under the law was an ideal those nations were working towards at those points in history.

Sharia institutionalizes discrimination and unequal treatment under the law based on religion, gender and sexual preference.

Islam and its atmospherics stunt the conscience as we understand it. Believers must emulate a charismatic sociopath who had no conscience that we'd recognize.

To think that non-violent responses will be met with real reciprocity is to ignore the historical record.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 10, 2007 4:07 PM

Nutty as this thinking is, and frustrating and silly and probably dangerous, lets not forget one thing; they`re Quakers.

The Quakers do have a very long and honorable history of moral politics and were very involved in anti-slavery and the underground railroad and abolition. My point is this is coming out of a long and reasoned philosophy that did a hell of a lot of good and they are mistaken, but not evil.

They are indeed emblamatic of the whacky left that has lost all bearing, but Ghandi also thought non-violent resistence was appropriate for the Jews against the nazis.

The scariest of moonbats are the Koz Kids and the HuffPuffs because they seem to have no history at all and no understanding of what Liberalism is or what traditions it springs from, just "like, hey man, all cool people are liberal and Bush is Hitler, man."

Quakers, however, know from what tradition they are speaking, again, wrong as they are about the nature of terror and the solution to it.

Posted by: tokyobk at January 10, 2007 4:20 PM

It is non-sense such as this course that makes me wonder about the value of a liberal arts degree these days. So much of academy seems like a make work program for various deranged flakes and near do-wells. In my under-graduate days immediately following September 11th I got more then my fill of this idiocy. Is it all a $80,000 or more rip off?

I still remember the shrill idiots chanting (including faculty and staff) "stop the racist war in Afganistan" and the end less discussions about root causes, racism. imperialism, yada, yada. Most of the professors spotting this crap, where idiots and deranged, perpetual adolescents,incapable of managing much of a personal life let alone saving the world. The reality is alot of people are in denial and don't anything to kill their buzz: life is just too fun and comfortable. To many people in the west don't want to grow up and face adult problems, with adult solutions. As Mark Steyn says many Westerners are the children they never had. One can afford this thinking when one doesn't have to fight or really work or take care of themselves. I suspect though the party is coming to an end. Anybody advocating this crap will not be judged kindly for posterity.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at January 10, 2007 4:32 PM

Two words: technical degree.

Posted by: counterjihadi at January 10, 2007 4:35 PM

Posted by: MP at January 10, 2007 02:02 PM
Is the course taught in French?

MP,
I think you meant "taught in France?"
As French is the language, spoken in numerous countries otherthan the nation state.

; )
KnightHawk

Posted by: KnightHawk at January 10, 2007 4:43 PM

A perfectly appropriate non-violent response to terrorism would be to affirm that the terrorists are acting in accordance with the essence of Islam as promulgated by Muhammad. A non-violent response would be to expose the truth about Sharia and the true, violent nature of Jihad. Another non-violent response would be to make fun of Islam and Muslim fundamentalists. A non-violent form of resistance would be to courageously criticise Islam even in the teeth of Jihadist threats, even unto martyrdom. Of course, I am referring to the real martyrdom, one that the Jihadis can never understand.

There are non-violent responses to terror, to be sure. Isn't this site one of them? What about faithfreedom.org? GWB could have dealt a devastating blow to the cause of Jihad by identifying terrorists' support in the Islamic canon. No one need be killed by this type of response. Of course, it will provoke murder, but the truth is still stronger, and they will kill anyway. Exposing them robs them of their victocratic fig leaf and could turn as least some on the sadly deluded left, currently doing an ostrich routine when it comes to Islam, into allies.

It is not necessary to militarily defeat the Jihadists, at least not entirely. Mocking them is devastating. They are afraid, more than anything, that Islam will be exposed for its ugly reality. That is why the Muhammad cartoons were "damaging to Islam". Free thought and criticism are withering to the Jihadis, the Islamic religious authorities, and probably to Islam itself.

Posted by: Quijybo at January 10, 2007 4:48 PM

"Two words: technical degree.

Posted by: counterjihadi"

Is this qualification to become a "technical" in Darfur??

