Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

"Boots on the Ground" and Other Fantasies About "Radicalization"

Your forgiveness if I repeat prior writings too much.

For many among us whatever we do in response to the 1400-year war Islam has conducted against the West will "only serve to produce more radicals and more jihadis." I won't bother with lots of links to such arguments, you can find them just about anywhere online, on TV, in the dying print media, and, of course, emanating from the decrepit institutions known as centers of higher learning.

Even more troubling, we find people in leadership positions who reportedly say stupidities such as, "If you kill your enemies, they win." That quote alone, if accurate, just might make Canada's PM Justin Bieber Trudeau heir to the title of The Stupidest Western Leader--at last, somebody provides fierce competition for Merkel, Kerry, and Obama!

One of my favorite arguments is that if we put Western "boots on the ground" in the Muslim world, we only generate more Islamist terror and hatred. Hmmm . . . Another old time favorite, of course, is that Guantanamo serves as a "recruiting symbol" for jihadis. How about that? One of Obama's favorites is that all of this "extremist behavior" by the JV Team of ISIS and others comes as a reaction to the Crusades. OK, sure . . .

These idiocies, of course, are mere nuggets mined from a very rich lode of idiocy, to wit, the West must not only not insult or offend Islam in any manner, but must gracefully accept the insults, hatred, and death that Islam hurls our way. We must ignore what they say they're going to do to us, and believe instead that they will do with us as we do with them, despite the fact that they do with us exactly as they said they would--ask those Christians on that Libyan beach or the ones at the Easter fair in Lahore.

"Boots on the ground," huh? What a stupid phrase; one repeated ad nauseam by progressives who want to sound military savvy--kinda like "assault" rifle . . ..

Has anybody noticed that Islam has many more "boots on the ground" in the West than vice-versa? We find many, many more mosques, centers of "Islamic learning," halal butcheries, etc., in the West than we find churches, synagogues, etc., in the Muslim world. While the UN and the world go into paroxysms of rage when a few Jews build houses in the "Occupied Territories," because, of course, Jews have no right to live among Muslims, literally millions of Muslims have and continue to move into Europe and other Western countries. The Muslim world murders and drives into exile Jews and Christians from their ancient homes, but the West must accept millions of Muslim "refugees" and migrants.

Something is off here. What could it be?

It seems that the Muslim world does not fear inflaming us when ISIS, AQ, etc., declare "no go" zones or set off bombs in our cities or engage in other forms of mass murder. We all must show great care after each and every one of these atrocities so as not to engage in a "backlash" against the very Muslim communities clearly supporting these actions -- e.g., the Paris killers got critical support from the Muslim community in Brussels, including hiding them from police. We must march for peace, while the Muslim world celebrates acts of "war" against concert-goers, airline travelers, and train passengers. Our children must learn tolerance and of the beauties of Islam, while their kids practice donning suicide vests and eating sweets in celebration of some or another atrocity.

Yes, something is off, here. Again, we ask, what could it be?

Not rocket science to answer that. The cause of Islamic "radicalization" is not Guantanamo, Western troops, or women in short skirts. The radicalization, as the word "radical" makes clear, comes from the root of Islam, the Quran. This basic text of Islam is held to be, quite literally, the precise word of Allah as revealed to Mohammed. No deviation is allowed or accepted; it is the Final Word. Period. No further revelations follow. We see, therefore, the rage with which mainstream Islam treats the Ahmadiyya sect which holds to subsequent "revelations" that call for more compassion and understanding. When I served in Pakistan, a major center of the Ahmadiyya faith, attacks on and killings of Ahmadis were common. Jews and Christians, likewise, come in for Islamic hatred and rage, because they do not accept the Quran as the word of God or Mohammed as his Prophet. Forcible conversion, slavery, and death serve as the prescribed remedies for this blasphemy. It is right there in the Quran, aka, the book of instructions on "How to be a Muslim."

Once again: It is Islam from whence the threat comes.


106 comments:

  1. An excellent video explains the legal case for Israel. Well worth watching.

    http://www.torahcafe.com/jewishvideo.php?vid=33fb484b5

    ReplyDelete
  2. Leftist don't want to see the uncomfortable facts. They can't bring themselves to accept that there is a religion that dictates convert or die in the modern age. They prefer to attack Christians and Jews, as these groups are a lot less likely to murder them. The left laments about discrimination in bathrooms and being denied being able to sue a bakery over refusal of service, but not a single one of these cowards dares to approach and Muslim business and make demands that it service their homosexual wedding. These are people that have "professional huggers" at Bernie gatherings for Christ's sake. The Muslim world is rooting for Bernie, because nothing appeals to them more than another coward in change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leftists are perfect happy, thank you, with facts that make you uncomfortable, like the number of innocents that we will have to kill in collateral damage if we act decisively against Islamic "civilization" (which is unknown but presumably substantial).

      They just don't like facts that make them uncomfortable, like what will happen if we don't act decisively against Islamic "civilization"--what is already happening.

      Delete
  3. It would seem that the critical flaw in the DNA of Islam is that apostates are appropriate candidates for murder ... whereas the flaw in the DNA of Christianity is to "turn the other cheek." Once underground, Christians have no other cheeks to turn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's indeed a matter of faith. The argument of the faithful Christian is that by 'relying on god' when practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ, 'good' will come out of the practice regardless of whether the practitioner is tortured, maimed, or killed. Heck, the entire religion is based upon a torture-sacrifice that would largely be considered 'a loss' by any reasonable score keeper.
      Somehow the call has thus far always been answered, though where the next 'Charles Martel' may come from, who knows?

      I do believe the USA needs to be aggressive about this. Whether that means military work, or some kind of 'adventurous assistance', I think the current status quo of isolationism with sporadic uncoordinated outbursts is not going anywhere good.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. What a very wise and well educated Deacon from St. Agnes in St. Paul said about turning the other cheek. If a Roman struck an inferior, he would use the back of his hand. (Presumably the right hand. Only an equal was struck with the palm.) By, literally, turning the other cheek, in order to strike the inferior a second time, one was forced to use the palm, an admission of equal stature. I believe the Japanese call this Aikido, or maybe Ju Jitsu. Similarly, a Roman soldier could compel (almost...?) anyone to carry his gear, but only for distance 'x'. (Let's call it one mile.) The admonition to "carry it for two miles", had the same impact. From reading the Diplomad previously, the either/or, ones and zeros, "For me or against me" difference is the Koran's denial of the Divinity of Christ. If I recall properly, C.S. Lewis asks was Christ a liar, nuts, or who He said He was? This last, "Who he said He was" is that of which I believe the left is terrified, probably without much awareness. And properly so. But after the first time, going to one's knees, all the rest are easy.
      The "entire religion" is based upon whether one accepts or denies the divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

      Delete
    3. Good reply, Kerry. But I would also tell Anonymous that the Christian faith makes much of the resurrection of Jesus on the third day after the crucifixion. Beating death seems to me to be a "win".

      Delete
  4. "If you kill your enemies, they win..." That's a real doozie of a quote right there! I'm trying to find where Trudeau said that... I can't find the original source of his statement online anywhere. Anybody know where and when he said that???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. idiots watch too much star wars

      Delete
  5. Meanwhile your counterparts, the grumpy, ignorant old curmudgeons on the other side make quite the same vacuous arguments, cherrypicking and twisting, casting vast and irrational generalizations, taking things out of context, etc., except with the roles reversed: "the 1,400 year war the west has conducted against Islam," and how "The Torah and the Bible say its good to kill Muslims," etc. Luckily, the vast majority of individuals on both sides are sane and rational. But we watch in horror as you fanatics, who far too often weasel your ways into positions of power, try with all your might to muster up mutual destruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please cite the Torah and Biblical verses that advocate the killing of Moslems? The Koran has such verses about Jews and others non-Moslems.

      Delete
    2. First, let me say that only spiteful idiots cherrypick the very worst verses from religious texts to justify hating any given religion, and that I have great respect for the Bible as a religious text, just as I have great respect for the Koran. That said, if I was a hate-monger trying to make people want to fear Christians, here's one of many I would use:

      Deuteronomy 17:
      2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
      3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
      4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
      5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

      Ok, now will you have the cojones to cite the Koran verses that make you hate Islam so? I know how much you guys hate fact checking or citing anything you say...

      Delete
    3. And another...

      Luke 19:27:
      "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

      Delete
    4. I suppose I should also address your specific request: "Please cite the Torah and Biblical verses that advocate the killing of Moslems?" (BTW, that unnecessary question mark at the end should give us all some idea of how qualified you are to form literary interpretations). Well, obviously we won't find any biblical verses calling for the killing of Muslims for historical reasons that may very well be lost on an individual of your intelligence. That said, there is certainly some interesting stuff about genocide of Canaanites in there, a couple fairly disgusting transactions between Lot and his daughters (and the Sodomites), and much much more!!! Reading is fun...

      Delete
    5. I'll go a few steps further and say that this is one of the few blogs that actually *respects* adherents of fundamentalist islam enough to provide them with the dignity of accepting their faith *as they express it*.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Some great quotes from the Old Testament and parables there and indeed some attempts to cherry pick from the New Testament.
      Nothing there in-context of any concern.
      The jizya, however, doesn't have any context which makes it compatible with liberal capitalist democracy.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. Yes Diplo! Quickly! Delete the truth before any of your fanboys change their mind about hating the muzzies!!

      Delete
    9. For Anon quoting Deut & Luke....
      When was the last time a Jew or Christian was inspired to blow himself up in a crowd of strangers because of those passages?

      BC

      Delete
    10. No need to resort to epithets, though yours is indeed uncommon to me....

      Basically, please show me what you feel is the best case for declaring Islam to be a 'religion of peace'. I'd simply like to know, as people aren't making that case as much as they are asserting that it's so (contrary to some very high profile islamic theologians and activists).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    11. To anonymous quoting Luke 19:27--Jesus is talking about what happens when he returns to judge the living and the dead. It is a far cry from the Qur'anic verses about fighting and killing the Kufr until they are either dead or pay jizya.

      As for the Old Testament bans on the Canaanites, I can't help but notice from Numbers and Deuteronomy that Israel would meet the same fate should Israel practice similar abominations. You read on in the Old Testament (I am a Christian--no offense meant to any Jews who call it the Tanach), you will see how that worked out in the books of Samuel and Kings (hint: it ends with the Babylonian captivity). The ban on the nations of Canaan was thus a one-shot deal for inheriting the promised land; not marching orders for all conflicts regardless.

      As for the Risen Jesus' marching orders, I find them at the end of Matthew 28, when he commands us to make disciples of all nations. I cannot, to save my soul, find a single text anywhere that makes this a matter of organized violence rather than prayer, preaching, ethical example, and the administration of the sacraments (the various weapons of "spiritual warfare" of which Paul speaks in II Corinthians?). From the Great Commission, I infer (perhaps over optimistically) that there are perhaps no nations so completely given over to evil as the Canaanites were, to the point where they must be exterminated.

      Yet you cannot deny that the waging of violent Jihad for the extension of the Islamic faith is an important part of normative Islam. Indeed, there are Muslim scholars who unabashedly tell you that violent jihad for the extension of Islam is ipso facto just war.

      Delete
  6. Or,

    "We cannot patrol/monitor Muslim neighborhoods."

    _____

    Say what?!!!

    I frankly like when the cops roll by. Keeps the meth-heads and other such less-than-desireables from stealing anything not chained down from my pickup.

    ***

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, another willful misinterpretation by the wing nut gallery. Nobody is against having a normal police presence in "Muslim Neighborhoods," wherever those may be... ;^) Would you like if the police gave you extra attention solely because they believed you to be worthy of extra suspicion based on your religion? It's so sad how quickly you self proclaimed patriots are willing to abort the principles of liberty this country's constitution aspires to...

      Delete
    2. How are the Jewish neighborhoods in Saudi doing these days?

      Delete
    3. anon - certainly I would appreciate such extra protection!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. Well my fellow Anon of March 30, 2016 at 11:30 PM you may've noted I generalized "undesirables" but I did specify at least "meth-heads" which I suppose I would also include qat-heads now that you've taken me to task.