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 10, 2007 5:03 PM

Nonviolent response to Islamic Terrorism:

"Please don't hurt me."

Posted by: Pelayo at January 10, 2007 5:34 PM

Many forms of mass suicide might be considered non-violent and it would have the added benefit of dissipating the need entirely for terrorism.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at January 10, 2007 5:38 PM

Non-Violent Responses to Islamic Terrorism:

Yes, I'll become a Muslim, please don't hurt me.

I love halal food, please don't hurt me.

I will force my wife to dress in a burka, please don't hurt me.

I'll help you get rid of Israel, please don't hurt me.

Movies, who watches movies? Please don't hurt me.

That's what it's all about. Everybody is scared spitless.

Posted by: Pelayo at January 10, 2007 5:41 PM

"It is not necessary to militarily defeat the Jihadists, at least not entirely. Mocking them is devastating. They are afraid, more than anything, that Islam will be exposed for its ugly reality. That is why the Muhammad cartoons were "damaging to Islam". Free thought and criticism are withering to the Jihadis, the Islamic religious authorities, and probably to Islam itself."

Dead on, Quijybo.

These people have shown over and over again that they are not very bright. They are devious to be sure, but when it comes to composing a plan of action to improve the human condition, they are incapable of doing so, and it is easier for them to fall back on sheer force, lots of screaming and murder to get their way. As we saw in Somalia last week, when an opposing force has had enough and realizes what is really at stake, i.e., the total loss of their freedom, especially their freedom of thought, and that force is willing to die to preserve that freedom, the Islamists scatter like cockroaches. How impressive, indeed! But those of us who study history and REMEMBER what took place before now can't help but notice that Islamists always seem to disburse at the first sign of brutal force right back at them. They pride themselves on the silly notion of, "Americans love Pepsi, we love death." Well, we don't love death; we love life and we love our freedom of expression. And there are many Americans as well as other people of the world who are willing to die to preserve that freedom for the next generation. We would die for our children, not kill our children to save ourselves. And there is a fundamental superiority to that kind of thinking, as opposed to the Islamic thought process.

Perhaps before we do anything else we really have to seriously sit down and get it straight in our heads WHY we are fighting Islam. The fact that it has an inferior mindset and thought process, that it seeks to subjugate the human element under a crushing totalitarian regime, that it is vicious and violent are all good reasons to oppose it. But above all, it is so backwards. Do we really want to go back to the Dark Ages? That is what Islam offers us. Do we really want to live under a system that punishes people for thinking? Do we really want to live under a system that demands that you lie to survive? Does anyone really think that any woman that lives under Islam isn't completely Stepford Wived, knowing that any deviation from the party line will get her killed? Why would these women encourage others to live under this? Maybe they've given up all hope and believe the standard party line that a complete takeover by Islam is inevitable.

I don't believe that. I can't believe that if you put up two systems like Catholicism and Islam and compare them to each other that anyone in their right mind would say that Islam is the superior system. It is illogical. A system that destroys instead of builds up cannot be the correct one to rule the world.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 10, 2007 5:42 PM

Joe Kaufman doing his part, w/o aid of sticks and stones just free thought and criticism, on Neil Cavuto’s show.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23951_Video-_Kaufman_vs._Iftikhar_(CAIR)#comments

Posted by: Malinois at January 10, 2007 5:47 PM

"Anybody advocating this crap will not be judged kindly for posterity." ... wrote abdulalshirk

True, regardless of which posterity ultimately prevails.

"They pride themselves on the silly notion of, "Americans love Pepsi, we love death." "...wrote Isabella

I hope the crew of that AC-130 enjoyed an ice-cold carbonated beverage after they landed. That way, everyone got what they wanted.

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 10, 2007 5:54 PM

Professor Swathmore: Assuming your term terrorists means jihadis, since I know of no other, will we have the opportunity to consider and reflect on Islamic teachings and injunctions concerning -

a) the establishment, and the conditions for or which may bring about or attend the establishment, of an Islamic State in the United States?

b) the concept of jihad?

c) the concept of dhimmitude?

d) the persecution of Jews and Christians by Muslims?

e) dissimulation?

f) gender relations, marriage and divorce?

Posted by: Malinois at January 10, 2007 6:30 PM

Here's the esteemed prof who will teach the course:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2780752

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 10, 2007 7:24 PM

Brings to mind Theo van Gogh asking for mercy.

Posted by: allat at January 10, 2007 7:25 PM

It is the tactic of those bedazzled by their own end which this course and the universities reflect. The left has nothing but contempt for the west, and sees a collective gathering of any seeds that will draw redemption in accepting the joining with all others.

Never daring to reflect on the flaws and lack of accomplishments that mirror, not the flaws of western civilization, but the many accomplishments for which these leftists can not accept except as for some kind of sin, a despised self hatred.

Only they that despise their own culture and societies would allow that others that clearly demand the death of this society should perforce be met 'nonviolently'.
The religious freedoms, the intellectual freedoms, the ethical freedoms and technical accomplishments which have brought many advancements from western civilization, these sorts have but contempt for. And the signpost is that only nonviolence is to be taught, only nonresponse to homcidism is to be understood as worthy, rather than the teaching that violence is ever so worthy against so vulgar and immoral and sociopathic as such homicidists are.

We live in a world of Islamic sociopathic homidicists. Not all muslims are bad, nor evil, nor 'terrorists' but most all of the homicidists are muslim and their admirers and supporters tend to excuse their homicidism as caused by 'us', hence the need for 'us' to learn only nonviolence- which is itself-

A kind of sociopathic suicidal ideology, not of love, but of self hatred and self deception disorder.

Posted by: mgoldberg at January 10, 2007 7:31 PM

I guess I'm the only one who thinks the concept of "Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism" is not all bad.

It may not be what Swarthmore College will be teaching, but there are many nonviolent responses to terrorism that we could be taking:

1) Secure our borders.
2) Inspect all cargo coming in.
3) Stop (or at least severely reduce) Muslim immigration.
4) Make no more declarations that Islam is the ROP, and instead begin educating (through speeches, political debates, editorial reviews, educational films, etc.) what the Qur'an actually teaches.
5) Stop all foreign aid to countries that support terrorism (Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)
6) Begin the oft-mentioned Manhattan Project to develop energy alternatives to petroleum.
7) End foreign (read: Saudi) influence on our elections and our policies.
8) End foreign (read: Saudi) influence on our media corporations.
9) Begin the process of defining what is, and what is not, a religion as referenced by the U.S. Constitution.

Probably someone can come up with a 10 to make it more numerically satisfying. But there is nothing in there that a Quaker or Amish person would have any trouble supporting on religious grounds.

The anti-jihad is alot more than blowing things up. (And when we do take military actions, the recent attack in Somalia shows a much better model for future actions than Iraq ever did. Kill the jihadists, destroy their infrastructure, then leave.).

Posted by: special_guest at January 10, 2007 7:43 PM

Turn a couple of keys, flick a couple of switches, press a couple of buttons.

Where's the violence in that?

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at January 10, 2007 8:11 PM

Probably someone can come up with a 10 to make it more numerically satisfying.

I can.

10. Deport any moslem who committs anything more serious than a simple misdemeanor.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 10, 2007 8:12 PM

10) Pass a law forbidding any member of the government or members of his family from ever receiving financial rewards from those who support the Jihad, and make sure that a committee of Congress is formed, and entrusted with the sole task of making sure that law is strictly observed. That will include the lowly --such as Eugene Bird (who really must be investigated right now, for his well-paid work as the front man for something called the Council for the National Interest, with its full-page ads promoting the Arab-League line), the higher-ranking diplomats (James Akins, Andrew Kilgore), well-financed "experts" on Islam who may have served in the government (don't know if Esposito would, as a dispenser of advice, qualify -- but there must be some way to find out about his financing, and to make it all public).

That's to round it off to comply with our own for-the-nonce Admiral-Dewey-Decimal System.

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 8:38 PM

The irony is that these bleeding heart academia liberals will viciously try to destroy anybody who does not follow their party line and dares to exercise freedom of thought or speech.

Posted by: george_rem at January 10, 2007 8:45 PM

special_guest said

I'm the only one who thinks the concept of "Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism" is not all bad.