      And further as the story goes;

      "How does the adage go? Be careful what you wished for, for wishes may come true? Well… meet Baltimore. Because the city of Baltimore has done just that. Baltimore has suffered from its most violent on record in a long, long time."

      http://louderwithcrowder.com/baltimore-rioters-now-want-back-the-police-they-hated/

      ***

      Delete
    6. "Would you like if the police gave you extra attention solely because they believed you to be worthy of extra suspicion based on your religion?"

      Well when [if] the Presbyterians begin stuffing dynamite down their underdrawers and then go blow themself and say oh, the Methodists simply shopping for some Quaker Oats I'd say,

      Yessir Officer, shake me down because I am a Presbyterian!

      Delete
    7. Ah, you know you've posted something good when Diplo strikes it from the record! So diplo, are you saying that since the US-backed dictatorship that is Saudi Arabia does it to the Jews, we should use that as justification for doing it to the Muslims...? Seems like a pretty weak argument... Care to comment??? Or is this blog reserved for you and your yes-men?

      Delete
    8. I'd suggest you read the post again and come up with something specific to which you object. Something... anything. Just a screed claiming that the blog author is suggesting something the he clearly hasn't suggested doesn't carry much weight.

      Is the human rights situation for non-muslims in Saudi Arabia abhorrent? Yes. Is the human rights situation for muslims in America abhorrent? Absolutely not. I doubt you'll disagree with that. That's all that's even being said in comments.

      best of luck,
      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. HarshMistress/SchuyMalloy: I struck your one comment as it contains insults. I am not going to put up with that here. You can get your own blog and insult people. Second, please try to keep up and use your almighty powerful 137 IQ to understand simple things: There are no Jewish neighborhoods in Saudi or anywhere else in the Muslim world. Why? Islam. It is a totalitarian death cult which allows no free speech, religious diversity, etc, certainly no peaceful coexistence. We do not have the obligation as a democracy to commit suicide by allowing a totalitarian death cult to set up shop here and operate. Read some history.

      Delete
    10. History heck! Go HarshMistress to the current CIA assessment. Under "People & Society."

      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

      ***

      Delete
    11. Diplo, you seem to misunderstand me... Honestly, you guys are not too bright. My critique of your argument was exactly that. Since the US-backed dictatorship that is Saudi Arabia has stomped out any Jewish activity in that country, you feel this is a good defense for the US doing the same to Islam here...? I maintain that this seems like a poor argument unless you want us to be more like Saudi Arabia in terms of religious repression. What is so hard for you people to understand about that? And as far as referring to the entirety of Islam as a "totalitarian death cult," please. I maintain that that is the same sort of language the minority of agitators and idiots on the other side use about us. It's false and dangerous language. The majority of Muslims want peace and security just like the rest of us. It's people like you, as well as your counterparts in the Muslim world, that threaten that peace, not some imaginary "death cult."

      Delete
    12. Also, just for the record, I'm a Jew and I have many Muslim friends. That's right, some of us are adults who have learned how to get along.

      Delete
    13. "Is the human rights situation for non-muslims in Saudi Arabia abhorrent? Yes. Is the human rights situation for muslims in America abhorrent? Absolutely not. I doubt you'll disagree with that. That's all that's even being said in comments." Uh... no. What is being said in the comments is that, since Muslims violate human rights towards non-Muslims in their countries, we should feel justified in doing that to them in our country. It's childish logic.

      Delete
    14. "What is being said in the comments is that, since Muslims violate human rights towards non-Muslims in their countries, we should feel justified in doing that to them in our country."

      Uh... no.

      What's being said is, Wish to be citizens of the US? Wish to practice your religion[s]?

      Well, that'll be fine if, you observe the mores and laws of good citizenship. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a pretty good thing provided, y'all (as mentioned below) practice reciprocity. Assiduously.

      And bake cakes for queers.


      ***

      Delete
    15. Er, um, Harsh Mistress, the stamping out of Jewish communities in the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula (I'm not talking about the Fertile Crescent, Misr, Maghreb, and other parts of the Dar-ul-Islam) goes not to the dynasty of Ibn Sa'ud, but to the Caliph 'Umar himself, who decreed their could be only one religion in the Arabian Peninsula.

      I'll quibble with Dip: there are some Jewish communities left in Morocco, Tunisia, and Bahrain in the Arab world; also in Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan elsewhere in the Muslim world. However, they've all been dwindling and are mere shadows of their former selves. Just a quibble.

      Delete
    16. The "reciprocity" you mention below is preposterous. Here's my response to that comment: "So you think all Muslims in the US should be held accountable for the behavior of governments in various Muslim countries... Many being governments that are the direct result of US's bungled interventionism, and a few (such as Saudi Arabia) which are, in fact financially and militarily supported by the US to this very day... Your logic is simply astounding in its absurdity."

      Also keep in mind that many of the Muslims in the US came here directly to escape the oppressive behavior of the governments in countries like Egypt, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. It is not their religion that is the problem, it is the totalitarianism of their governments. Furthermore, many of those totalitarian governments are the direct result of the bungling foreign policy of the US. In Iran, we got rid of their democratically elected leader and installed the Shah. Iran would be a very different place today had we not done that. In Syria, we got rid of their democratically elected leader and installed Husni Al Zaim. This led directly to the rise of Assad's Baath party there. it goes on and on. We go into other countries and prop up dictatorships for commercial reasons, and then we hold the populations of those countries accountable for said dictatorships when they come here to try and escape them. We do the same thing in Latin America. Heck, Mr. Amselem built his career on this stuff. Lewis, are you proud of the fruits of your labor in Honduras? Don't get me wrong either, it is Democrats just as much as Republicans creating this sorry situation in the world. The Clintons, Obama, etc. are just as complicit as the Bush's. It's just sad how blind you folks seem to be to all of it.

      Delete
    17. Simply put, the US is *not* the center of the world and the actions of the rest of the world predate the US and evolve largely independently of US actions. The US (not necessarily 'we') does involve itself from time to time in the very recent history (last hundred years), but the evolution of the middle east occurs roughly in the same way regardless of US intervention (or lack thereof).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. "but the evolution of the middle east occurs roughly in the same way regardless of US intervention (or lack thereof)."

      This is a ridiculous fallacy. How can you say the constant intervention of the US, the most powerful country in the world, in the middle East for greater part of the 20th century and into the new millennium could not have had a huge affect on its evolution??? Seriously, I know you guys like to just make bold statements like this without providing any sort of explanation, but please, I beg of you, tell me how you have reached such a conclusion?

      Delete
    20. Hmmm ...

      "This is a ridiculous fallacy. How can you say the constant intervention of the US, the most powerful country in the world, in the middle East for greater part of the 20th century and into the new millennium could not have had a huge affect on its evolution???"

      An IQ of 137 you say?

      "For the greater part of the 20th Century" & "[15] into the new millennium" has made that much difference within the span of (about) its entire One Thousand Four Hundred Years?

      Flattery gets you HarshMistress not so much here, 137 IQ or no.

      http://havechanged.blogspot.com/2016/03/sufferings-in-africa.html

      ***

      Delete
    21. Yes, that's what I'm saying... What are you saying? That in the last 1,400 years, Islam has committed more atrocities than, say, Christendom....? If so, I daresay you have not read your history books, my bigoted countryman.

      Delete
    22. "For the greater part of the 20th Century" & "[15] into the new millennium" has made that much difference within the span of (about) its entire One Thousand Four Hundred Years?"

      The obvious answer is a huge difference. One of the biggest faults of the people who think like you do, is that you so easily forget that humans are individuals. There is not some monolith in the Middle East that has wielded complete control over the hearts and minds of the billions of individuals who have lived and died there in the last 1,400 years... What you call Islam can, in fact, change in a matter of a few years, just as Christendom can. I wonder if you can, for a moment, imagine how long it would take Americans, were they to suddenly be exposed to things like acute poverty, prolonged bombing campaigns, outside aggressors aiding in the removal of our democratically elected leaders so that dictators can take their places, etc., to revert to pure barbarity. I'm guessing it would happen in a couple years, tops. Do you disagree?

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    24. Also, I think it worth pointing out that from the perspective of sheer unnecessary death and suffering (not to mention the aftereffects of agent orange), Vietnam alone was a greater atrocity than the entirety of what Islam has committed in the last few hundred years at least... And then there was the Iraq invasion of 2003. Equally if not even more unnecessary, and millions dead. But I know... Y'all aren't trying to hear that ;-)

      Delete
    25. 'millions'?
      Last conflict I heard of with 'millions' dead was WWII where the USA acted belligerently in working with the russians segmenting up the German empire. Terrible shame, because the Germans had such 'obvious weakness', am I right? :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  7. Just on the words of the thing...

    You say that it is obvious that they are "radical", but - this is not anything like an original thought - surely those who cleave dear to the absolute meaning of the original words are not radical, but fundamentalist?

    I think the distinction is important, if only because "radical" has come to have a kinda hip tone to it, whereas "fundamentalist" is much the opposite.

    - mct

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the answer lies in reciprocity. Wanna build a mosque in New York City? Great. We would like to build a cathedral in Mecca. It works with immigration too. Want us to take in 100,000 refugees? Great. We can have 1,000,000 transported to any country in the ME that thinks that is a good idea. From there we can pick out the 100,000 that seem least likely to do any harm. These then would be fitted with self-destructing radio collars as a condition. The rest can stay in that host country.

    Seems to me reciprocity would work for our neighbors on our southern border as well. want to buy a home here? We should be able to buy land in Mexico. And vote in English.

    M1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. So you think all Muslims in the US should be held accountable for the behavior of governments in various Muslim countries... Many being governments that are the direct result of US's bungled interventionism, and a few (such as Saudi Arabia) which are, in fact financially and militarily supported by the US to this very day... Your logic is simply astounding in its absurdity.

      Delete
    3. I'm not certain how many more absurd claims of 'things nobody has said anywhere here' can fit into such a small comment.
      To respond with anything other than: "What the heck are you talking about?" makes no sense.
      I would suggest you stop attempting to read other people's minds and tell everybody what is on your mind: What your opinion is of Islam (not necessarily muslims)? Do you agree that Islam as a religion had its roots in the warlord conquests of muhammed? And if so, where, when and why do you think it was able to divorce itself from those origins?

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. I'll agree that a lot of Muslim countries have experienced American bungling interventions, and these have been counterproductive. It is perhaps a little late in the day to go back and support Mossadeq (the bold lion against British oil interests for whom acting the crippled mouse against Soviet oil interests and open Soviet attempts to detach Southern Azerbaijan and Kordestan were matters of principled internationalist solidarity). However, we can say a resounding "no" to the maladministration and its minions who have gotten us into bed in Syria and Libya (and Egypt as well, prior to Sirsi's coup) with the the tactical and ideological allies of Al-Qaida. Further, the same maladministration has also allowed itself to be manipulated into following the line of Turkey's Recep Erdogan, whose actions in both Syria and in airspace could bring us to the brink of a NATO-Russian war.

      I don't think that Dip is saying we need to have a great expulsion of Muslims from the USA. However, he dares to mention that there are some pretty ugly things in Islamic theology that are far worse than the worst you can dig up on the "Judaism of the Bronze Age" or whatever which inspire terrorism and thus require vigilance on the part of governments. Also, there may well be a few of us here who have rather unhappy family memories of living as Dhimmi under Muslim rule--believe me, it wasn't all the mutual respect and tolerance of which your high school manual of disinformation (social studies textbook) speaks.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. "I would suggest you stop attempting to read other people's minds and tell everybody what is on your mind"

      Please explain how I misinterpreted, "Wanna build a mosque in New York City? Great. We would like to build a cathedral in Mecca..."

      Form what I can gather, this means that if some American Muslims want to build a mosque in the US, they should first somehow convince the tyrannical Saudi government (which the US financially and militarily supports), to allow for the building of a cathedral in Mecca.

      Please explain to me how this is NOT holding US Muslims accountable for the policies of the US-backed totalitarian government in Saudi Arabia!!