Sorry, I missed Quijybo's excellent post. Nonviolence is good!

Posted by: special_guest at January 10, 2007 8:46 PM

And to further undermine any claim to originality, here is a link to one of Hugh's similar lists. I say "one of", because there may be more than one such article.

Posted by: special_guest at January 10, 2007 9:00 PM

"I hope the crew of that AC-130 enjoyed an ice-cold carbonated beverage after they landed."

Actually, Infidel 33, the guys I knew tended more towards a nice cold beer or a frozen Mudslide. And well deserved.

"That way, everyone got what they wanted."

LMAO!!!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 10, 2007 9:11 PM

Quijybo, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to take the steps which you advocate. However, they'll work only while part of the world is free of Islamic political power.

It is an excellent point that Gandhi's non-violence worked well against the British Raj. But it wouldn't have stood the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell against the Mughals. I seriously doubt that non-violent protest would stand much of a chance against the Iranian Mullahs or ANY government of Pathologicalstan, especially if it was to affirm the rights of minority religious communities.

Posted by: Kepha at January 10, 2007 9:11 PM

This is exactly why my 18 year old California college Freshman is in a Christian College in the heart of Texas. She is actually taught to think, instead of swallowing garbage like this.

Posted by: slcabgirl at January 10, 2007 9:37 PM

Unfortunately for Swarthmore, the only thing that has EVER stopped the onslaught of Islam and its jihads has been force.

LOTS OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The twenty-first century will almost certainly prove no exception.

WHen the time comes there will be NO holding back.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 10, 2007 10:46 PM

Nonviolence worked against Hitler. Why won't it work to defeat terrorism? Don't those right-wing crazies ever learn?

Posted by: Hugh at January 10, 2007 10:52 PM

"I hope the crew of that AC-130 enjoyed an ice-cold carbonated beverage after they landed."

After spending a tour in the AF, I can reveal something.

The beer is carbonated and it was really cold.

Posted by: credit man at January 10, 2007 11:09 PM

Robert don't you usually say "John Contacuzenus alert" when people act like he did centuries ago?

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at January 10, 2007 11:31 PM

Very valid points. To expose, to investigate and punish those who are on the enemy payroll is indeed long overdue. Those recycled petro-dollars work in evil ways and pervert the course of the nation.
But of course open discussion, ridicule and outright rejection of Islam at every level in public life should be the norm, a reversal of Mohammedan immigration is long overdue and the building of mosques must be stopped.

In the meantime, here's a little Tango for you:

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/20/tolerance/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 10, 2007 11:47 PM

"Abject Surrender 101."

hahahahahahaha! God I have seen it all...

Thank god this was not the plan for defeating the Nazis!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 11, 2007 12:23 AM

PEAC 042. Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism

should it not be called

Nonviolent Responses to Muslim Terrorism

When was the last the Tamil Tigers attacked the US.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 11, 2007 12:26 AM

Please, please, read the whole thing that Robert has linked to. Quite simply, it is the funniest thing I think that I have ever read since Fjordman's last essay. A sample for you:

"Students who minor in peace and conflict studies at Swarthmore will" (You will, or else, one presumes.)

"1.Understand factors shaping human conflict, including psychological, social, cultural, political, economic, biological, religious, and historical ones
2.Analyze specific cases of conflict, including interpersonal, intergroup, international, and interstate disputes
3.Examine theories and models of peace building and reconciliation and evaluate attempts to manage, resolve, or transform conflict nonviolently
4.Investigate forms of oppression and injustice and their relationship to conflict, locally and globally
5.Explore opportunities to study topics relevant to peace and conflict through fieldwork, internships, or other experiences outside the classroom."

They also have (gasp, laugh, gasp, laugh - I'm finding it almost impossible to draw breath here because I'm laughing so much) a Peace and Conflict Studies Committee.

Please, please, follow Robert's link in the Head Post (above). This is really the funniest thing that I have ever read since Fjordman's risible attempts to define and defend Democracy.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 11, 2007 1:31 AM

"The beer is carbonated and it was really cold."