      Delete
    7. I see it as precisely not that. It is a warning against letting the US become an Islam dominated country like Saudi Arabia.
      If building churches in Mecca was permitted (my guess woudl be that you couldn't care less?) then the US would clearly have nothing to fear from having Islam become dominant in US politics.
      You can quibble about whether Saudi Arabia is muslim or 'legitimately muslim', but as holders of the primary cities, it's difficult to dispute that they represent islamic governance to the world, regardless of how they treat with Dar Al Harb.
      I find these discussions productive and appreciate your presence here, though I do think, as in general, being most careful and sympathetic in our wording is for the best. I'm certain I've got my share of transgressions on that account!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. "I see it as precisely not that. It is a warning against letting the US become an Islam dominated country like Saudi Arabia."

      The original poster may very well turn around and pretend this is so, but alas, tis not so.

      He wrote, "I think the answer lies in reciprocity. Wanna build a mosque in New York City? Great. We would like to build a cathedral in Mecca. It works with immigration too. Want us to take in 100,000 refugees? Great. We can have 1,000,000 transported to any country in the ME that thinks that is a good idea."

      The building of a mosque in NYC does not under any circumstances I can think of, lead to the US becoming "an Islam dominated country like Saudi Arabia."

      I will concede that the fearful author of this blog may beg to differ on this point. His enemies, be they Islam, or the liberals in America, are always far more dangerous and insidious than he imagines them to be. I have no doubt that he was a fervent beater of the drums of intervention in places like Viet Nam, Cuba, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua during the cold war too, despite the obvious weakness of the USSR as it crumbled under its own self-destrucitve ideology.

      He's a warmonger in what is by far the most militarily mighty country in the world, and therefore must always pretend his enemies are more of a threat than they really are.

      Delete
    9. At least we agree that my analysis of the comment above was valid. I'm pretty certain that was the warning given, nothing specifically about some sort of actions or retributive actions. They were a clear warning and descriptive of why the warning is valid. I keep looking for a functional Islamic republic/democracy with a non-trivial track record. US influence simply cannot be blamed for the utter failure of this across the entire world. Such an assertion makes the US government out to be *far* more competent than it actually is. Instead, I (and many others) posit an incompatibility between the fundamental theology involved in Islam and liberal democratic capitalism. Maybe Islam mixes well with other forms of government, I don't know.


      I would personally appreciate it if you would describe specific positions from this blog with which you disagree and why. Describing the author of this blog or its commenters pejoratively serves nobody's purpose.

      "despite the obvious weakness of the USSR as it crumbled under its own self-destrucitve ideology"
      I do not believe that 'obvious weakness' was remotely obvious to either Americans *or* Russians!

      And finally, the US is only the most mighty country in the world until it isn't. That transition may very well be abrupt, unforeseen, and perhaps unbeknownst to us, already in the past!

      Gosh.. kids these days! Harrumph! :)

      (PS: I've definitely posted WAY too much, the captchas are becoming night impossible!)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (i) "Boots on the ground" done recklessly and incompetently probably does make matters worse.

    (ii) "the rage with which mainstream Islam treats the Ahmadiyya sect": read this sad wee tale.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511002/We-fear-says-family-newsagent-stabbed-death-posting-Happy-Easter-message.html


    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Dip, I suspect that your wonderful blog has sadly been 'reddited'. I'm guessing they'll disappear with time.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I take it back, this is a good thing. I like hearing why people feel the standard lefty secular line is so great.
      I've always assumed the 'religion of peace' monicker is in place for the same reason those 'coexist' bumper stickers are so prevalent, namely, a general laziness in investigating what's actually being proclaimed by the various religions of this world and a cynicism towards those claiming to follow a particular faith.

      As always, the only thing I prefer over being proven indisputably right, is to be proved indisputably wrong.

      So, I've been posting too much on this thread.. the captchas are getting pretty tough... I'll try to stop now! :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  12. Keep up the good work, Dip. Who knows? You may encourage some sensible people now serving in our old shop and others who may wish to join them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Today they bake, tomorrow they brew
    Then all humanity in shariah and death they plan to stew
    For still far too few understand the devious game
    And fewer still will say it aloud, that simply Islam is the evil's name!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I rather like being a yes man. It has it's plus sides. It does beat being a silly pompous contrarian who carries in their breast pocket proof of their IQ printed on a 3x5 index card Now it's off to grammar class.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. " It has it's plus sides. It does beat being a silly pompous contrarian who carries in their breast pocket proof of their IQ printed on a 3x5 index card Now it's off to grammar class." First lesson: how to use a period... I know, that's punctuation, not grammar, but also important! :-)

      Delete
    3. Oh, you noticed, oh joy. I, the worm that wriggles in the fundament of the Argos eyed divinity that deigns to walk among us. Such breath and depth of knowledge transports me to Elysian plateaus of being, here to fore unimagined. I must rest now, for nearness to such as this is too much for the constitution of mortal man.

      Delete
  15. I've seen chatter in the media of late that one thing frustrating intelligence and LEO services is that there is no one typology/pattern of just who becomes "radicalized" in service of killing civilians to make a political/religious power point outside the zone of war via bombs, guns and so on. To date, the only common denominator has been the attackers are Muslims who believe they are acting in accordance with their faith (Islam). That's it. To truly get to a typology of who chooses this route, you'd need to build one for suburban Muslim families in the US (San Bernardino), unhappy, isolated teens (Boston), hard core criminals (Brussels) and so on. That is, clearly there are other factors besides Islam, but we don't know what they are yet, and being left in the dark, we can only focus on the one we know about.

    Given that, why is it so hard to accept that at a certain point, why yes, it must have something to do with this particular religion? At this moment in time, we are left with almost no choice to do so because we have no other facts or data or hunch that it isn't so. Even as I can say rationally there must be other factors, I cannot for the life of me identify them.

    This is exacerbated by how little Muslims in the Arab World and Iran have done in terms of speaking out against the "violent extremists" (the term used to not damn Muslims for the act even as so far, they always are Muslims). Every now and again someone does (e.g. Queen Rania of Jordan) but not enough to assuage those who aren't Muslims that they don't secretly enjoy what's going on as a kind of comeuppance.

    We also know that LEOs in the US have worked successfully with Muslim communities to have them identify disruptors within their own communities (and further, we are oblivious to attacks that don't happen so we can't actually say what law-abiding Muslims who resent such activity do in service of preventing attacks).

    We know that most Muslims in the US are financially and educationally better off than those who immigrate to Europe (those oceans provide a big buffer for us, it's expensive to get here - that said, the instances of Muslims crossing over from Mexico has ticked up a bit in recent years).

    We know that Americans writ large are a forgiving folk, who easily get sucked into moral relativism, and just want everyone to be happy and safe no matter who pays for it. Thus, Americans don't want to say "Islam is a crappy religion that incites violence." Americans don't want to say "All Muslims have the potential to be terrorists." Some Americans are even aware that in certain churches around the nation, the sermons if you heard them would scare the bejesus right out of you with the fire and brimstone acts of service they suggest to their congregations, i.e. Christianity has its fair share of warlike interpretations.

    But Americans, like all people, are pattern-seeking animals. And so far, the pattern is Muslims, it's Islam. You have to dig deep to find something else to fear: ranchers fighting the BLM; ridiculous Mormon sects -the sects, not mainstream LDS - in compounds; sad, disturbed young men whose mom will buy them an AR15 to assuage their own guilt. Americans writ large are disturbed by that too, even as they can wrap their minds around the why.

    But with Muslim terrorists, again to repeat, the only why we can muster is "Islam." Why isn't "boots on the ground" a why? Perhaps: USS Cole. 9/11. Two biggies that happened long before our "boots on the ground" response.

    All of this is a very long-winded way to say, I don't know if the primary cause is Islam. But for the moment, I'm not left with anything else as an explainer. And because of that, I can't fault anyone for steadfastly claiming that Islam is the cause. If you think you can contradict that, then show me the typologies that explain what other catalysts are because I'd love to see them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All of this is a very long-winded way to say..."

      Thanks for articulating it so well, I'll pass it on my anon pal "Let's Roll"

      On Watch~~~

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "That is, clearly there are other factors besides Islam, but we don't know what they are yet, and being left in the dark, we can only focus on the one we know about."

      Gee, I don't know, could it have something to do with the neocolonial shitstorm the US and its allies have unleashed in the Middle East?

      -Deposing or killing various governments/rulers so that people like Husni Al Zaim can take their place, or now ISIS in places like Iraq and Libya that we "liberated."

      -Waging a war in Iraq based on fabricated intelligence that kills millions of civilians, and then leaving a vacuum in which groups like ISIS can literally walk in and just take the hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons we just left there and spread their murderous interpretation of the religion (most, if not all religions have had their murderous interpreters...)

      -Backing apartheid in Israel.

      -Backing violent dictators in Saudi Arabia, selling said dictators weapons and aircraft they use to commit crimes against humanity in places like Yemen.

      -People like you blaming the religion and ostracizing the Muslims that live here, so that they are far more likely to feel like outsiders and develop violent, bitter tendencies towards their fellow citizens.

      -US foreign policy that fosters Jihadism when it seems strategically expedient to do so, such as when we provided Afghan youth with millions of copies of "The ABC's of Jihad," which taught them that their religious duty was to kill infidel invaders (at that time Russians)... The book is still used today by ISIS and the TB...

      -Selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq as they tore into each other.

      -Oil companies using war as precedent to plunder Middle East oil wealth

      -Leaving fields of depleted uranium for Middle Eastern children to play in

      and on and on.

      But, I know, this stuff doesn't register to you people. It's simply not factored in to the equation... But why not???

      Delete
    4. In particular this response doesn't help distinguish (in the original commenters topology/typology) why we don't see Vietnamese terrorists bringing down towers, shooting up environmental health departments, and etc. Certainly there are fewer Vietnamese, but as you mentioned elsewhere, the war was brutal and the legacy is long lasting and continuing.
      We don't have Japanese, German, or perhaps among the worst supposed victims of US foreign policy, filipinos blowing stuff up and killing people due to this.

      Islam does seem to be a factor. It seems reasonable to argue that it's an insufficient factor by itself?

      Time to go identify tricycles of the captcha lords!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  16. “His [our gracious host] enemies, be they Islam, or the liberals in America, are always far more dangerous and insidious than he imagines them to be.”

    Hmm, your demented mindreading Harsh Harlot continues to masquerade as facetious fecal patter. As a once impartial observer I have witnessed the socio-cultural-economic havoc that Islam and their Liberal enablers have inflicted on my hometown of NYC over the past 50+ years. Whatever ‘imagination’ the DiploMad utilizes in his analysis of our ‘enemies’ ‘insidious’ assaults on ‘America’, the ‘danger’ and damage to the USA cannot be overstated nor over-imagined “Let’s Roll”

    On Watch/IQ-140 (self administered as required to meet PsychoEducational Evaluation Grad Course testing criteria)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As a once impartial observer I have witnessed the socio-cultural-economic havoc that Islam and their Liberal enablers have inflicted on my hometown of NYC over the past 50+ years." Once again, big statements without providing any sort of examples/evidence... Not even anecdotal, let alone objective... Can you describe some of the "socio-cultural-economic havoc" you have witnessed?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "As a once impartial observer I have witnessed the socio-cultural-economic havoc that Islam and their Liberal enablers have inflicted on my hometown of NYC over the past 50+ years."

      Do you think it fair to say that "Operation Enduring Freedom" caused some socio-cultural economic havoc in Iraq and surrounding countries?

      What you don't realize is that, just as Muslims who fall for ISIS's line that "Americanism" is to blame for those problems are dupes, so too are you for believing that their religion is the problem.

      Both sides are being played by greedy, power-hungry, opportunists. Being fooled into blaming some malleable belief system, when the true culprits are the money and power-hungry opportunists on both sides, playing the masses against each other while they try to suck up as much oil, money, military might, and socio-economic influence as they can. ISIS is just their version of our military-industrial complex.