Sorry, Credit Man, I've got the flu and I read it wrong. We are agreed. Beer is a carbonated beverage.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 11, 2007 1:35 AM

Hugh/

Dewey-eyed and, in truth, found out; or are you merely lieing in wait.

Grief. Multiple language puns! It's all your fault. I was "un buon ragazzo" before I encountered you on this site.

But then, I'm sure it was dear old Hermann who said: "A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things."

Of course, you could argue that Italian is scarcely hard.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 11, 2007 1:53 AM

Anybody in the "non-violent committee" heard of the Buddhists of Western India ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 11, 2007 2:36 AM

Quijybo has it spot on, that is the non-violent response to Islam, and a_plague_on_both_houses and Karl Pov also hit the nail on the head, I had a conversation with a leftie after he brought up Ghandi, and I asked him if he seriously believed that Bin Laden and his ilk would not chop him into little pieces, of course he could not answer it...

Posted by: Daffersd at January 11, 2007 2:42 AM

I wonder if any of the examples (such as the experience of African Americans)include any muslim/Islamic peoples as the primary protagionists?

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at January 11, 2007 6:25 AM

Nonviolently confronting those who seek to prevail through intimidation and terror may seem impossible—until we analyze carefully the variety of interests underlying the choice of terrorist strategies...

Okay, a bunch of men wearing ski masks want to slowly saw off your head as they shout "allah akbar"...

... and draw upon the rich history of nonviolent counter-terrorist tactics in many settings, including within the United States (such as the experience of African Americans).

... whose ancestors were forced into slavery and prostitution by the islamic pirates sailing off the West Coast of Africa a couple of centuries ago ...

In this course, we will deconstruct "terrorism," ...

The islamic goons with the ski masks want to deconstruct your head with a saw!

... study the dynamics of cultural marginalization, ...

...if you don't get your a$$ in gear before the
those in the ski masks do, YOU are gonna be the one marginalized ...

...and build on promising nonviolent cases to construct hypotheses and even venture into policy alternatives

Yeah, in the here after!

Gad, you people are STUPID!

Posted by: witness at January 11, 2007 7:37 AM

arjun sevak: When you talk about the Buddhists in Western India, do you mean those ex-Hindus in Maharashtra (spelling may be off--the state in which Mumbai and Pune are located) who followed Ambedkar into Buddhism? Do you know much about this community, and how it fares in the communal tiffs?

Posted by: Kepha at January 11, 2007 8:23 AM

People who cite examples like Ghandi's securing of Indian independence from Britain, MLK's triumph over segragation laws, and Mandala's defeat of apartheid forget that these men were dealing with political opponents who had respect for human rights and the rule of law, if unevenly applied. Can anyone say the same about jihaddists?

Ghandi, the "pacifists" icon, proved to be more than a bit of an @sshole himself by advising Europe's Jews to sacrifice their lives in a peaceful protest against Naziism.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at January 11, 2007 8:47 AM

Isabella the Crusader,

You say:
I don't believe that. I can't believe that if you put up two systems like Catholicism and Islam and compare them to each other that anyone in their right mind would say that Islam is the superior system. It is illogical. A system that destroys instead of builds up cannot be the correct one to rule the world.

Well my experience shows that people don't compare systems, instead they simply reject both with the assumption that they're equal. I sent out a two-page essay to the people on my email distributution list the other day which compared Islam and sharia law to the Bill of Rights and the principles of the US constitution. I titled it 'No One Can Serve Two Masters'. Here is one of the replies for it:

Under the same logic, JFK would be prohibited from being president since he was Catholic. And the 700 club would be banned (not that that’s a bad thing) because of its revisionist history worldview that Jesus wrote the constitution.

While I agree each man should be judged by his actions, I responded by saying that Christianity and Islam are not the same thing and provided details... but do you see the mindset of some good people out there? They assume all things calling themselves religions are equally bad. Others assume all things calling themselves religions are equally good. These assumptions have to be shattered... but I've been working on this guy for 9-12 months... he's seen the quotes from hadith and qur'an and the contemporary muslim leaders. Changing fixed perspectives seems to be extremely difficult.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 11, 2007 9:46 AM

"Non-Violent Responses to Islamic Terrorism:"

....yeesssaaa, masssa,whatever you say masssa...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 11, 2007 9:57 AM

kepha,
No, I mean The Silk Route. The ones who inspired the Buddhas of Bamiyan. They were wiped out in the 8th century.

In 1956, ambedkar converted to Buddhism. This was not a very spectacular event, not a lot of people converted to start with, and most came back to Hinduism.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 11, 2007 10:15 AM

Kepha - I just asked some of my teammmembers how the name of the Indian state is spelled and you're correct. Due to the miracles of modern communications I can instantly get the response from a person who is physically located in Maharashtra.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 11, 2007 10:18 AM

"Ghandi, the "pacifists" icon, proved to be more than a bit of an @sshole himself by advising Europe's Jews to sacrifice their lives in a peaceful protest against Naziism.

Posted by: waterdragon52"

Yes, waterdragon, he also supported the Khilafat movement to win more muslims on his side, and during the Partition of 1947 appealed to the Hindus of West Punjab not to resist the muslim mobs invading their homes and to die with non-violence. He is one of the worst villains of the 20th century, yet he is deified by these "non-violent" pacifist morons.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 11, 2007 10:20 AM

kepha,
Yes, I do know about Buddhists, and do believe that they are among the most peaceful, most tolerant people in the world. Communal tiffs mostly involve muslims, other than Kashmir, there are incidents daily in the state of U.P., where the muslims are heavily concentrated.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 11, 2007 10:25 AM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

here's some pages that can help you on the matter of moral relativism

http://www.islamundressed.com/

download the E-book and read chapter "religion in america", as well as other pages. Not that it tells anything different from what we discuss every day but he offers easy and clear paragons

Posted by: StillFedUp at January 11, 2007 1:01 PM

also on that same site the chapter "Non-Muslim Christian Violence"

Posted by: StillFedUp at January 11, 2007 1:04 PM

Grazie.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 11, 2007 1:05 PM

"Swarthmore"

...Is this the University where the professors received their teaching degrees by submitting coupons from cigarrettes accompanied by $19.95 plus shipping???

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 11, 2007 1:33 PM

"This is exactly why my 18 year old California college Freshman is in a Christian College in the heart of Texas. She is actually taught to think, instead of swallowing garbage like this."

I'm not so sure I'd call a Christian college in Texas the bastion of academic learning. I just hope she doesn't end up believing the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Posted by: SR at January 11, 2007 1:43 PM

Something very bizarre

http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/bb/img/big/0-8075-5307-7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/0-8075-5307-7&h=362&w=260&sz=39&hl=en&start=50&tbnid=2doOj8LBhuaQcM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3DILLUSTRATED%2BISLAM%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2005-09,GGLD:en%26sa%3DN" rel="nofollow">http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/bb/img/big/0-8075-5307-7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/0-8075-5307-7&h=362&w=260&sz=39&hl=en&start=50&tbnid=2doOj8LBhuaQcM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3DILLUSTRATED%2BISLAM%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2005-09,GGLD:en%26sa%3DN

Posted by: shiva at January 11, 2007 2:39 PM

sorry about the goof above

Muslim Child
Understanding Islam Through Stories And Poems

BY RUKHSANA KHAN, ILLUSTRATED BY PATTY GALLINGER

Brief Description:
"With eight stories about Muslim life from such places as the United States, Pakistan, Canada and Nigeria, Muslim Child: Understanding Islam Through Stories and Poems by Rukhsana Khan offers insight into the five pillars of Islam (belief, prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage to Mecca) and demonstrates Muslim presence around the globe. Throughout, sidebars by Irfan Alli explain Muslim terms and traditions; sayings from the prophet Muhammad punctuate the text. A pronunciation guide, a samosa recipe and instructions for making `Eid Mubarak' cards to mark the end of Ramadan round out the volume

Here is the proper link

http://www.quakerbooks.org/muslim_child.php

frightning

Posted by: shiva at January 11, 2007 2:51 PM

Non-violent RESPONSES to terrorism. Yes, I see, perhaps we can even abolish the 2nd Amendment and have US licensed gun owners voluntarily turn in the hard ware. That way there would be little chance of any violent and oppresive act of retribution against the Muslim community after the next attack. That's certainly the angle the impotent UN would take when speaking of non-violent responses.