      But I know, this is just standard Leftist blather. Why even think about it when you can just write it off ;-)

      Delete
    4. Your claim that Islam is malleable stands in stark contrast to the restriction upon the Quran that is can be read in arabic and only in arabic. As for the supposed socio-cultural happiness that was Iraq prior to US intervention, that's left as an exercise for the reader (err, not the #1482 one).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  17. That Luke 19:27 is interesting, in a way. It seems pretty clear to me that it is the tail-end of the ten talents parable. It does not fit well with the next passage which is about going to Jerusalem, eventually to be crucified. Certainly, in the context of history, in the first four centuries of the Christian church, Christians were pacifists, until St Augustine came up with his Just War theory. There were even a few martyrs who converted as Roman soldiers, and were put to death for their pacifism. But, the Founder was violent? They surely made quite a jump there, did they not? In the intervening centuries, Christian pacifists have been denounced as extremists, sometimes, but one would have to look very hard to find someone who said that the Pacifists were not Christians. By contrast, Islamic scholars have no trouble denouncing Muslim pacifists as heretics, apostates, certainly as non-Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Harsh Mistress, did you request a clarification from me? I meant exactly what I said.

    Now if you will excuse me, I have mere hours left to pull off MY April Fool's Day gag.

    M1

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ms Moon (a harsh mistress) believes that oil companies used war as an excuse to plunder the Mideast's oil wealth. Hmmm. The Chinese bid for the Iraqi oil concessions and won. Western oil companies got nothing from that war. The only evidence for the "plunder" is its conformity with Party Line. Empirical? Not so much.

    The US is a commercial empire, not a tributary one. We go to war to keep shipping lanes open and safe, and trade when and where we can. Iraq and Iran are sort of like twin keystones of the arch that is the Persian Gulf. Iran was stronger, and Iraq was more open about aiding terrorists, so we went to war against Iraq. Everyone in the world believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. France, China, Arabia, Saddam's own officer corps, all believed he had the WMD. He invaded Kuwait, and the UN opposed him. They agreed upon a cease fire, including in its terms that Saddam would destroy his WMD, in front of UN observers. After twelve years of jerking the UN around, and being implicated in aiding terrorists, UN forces, including US troops, invaded again. Their weapons and their position at the top of that arch, made them a threat to their neighbors and to our trade. It's not nefarious. It's not even remunerative. It's simply necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, I also caught the Heinlein reference. But, it could also be that given Ms. Moon's IQ of 137, she may actually be Chang E (嫦娥)herself!

      OK, I'll shut up and await our host's next posting.

      Delete
  20. Oh, I overlooked that "Millions of dead civilians in Iraq". Even Lefty Iraq Body Count.org put the number at about a hundred thousand, including people killed not with US ordnance, but by various insurgent groups. That is far from "millions" It is also worth pointing out that Saddam killed a hundred thousand in the ten years leading up to the US invasion.This is not just a vile calumny. Saddam tended to boast about his kills, to advance the myth of his ferocious invincibility.

    There has even been a persistently recurrent rumor that we are in Afghanistan to build or protect an oil pipeline. This pipeline was a Saudi idea, conceived as a means of shipping some money to their clients, the Taliban. It never happened, but Leftists "in the know" always bring it up as the secret reason that they understand, and we poor ignorant citizens remain clueless. However, there is no pipeline. The idea was abandoned in 1996. There is no spoon, or pipeline.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Replies
    1. It's never over... there are always more like that poster who will come to places like this and possibly leave with more information than which they started... in their echo-chamber forums, they'll trot out things they've learned as 'devils advocate' hits, see no reasonable response, and start to question things perhaps.

      Delete
  22. I admit I've sometimes commented 'way too much myself; I'm in recovery. But Diplomad is under no obligation to let this become the HarshMistess blog. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know. He also removed about half of his own comments, including written under a different name. I guess that's what people who have 137 IQs and a complete understanding of climate change do.

      Delete
    2. Oops, I forgot, only you are allowed to remove my comments without being judged for it... I never claimed I had a complete understanding of climate change, only one that is, apparently, much better than yours. I do want to thank all of you though, for continuing to bring my 137 IQ to the forefront of the conversation. It's not a bad score if I do say so myself ;-)

      Delete
    3. HarshMistress: 您是否嫦娥呢?若是,希望下个中秋节可哟见面,吃柚子(本人虽然有华南亲戚,我并不喜欢月饼)

      Delete
  23. "It is right there in the Quran, aka, the book of instructions on "How to be a Muslim." It has always struck me as odd when a terror event happens here in the US, that friends and family immediately come forward to pronounce their "shock and dismay" that their co-religionist would do this act. He was a "devout" Muslim they say. Well yes, isn't that just it ?. Devout doesn't always mean what we members of the Judeo-Christian West take it to mean. We assign it the same value as "devout" Christian. Not necessarily so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Facts is facts: the running body count for victims of Christian-justified murder is and will remain far higher than that of Islam-justified murder. Feel free to try and challenge me on that! That said, I am smart enough to understand that blaming a religion that is used to justify murder for the murder itself is as silly as blaming the gun when somebody gets shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the words of a great philosopher: "... like anybody can even know that." :)
      Trying to integrate a body count with any level of certainty over 20 years is challenging, 50 years, an enormous project, 1400 years, completely impossible. Putting such loss of life in context is even more impossible.

      But the larger scale conflict pattern and methods are much more clear. A decade or two back, pretty much the *only* active conflict that didn't involve at least one islamic party was the civil war in Sri Lanka.
      There's conflict *everywhere* that Islamic governance interfaces with the rest of the world and that ignores the extensive internal fighting. There has also been *no* islamic majority country with more than a decade or two of contiguous liberal capitalist democracy (I know, "blame America", but America simply can't accept responsibility for *ALL* of them.... at some point we really need to accept that America is a country, not a force of nature.)

      Winston Churchill had far more clarity from his extensive field work than most of us reasonably could (this site may be an exception simply due to the significant foreign service by the author and many readers). If you haven't read up on Churchill's travels and opinions, I do recommend them (for what my opinion is worth to you).

      Delete
    2. "There has also been *no* islamic majority country with more than a decade or two of contiguous liberal capitalist democracy"

      Ah, yes, "liberal capitalist democracy..." It's been such a boon to the world. Let's discuss what you call "liberal capitalist democracy." It is democracy in name only, but certainly not in reality. What you call liberal capitalist democracy has been pure oligarchy for quite some time.

      https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

      As for capitalism, it's overrated. It has given us a nice quality of life in the short term, but we are beginning to see its long-term product: mass extinction with a high probability that our own species will eventually succumb to its environmentally destructive nature as well.