Posted by: kafir world at January 11, 2007 5:35 PM

shiva, thanks for the link. I thought that it was interesting, under the "Muslim Child" book description, it had a "You might also like..." section, in which it recommended "Mein Kampf".

Posted by: special_guest at January 11, 2007 6:16 PM

I have an observation to point out.

When Neville Chamberlin's views of appeasement proved to be moonbat instead of continuing to hurt the interests of the Western World, Neville Chamberlin reversed his policy, decalred war, and enabled victory by resigning (and Churchill took over).

Today's moondbats on the other hand do no such thing, instead they entrench themselve sin their positions and refuse to stand aside.

Therefor wasn't Nevill Chamberlin a better man then they?

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at January 11, 2007 11:44 PM

As predicted and analysed here long ago, Muslim propagandists carefully direct the attention of Infidels solely to the Five Pillars of individual worship, with special attention given to such things as Ramadan. And the Infidels in question get to memorize certain words -- shehada, zakat, salat, Ramadan, hajj -- and go through the motions of prostration, without knowing that Muslim prayer is not individual but collective prayer, as a sign of submission to Allah, and not a request for Allah's intervention since Allah is a whimsical god, and does what he likes, and offers no reason for it. Or they learn about zakat, but do not learn about the Jizyah, nor that the Muslim "charity" is for Muslims alone, while the Jizyah demanded as protection money from the "protected peoples" is used to support Muslims, and is not a matter of suggeston but of inesapable duty, the non-fulfillment of which by Infidels can lead to severe punishment, including death.

The book put out by the Quakers is a guide to nothing. It is a cunning propagandist's dream. But why, then, are the Quakers sponsoring, publishing, advertising, distributing a work of Islamic propaganda that does not tell Infidels a thing about the things that matter most: that is, about how, in Islam, non-Muslims are regarded, and how, in Islam, non-Muslims are to be treated, and how, in Islamic history, over 13560 years, from Spain to the East Indies, non-Muslims in lands under Muslim rule have, in fact, been treated.

That is what non-Muslims need to know. And they need to know what is written in the Qur'an and Hadith. They need to know what Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, was like -- what he did, what he said, what he represents as a Model of the Perfect Man. Was he meek and mild, like Jesus, preaching faith and hope and charity, and mercy, or was he quite a different figure, preaching quite different things, offering quite a different example to be emulated?

Who, in the Quaker hierarchy, has permitted this insidious and dangerous propaganda, essentially a determined effort at deception ("war is deception" said Muhammad), be published by a Quaker press, publicized at a Quaker site, and no doubt touted by Quaker book publishing representatives?

Who?

And why?

And what, if anything, will Quakers possibly unaware of what is being done now that they are informed, decide to do about it?

Anything?

Nothing?

Posted by: Hugh at January 12, 2007 12:42 AM

"Fire the teacher. Someone that stupid should not be on the faculty. And it is no excuse to say that there are tens of thousands just as stupid."

Problem is, most of the ones in charge of Hiring & Firing are also just as stupid. Now what?

Posted by: remote_control at January 12, 2007 1:30 AM

Arjun mentioned that Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement in the 1920s in order to attract Muslim support for himself. Since Arjun did not explain the Khilafat movement, I take the liberty to do so.
Ataturk took over the rump of the Ottoman Empire in the early 1920s, at first acting as and being called a ghazi, a jihad fighter against the infidels. Indeed, he drove more than a million Greeks out of Anatolia, and massacred [in 1922 in Smyrna] Armenian survivors of the WW I Armenian massacres. Then he partially reversed course and abolished the caliphate [khilafat], throwing out the caliph/Ottoman sultan.

As far as I know, peaceful Gandhi did NOT vociferously protest the Armenian genocide or the expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks. But he did join the Indian Muslims in noisily protesting the abolition of the caliphate. This noble "protest movement" in favor of human rights, civil rights, and self-determination, was called the Khilafat Movement.

Posted by: Eliyahu at January 16, 2007 6:51 PM