      Not to mention that, while the capitalism of the united states has provided us with a quality of life that we might mistake for democracy and freedom here at home, it has over and over again depended on the propping up and maintaining of totalitarianism abroad so as to ensure the continued flow of resources from other nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States
      Mr. Amselem has had his own hand in such activities...

      As for religions of war vs. religions of peace, it is, of course a fools errand to even try to compare, I won't argue with you there. The only reason I invited the comparison is that you folks seem so intent on demonizing a certain religion. I know full well that religions and ideologies are simply tools that people can use to try to implement whatever endeavors they are motivated to implement...

      But since much of this blog and the banter of its commentators centers around framing Islam as somehow worse than Christianity, indeed, as framing it as a pox upon this Earth, as the ideology of evil incarnate, I thought it would be appropriate to reluctantly invite some actual objective comparison, despite knowing full well that a more intelligent discussion than the one you guys have going here would not merit such comparison.

      With that disclaimer, I invite those who would argue that Islam is a religion of murder and war, and Christianity a religion of compassion and peace to consider only the last century -- since one of your main arguments seems to be that the western world and its Christianity have evolved in the last century or so, to the point that we need not consider those atrocities from the older, darker times of its existence.

      So once again, in light of the repeated claims here that the west is more civilized and peaceful than those Muslim savages, here are the wars and body counts:

      The Predominantly Christian Western World-
      1910-1920: Mexican Revolution: 1.0m
      1914-1918: First World War: 20.0m
      1917-1922: Russian Civil War: 5.0m
      1939-1945: Second World War: 41.5m (European deaths only)
      1946-1954: First Indochina War: 1.0m
      1950-1953: Korean War: 1.2m
      1955-1975: Vietnam War: 1.1m
      1998-2003: Second Congo War: 2.5m

      The Muslim World:
      1967-1970: Nigerian Civil War: 1.0m
      1980-1988: Iran-Iraq War: 1.0m
      1983-2005: Second Sudanese Civil War: 1.0m
      1989-2001: Afghan Civil War: 1.4m

      Delete
    3. As for Churchill, I can understand why a swarm of bigots like you guys would have so much respect for him. Here are some shining quotes from Mr. Churchill:

      "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

      "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

      "Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed"

      "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes" (commenting on how Britain should deal with the revolution against British rule in Iraq)

      "I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and nazism, I would choose communism. "

      "This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

      So was Churchill a great man? Sure, in many respects... But he was also a stone-cold bigot. Not exactly a great example if you want to create a logic-based narrative for demonizing Muslims.

      Delete
    4. Nice numbers game in HarshMistress' post. However, she fails to note that in her "Christian" wars, the Mexican Revolution, Russian Civil War, World War II, and the post-war anti-Communist wars all involved protagonists eager to throw off the Christians tradition (Mexican cientificos, bolsheviks, Communists, German National Socialists). She might also note in the figures compiled by Ben-tsiyyon Netanyahu (historian; father of Benjamin) in his history of the Spanish Inquisition, that it seems that from its inception in 1484 to its being shut down by Napoleon in 1804, the Spanish Inquisition killed at most 4,000 in Spain itself; which is easily matched or exceeded by the internecine struggles of the Spanish Left in the 1930's (to say nothing of its dealings with Nacionalistas). As for part of the Second Indochina War, I dealt with some of its aftermath in Cambodia, and there you had highly idealistic people trained by the best Euromarxist minds who wanted to dispose even of their own Theravada Buddhism; to say nothing of the Christian and Muslim minorities in Cambodia.

      Further, if you're worried about environmental degradation from capitalism, you ain't seen nothing unless you've seen what Mao's radical egalitarianism did to China--especially the effects of nuclear testing on the population of its colony in Eastern Turkistan (see, some of us here can stand up for Muslims, too). The Soviet Union also had a very poor ecological record.

      Further, there are some of us here for whom war, poor stewardship of the earth, mass murder, and a number of other issues aren't specifically Muslim issues: they're human ones. Hence, we have a little more sympathy for religions and ideological commitments that are aware of original sin/yetzer ra'a than with those who deny such a problem, be they Rousseauan or Islamic.

      Delete
    5. As mentioned, the direction your post takes, imo, is a pointless exercise and doesn't lead to any discussion where people would likely agree on the basic facts. I think this was stated in response to your original comment, but you continue on undeterred?

      Second, there's is no comparative theme between Christianity and Islam here. There is discussion of a fundamental theological disconnect between Islam and the modern world (imo, I'm not the author). If you want to take up the "Christianity vs Islam" thread, you probably need to startup your own blog (I'll read it!).
      If you have an argument about how the definitions of Dar Al Harb and Dar Al Islam are actually *not* divisive and conflict-inducing, I and many others would probably be interested. Similarly, if you can make the case that dhimmis paying the jizya is the proper way to go for a future America where Islam is dominant and its fundamental text is reflected in our Constitution, that would be interesting as well.

      Delete
  25. Schuymalloy/Harshmistress, I think that's enough, OK? Please go start your own blog. You apparently have an awful lot to say, but I can't let you turn this comments section into your own private rant board. You've said your piece; you've tooted your own horn; you've made a fool of yourself. Good work. Now please take it somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  26. Does this mean that Ms Moon is banned? I rather hope so. Bookworm had a troll infestation a few years ago. She put out the question of a ban, and I, who had very foolishly tried to reason with the trolls, spoke in favor of a ban. They are not interested in discussion. That is a "pointless bourgeois exercise." When they start throwing out phony numbers, just to see what the pigeons will do if a cat is cast among us, this is not discussion.

    I always highly recommend Jane Jacobs's "Systems of Survival," in which she explains the difference in values between the 'Guardians' and the 'Commercials'. The guardians are interested in power, and the suppression of dissent is part of achieving power. If dissent can not be forbidden, it can be smothered in verbiage. There is absolutely no reason to facilitate such a campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete