 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / February 2006Vile Infidel Cartoons of Blasphemy
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 --Ty > http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 > > --Ty From "The Family Guy" ( and from memory): ( context : a Christmas pageant that has gone somehow, horribly, horribly wrong ) Peter: "Lights, please." Peter: "We all know that Christmas is the time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the dead to feed on the flesh of the living...." Guy in crowd: "That's ... terrible. That's blasphemous!" Other guy in crowd: "Yes, I know. I guess we'll have to develop a sense of humor." Guy in crowd: "*Sigh*". -- Les Cargill >> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 > From "The Family Guy" ( and from memory): > ( context : a Christmas pageant that has gone somehow, > horribly, horribly wrong ) > Peter: "Lights, please." > Peter: "We all know that Christmas is the time of year when the > ghost of Jesus rises from the dead to feed on the flesh of the living...." > Guy in crowd: "That's ... terrible. That's blasphemous!" > Other guy in crowd: "Yes, I know. I guess we'll have to develop > a sense of humor." > Guy in crowd: "*Sigh*". Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian riots after Kanye West's blasphemous Rolling Stone cover was reproduced by every major news outlet? --Ty >>>http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > --Ty My comment was on the subject of blasphemy in general . It's a weak concept. I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her. The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior of any stripe. Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again, in the sense people meant "the South will rise again" after the Civil War. (Well, any religion except Bokononism. I think they just write calypsos.) -- Les Cargill >> Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and >> the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian >> riots after Kanye West's blasphemous Rolling Stone cover was reproduced >> by every major news outlet? > My comment was on the subject of blasphemy in general . It's a > weak concept. Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider blasphemous? > I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old girl > as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her. Or stone her. Or gang rape her. > The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part > begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by > mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior > of any stripe. Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."? Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that Nazism is "peaceful". But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously." You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis. But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are really peaceful." You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, then dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous ideology. Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam? As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors. So these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the commandments of the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really means a "spiritual struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where the word meant "make war on the infidels". Four factors aggravate this issue -- 1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent in the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed was both a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes no "separation of church and state". 2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be *perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as apostates. 3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant. It has no ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally intolerant. This leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians for (for instance) for demeaning women, while remaining silent about infinitely worse practices in Islam. It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that, by any rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims get a handwave from liberals. 4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves to the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful sense of the word. Muslims are exhorted to slaughter/enslave nonbelievers. Everywhere we look, it seems that members of the Religion of Peace are slaughtering innocent people in the name of their religion. And while it is certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim majority, I see no evidence of them. All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter infidels, and all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they* think that they are in a holy war. Anyhow, this willful blindness to the reality of Islam has led to the situation we're facing now. And while there are a few brave liberals who have come to their senses, there seem to be far more who are willing to give up yet another core liberal value to appease them. And why not? Liberals have abandoned women's rights, gay rights, religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human rights when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value? > Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again, > in the sense people meant "the South > will rise again" after the Civil War. My grievance is with those who pervert the numerous commands to slaughter infidels into commands to slaughter infidels. It is also with hypocritical western lefties who are willing to abandon all those values that they sanctimoniously lecture us on -- women's rights, democracy, free speech, secular governance, gay rights, etc. The irony is that these lefties would be among the first to be murdered under Islamic law. As a Christian, I'd only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are disproportionately represented among liberals) would be murdered. So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this murderous ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are some of the same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised? --Ty >>>Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and >>>the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider > blasphemous? I didn't say it was. Apparently, Christianity and Islam are out of phase- Torquemada would have happily put any blasphemers (or witches) to the torch at the point of maximum cosmopolitanism within Islam. There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore . >>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old girl >>as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her. > > Or stone her. Or gang rape her. But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature: http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498 People don't do whiteboard exercises, then act on them in cases like this. The rationalization comes after the action. >>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part >>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to > rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."? Nazism is slightly different because it pretended to scientific inevitibility. But we do have a norm that people are able to extend their arm so long as it doesn't hit the other guy's nose. And we're not about to give up pluralism. > Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains > explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that Nazism > is "peaceful". I honestly don't know enough about Nazism to say if genocide is essential to it. It's a racial supremacist doctrine, so it may well be essential. Its practitioners were so incredibly incompetent it's hard to keep the chicken from the egg. Western cultures *in general* did so many so-similar things, that we can safely say that Nazism was much harder at the time to identify as Bad than you or I can comfortably say. It was just Very Bad Science. But boy, a lot of people bought it. There are Nazis still. > But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent > commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously." > > You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis. I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes. They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about stupidity, which is a *much* more reliable explanation. > But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are > really peaceful." But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful. > You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, then > dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous ideology. > > Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam? Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First, you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a very good rule. > As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his > followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors. That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified. Several mullahs and historians have explained that there were phases to the nascent establishment of Islam - first, it was largely apolitical. When it met political opposition, Mohammed then reacted. No doubt power corrupts, too... As with any religious text, dependent on which phase is under scrutiny, the same *words* can mean different things. Keeps the clerics in robes, I suppose. The moderns of Islam, like the moderns of Christianity, simply make these things parabolic, or otherwise abstract them. It was the height of Churchill's hubris to "attack the Turk" in WWI, in Gallipoli, and some of that hubris was a sort of Crusades-resonant bluster. > So > these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the commandments of > the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really means a "spiritual > struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where the word meant "make > war on the infidels". Unfortunately, it's a very abstract "war". There is, as I see it ( and my understanding is quite incomplete ) a sort of "clear and present danger" standard. The mainline "jihad" just means continued espousement of Islamic ideals. > Four factors aggravate this issue -- > > 1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent in > the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed was both > a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes no > "separation of church and state". Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard in many cases, especially WRT to commerce and usury. I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real answer. But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle, and yet here we are. > 2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be > *perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will be > arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* perfect for > today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as apostates. That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which is the root of all apocolysm. But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who have no real problem bridging this gap. > 3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it > conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant. Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols. > It has no > ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally intolerant. This > leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians for (for instance) > for demeaning women, while remaining silent about infinitely worse practices > in Islam. All traditions have hypocrites. > It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that, > by any rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious > intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims get a > handwave from liberals. That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most Oedipal thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist thing. > 4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves to > the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful sense [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim majority, I see no > evidence of them. Try Detroit. Hell, try Beruit, prior to what, 1973? > All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter > infidels, and all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they* [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human rights > when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value? That's fine. It does not, however, address your real question. >>Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again, >>in the sense people meant "the South [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are disproportionately > represented among liberals) would be murdered. It could be that they simply understand that these are, after all, sovereign nations. And they're saving their breath. I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of every Muslim soul. We haven't even seen an implication that some of your fierier comments even have substance. What we have seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living selling their children into becoming walking IEDs. These are not credible people, and theirs is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. But they don't live in a nice suburb of Detroit, and lead productive and successful lives. You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the pattern of terrorism. > So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this murderous > ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are some of the > same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised? It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior to Solzhenitsyn. > --Ty -- Les Cargill >> Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider >> blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider >> blasphemous? > I didn't say it was. Apparently, Christianity and Islam > are out of phase- Torquemada would have happily put any > blasphemers (or witches) to the torch at the point of > maximum cosmopolitanism within Islam. Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition managed to only murder about 4000 people in its 350 years of existence. The members of the Religion of Peace (tm), in the name of their religion, committed at least 1237 terrorist attacks in 2005 alone, killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This does not include genocide commited by Muslims in places like Darfur, where they slew hundreds of thousands of infidels and displaced millions more. > There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore . <shrug> 11 per year vs 7090 per year? I think that you are struggling to somehow equate Muslim violence with *anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely violent these days. >>>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old >>>girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her. >> Or stone her. Or gang rape her. > But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature: > http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498 Are you actually suggesting that expulsion from school is in any way comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for women in the Religion of Peace)? >>>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part >>>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by >>>mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior >>>of any stripe. >> Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however >> violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally >> unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to >> rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."? > Nazism is slightly different because it pretended to scientific > inevitibility. But we do have a norm that people are able to > extend their arm so long as it doesn't hit the other guy's nose. Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability. To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism. >> Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains >> explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that >> Nazism is "peaceful". > I honestly don't know enough about Nazism to say if > genocide is essential to it. It's a racial > supremacist doctrine, so it may well be essential. > Its practitioners were so incredibly incompetent it's > hard to keep the chicken from the egg. > Western cultures *in general* did so many so-similar things, > that we can safely say that Nazism was much harder at the time > to identify as Bad than you or I can comfortably say. It was > just Very Bad Science. But boy, a lot of people bought it. There > are Nazis still. <shrug> >> But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent >> commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously." >> You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis. > I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes. > They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about > stupidity, which is a *much* more reliable explanation. >> But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are >> really peaceful." > But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful. Uh...see my point? If you're gonna excuse Islam because you believe that some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white supremacy and other vile ideologies. I am pretty sure that most members of the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful -- are you prepared to defend the KKK against criticism merely because of that? You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder why? >> You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, >> then dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous >> ideology. >> Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam? > Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First, > you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist > tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can > show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a > very good rule. Your logic fails. First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea should be criticized. Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against all kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers, etc. Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are the Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands to slaughter infidels. Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a generalization. The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that some KKK members didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both groups follow murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain from all criticism of them as well? >> As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his >> followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors. > That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified. It is "in context". And I am perplexed at your sudden reticence to question your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less circumspect if we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims. Anyhow, the words of the Prophet are clear. As is the *history* of Islam. Some examples Islam's "peacefulness" from the Koran and Hadiths: Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. Surah 2:216 - Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. Surah 4:74 - Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. Surah 5:33 - Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter... Hadith 1:25 - Allah's apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and his Apostle." The questioner then asked, "What is the next?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause." Some examples of Islam's celebrated religious tolerance: Surah 2:65 - And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! [This is the source of the numerous tolerant Muslim depictions of Jews and Christians as apes...] Surah 2:96 And thou wilt find [the Jews are] the greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. Surah 4:89 - So choose not friends from [the infidels] till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them... [So much for being free to choose one's faith] Surah 5:13 - And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. Surah 9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Surah 9:29 Fight against [unbelievers] until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. Some examples of Islam's high regard for women: Surah 4:11 - Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. Surah 4:15 - As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). Surah 4:34 - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Surah 4:98 - Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way. Surah 24:6 - As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; Surah 33:59 - O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. Surah 64:14 - O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them. Some examples of the Koran's regard for human rights: Surah 5:38 - As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. Surah 5:45 - And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. [None of that "love your enemies" nonsense for Muslims...] This kind of lurid gibberish goes on and on and on -- and different translations say the same things. It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic law is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia, misogyny, amputation and capital punishment, etc. In those nations, non-Muslims live are legally treated as second class citizens. Indeed, every self-identified Muslim nation lacks all those values that lefties claim to hold dear. And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent. > Several mullahs and historians have explained that there were phases to > the nascent establishment of Islam - first, it was > largely apolitical. When it met political opposition, Mohammed > then reacted. No doubt power corrupts, too... It is relevant to note that Muslims are explicitely told to lie to infidels when it benefits Muslims. > As with any religious text, dependent on which phase is under scrutiny, > the same *words* can mean different things. Keeps > the clerics in robes, I suppose. I think that you are over-complicating the issue in an attempt to avoid criticizing a violent and intolerant faith. The issue is quite simple -- 1. The plain words of the Prophet command Muslims to slaughter infidels, enslave the survivors, treat women as property, etc. 2. Islamic theology holds that the Prophet and his words are perfect for ALL TIME. Thus, those who try to alter the Prophet's words are apostates (and get the death sentence). In the meantime, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And lefties hypocritically say nothing. >> So these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the >> commandments of the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really >> means a "spiritual struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where >> the word meant "make war on the infidels". > Unfortunately, it's a very abstract "war". There is, as I see it ( and my > understanding is quite incomplete ) a sort of "clear and present danger" > standard. The mainline "jihad" just means > continued espousement of Islamic ideals. You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years of Muslim history. Why? >> Four factors aggravate this issue -- >> 1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent >> in the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed >> was both a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes >> no "separation of church and state". > Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard > in many cases, You are mistaken, but I'd like to know where you got this from? > especially WRT to commerce and usury. Irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam is a violent religion that is incompatible with Western liberal democracy. > I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real answer. > But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle, > and yet here we are. This is a common mistake made by lefty Islam apologists. The problem is that the two faith are profoundly different in their conceptions of secular authority and tolerance. Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not. Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told Muslims to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors. So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the Prophet. Christ never ordered his followers to murder those who convert from Christianity. The Prophet explicitly commanded that convert from Islam be murdered (along with the person who converted them). Surely you'd concede that there's a profound difference in culpability where one one kills in violation of the tenets of his faith and where one kills in obedience to the tenets of his faith? Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists have violated their ideology and killed? >> 2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be >> *perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will >> be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* >> perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as >> apostates. > That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the > apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which > is the root of all apocolysm. Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today. > But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who > have no real problem bridging this gap. Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of Muslim thought? I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have been murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use their real name in their books. Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you really willing to take that step? >> 3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it >> conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant. > Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols. Weakness, regardless of lineage. When faced with a clearly violent, misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites. >> It has no ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally >> intolerant. This leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians >> for (for instance) for demeaning women, while remaining silent about >> infinitely worse practices in Islam. > All traditions have hypocrites. How does this excuse lefties who self-righteously lecture Christians for being intolerant or treating women unequally, then willfully refuse to lecture Muslims for infinitely worse practices? Why did lefties waste thousands of pages of newsprint sanctimoniously condemning Christians for abortion clinic bombers (7 killed in 30 years), while remaining silent about (or worse, actually defending) Muslims whose co-religionists slaughter thousands of people each year in the name of Islam? What could possibly excuse such reprehensible hypocrisy? Why should we take these idiots (or liars) seriously about *anything*? >> It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that, by any >> rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious >> intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims >> get a handwave from liberals. > That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most Oedipal > thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist > thing. So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to apply their principles evenly? >> 4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves >> to the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And while it is certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim >> majority, I see no evidence of them. > Try Detroit. Hell, try Beruit, prior to what, 1973? Self-identified Muslims carried out at least 1237 terrorist attacks in 2005, killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This does not include the RoP's genocidal slaughter in places like Darfur, where peaceful Muslims slaughtered several hundred thousand infidels and displaced millions more. Why are lefties so unconcerned about this carnage? >> All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter infidels, and >> all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they* think that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human >> rights when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value? > That's fine. It does not, however, address your real question. No, but it does make the point that, despite their self-righteous moralizing, lefties are perfectly willing to abandon all those values that they lecture others about. >>>Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again, >>>in the sense people meant "the South >>>will rise again" after the Civil War. >> My grievance is with those who pervert the numerous commands to slaughter >> infidels into commands to slaughter infidels. It is also with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Christian, I'd only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are >> disproportionately represented among liberals) would be murdered. > It could be that they simply understand that these are, after > all, sovereign nations. And they're saving their breath. If so then, lefties are even more disgusting and hypocritical than I thought. Because they certainly don't restrain themselves from criticizing non-Muslim sovereign nations. Of course, I suspect that cowardice is a big part of the problem. No danger criticizing Western nations. But you might get hurt criticizing Muslims. Fair enough. But if lefties are as cowardly as this, then I wish they'd stop pretending to be so "courageous". > I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of > every Muslim soul. Well, it would solve the problem. However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real enthusiastic about "final solutions". In any case, you present a false dilemma. There are a variety of options besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim depravity or doing to them what they'd do to us if given the chance. We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that they hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting hypocrites. The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a catastophic clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders (correctly) interpret this as weakness and are emboldened. And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things -- the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in history. Not a good equation for the Muslims. If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash could be averted. Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human life -- are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they have so much sympathy for. > We haven't even seen an implication that > some of your fierier comments even have substance. You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how vile. When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up. You are simply being intellectually dishonest. That's your right, of course, but perhaps you should bear your dishonesty in mind when you smugly assume the moral and intellectual high ground. > What we have > seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living > selling their children into becoming walking IEDs. Amazing. Lefties use isolated examples of abortion clinic bombings (7 dead in 30 years) to condemn Christianity. They get the vapors whenever some idiot like Pat Robertson says anything remotely intolerant. These are sufficient in the minds of liberals to conclusively convict Christianity of intolerance, violence, bigotry, etc. But for some reason, these very same self-righteous lefties steadfastly maintain that far more extensive examples of Muslim violence, intolerance, misogyny, etc., are merely the act of a few fanatics. This despite Muhammed's numerous commandments to slaughter unbelievers, the many thousands of infidels murdered by Muslims each year, the hatred spewed from mosques all over the country, etc. *This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties??? > You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the > pattern of terrorism. A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups: 3181 from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims in 2005 alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels killed by Muslims in places like Darfur. So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% of people killed in terrorist incidents? >> So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this >> murderous ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are >> some of the same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised? > It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime > ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long > time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior > to Solzhenitsyn. Not really. Although I would admit that it would have been easier if liberal journalists hadn't knowingly covered for the Soviets. In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties does not bear even the most cursory scrutiny. --Ty >>>Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider >>>blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > *anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely violent > these days. Not... particularly. It's just human violence that happens to be Muslim. I don't buy that the Muslim part is the primary cause here. This *is* a history group, and we see the same syndromes with different players, in repeating patterns. >>>>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old >>>>girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for > women in the Religion of Peace)? I am saying that it's a matter of degree. Significant degree, but our tradition has its own problems as well. >>>>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part >>>>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and > Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability. They *can*, but they do not *necessarily*. > To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that > any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse > cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism. I thought I stated that I did not know enough of Naziism's internal architecture to say one way or the other. You are saying that "ideas inevitably imply action", and I am pointing up counterexamples. <snip> >>I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes. >>They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white > supremacy and other vile ideologies. *I* don't have to excuse them - they are , under the present state of rule of law, perfectly legal ideologies. It is only when a criminal *act* occurs that , well, we can begin to think significantly askance of them. You cannot have an open and pluralist society, except when you arbitrarily don't choose to. It's either universal or it's not. > I am pretty sure that most members of > the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful -- are you prepared to defend the KKK against > criticism merely because of that? > > You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder why? My motiviation is simply to show that it's not a simple, black-and-white "truthiness" thing. I don't beleive for one minute that a "state of war" exists categorically between all Islamics and all non-Islamics. And here we have you pulling the ol' false dichotomy: "if'n ya ain't with us, yer again' us". Isn't that a hallmark of Fundamentalism? >>>You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, >>>then dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea should > be criticized. Of course it doesn't. > Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore > crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against all > kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers, etc. > Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are the > Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands to > slaughter infidels. I don't particularly ignore them. If they're dangerous people, they're subject to whatever law applies to that. > Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a generalization. > The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that some KKK members [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less circumspect if > we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims. Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see how anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't *really* understand it. > Anyhow, the words of the Prophet are clear. As is the *history* of Islam. > Some examples Islam's "peacefulness" from the Koran and Hadiths: > > Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out > of the places whence they drove you out, "whence they drove you out". Clearly a counteroffensive situation. > for persecution is worse than > slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know > not. Typical Koranic word salad. Can't make hide nor hair of it. <snip> > This kind of lurid gibberish goes on and on and on -- and different > translations say the same things. Right. > It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic law > is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia, misogyny, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent. The Lefties are constrained by the belief in pluralism and national self-determination. <snip> > I think that you are over-complicating the issue in an attempt to avoid > criticizing a violent and intolerant faith. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And lefties > hypocritically say nothing. Just to be clear, I think that whatever steps are necesary to gently convince deep Fundamentalists of any stripe that these things are Wrong are justified to fix this sort of thing. But that's a very unsatisfying process. >>>So these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the >>>commandments of the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years of > Muslim history. Why? Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have been identified to me as qualified to do so. <snip> >>Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard >>in many cases, > > You are mistaken, but I'd like to know where you got this from? Mainly "The Prize", the parts dealing with the early Saudi field explorations. Also, the Ottoman system was ostensibly Islamic, but had a sort of commonlaw, and was quite modern in ways. Read also about the Iberian Islamic "occupation" - it was quite cosmopolitan. There was the Infidel tax, but other than that, it wasn't particularly onerous. Jordan's kind of an interesting mix of things: http://www.law.emory.edu/IFL/legal/jordan.htm >>especially WRT to commerce and usury. > > Irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam is a violent religion that is > incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Relevant to the prominence of Sharia. "It depends" is the answer. >>I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real answer. >>But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not. No, I understand that. No mistake here. IMO. Big mistake there. on the part of Islam. > Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told Muslims > to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors. As I stated, that was only in the case pertaining to a war between early Moslems and people around Medina/Mecca etcetera. It got extended later, but the interpretation I'd been given states clearly that this is the case. > So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed > Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the Prophet. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists have > violated their ideology and killed? I also beleive the Bible states clearly "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". You can divine any meaning you want from either text. If Islam is so bloody-sword violent, why are the actual recorded instances of violence relatively rare? It just doesn't explain anything. >>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be >>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today. It's *hardly* irrelevant. That's the point; Islam is an Apocolyptic faith. This is exactly why it does what it does. >>But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who >>have no real problem bridging this gap. > > Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of Muslim > thought? Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime, why does it happen so often? > I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have > been murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use > their real name in their books. > > Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you > really willing to take that step? I won't expiate either of the KKK nor Naziism, nor the more bloodyminded parts of Islam. But absent significant stimulus, I won't outright declare war on 'em either. Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time, and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to even dicuss it's overturn. >>>3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it >>>conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the > multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites. Hardly. They just aren't as quick to discard pluralism. <snip> >>That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most Oedipal >>thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist >>thing. > > So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to apply > their principles evenly? Nope. Just addicted to one principle in particular - our old friend, pluralism. <snip> >>I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of >>every Muslim soul. > > Well, it would solve the problem. No, it wouldn't. > However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real > enthusiastic about "final solutions". > > In any case, you present a false dilemma. To an extent. > There are a variety of options > besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim depravity or doing to them what they'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders (correctly) > interpret this as weakness and are emboldened. Emboldened to do... what, exactly? I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists. Tactically, strategically, they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh. > And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more > Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things -- > the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and > modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in > history. Not a good equation for the Muslims. No, not at all. Our weakness, if it is one, is that our threshold of wrath is quite high. But once set to motion, we tend to be quite .. thorough. > If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash could > be averted. I rather doubt that. The Western pluralist tradition leaves us with a blind spot. NOthing is perfect. > Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human life -- > are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they have so > much sympathy for. It is positively Orwellian. I know. >>We haven't even seen an implication that >>some of your fierier comments even have substance. > > You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your > desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre > twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how vile. Actually, that's pretty much true. I don't hold any much great regard for Islam. But I hold to the tradition of leaving it to itself. I would almost exactly do that - I would defend people's right to beleive any perverse thing whatsoever, *until they act to violate the rights of others*, and then I'd act. That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime". > When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much > persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up. For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business. Now *that* is subject to change in a moment. But all I can see is what I can see... the evidence that this is some how a Big War brewing just isn't there. I think that the real troublemakers are very short on time. A reasonably well organized L.A. crack dealer gang could probably take 'em out in a year or so, given free reign. Look, you had generations of "people" like arafat who made a living by coaching others to destroy themselves so he could be some sort of international superstar. That's positively as evil as it gets. But it's not *new*. I refuse to allow the terorist tactics to skew my native skepticism about them. They "ain't all that", as the kidz say. And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite. > You are > simply being intellectually dishonest. That's your right, of course, but > perhaps you should bear your dishonesty in mind when you smugly assume the > moral and intellectual high ground. I really *don't* intend to do that. Really. I just understand what I understand. We can't simply *eradicate* Islam, and when all the hooha is past, we'll have to deal with it . >>What we have >>seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > *This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties??? This is an example of me being critical of the Muslim practice of blessing a son or two to become a walking bomb. Nobody can possibly explain that. It's just Wrong. >>You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the >>pattern of terrorism. > > A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the Religion > of Peace (tm). Eh, it was concentrated among the Jacobites, then a dozen other "sects". It's as old as the Kali-worshipping Thugges. > Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups: 3181 > from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims in 2005 > alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels killed by > Muslims in places like Darfur. That's true. > So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% of > people killed in terrorist incidents? Sorry; I wasn't keeping score. Some of that is just ... technology. Really. >>>So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this >>>murderous ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties does > not bear even the most cursory scrutiny. It's all about the pluralism. Takes a lot of convincing to get people to give up on it. > --Ty -- Les Cargill >> Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition managed to only murder about 4000 >> people in its 350 years of existence. The members of the Religion of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> where they slew hundreds of thousands of infidels and displaced millions >> more. >>>There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore . >> 11 per year vs 7090 per year? >> I think that you are struggling to somehow equate Muslim violence with >> *anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely >> violent these days. > Not... particularly. It's just human violence that > happens to be Muslim. So it's mere coincidence that 95% of the death from terrorist attacks are caused by self-identified Muslim terrorists? > I don't buy that the Muslim part is the primary > cause here. This *is* a history group, and we see > the same syndromes with different players, in > repeating patterns. So...when a religion commands its followers to slaughter non-believers, and those followers do so, you see no reason to consider that the religion is violent? >>>But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature: >>>http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498 >> Are you actually suggesting that expulsion from school is in any way >> comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for >> women in the Religion of Peace)? > I am saying that it's a matter of degree. Significant degree, but our > tradition has its own problems as well. But surely you'd agree that the matter of degree is critical. Or do you equate the US with Nazi Germany merely because some Jews in the US have been attacked because of their religion? >> Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and >> Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability. > They *can*, but they do not *necessarily*. An irrelevant distinction either way. >> To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that >> any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse >> cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism. > I thought I stated that I did not know enough of Naziism's internal > architecture to say one way or the other. So you have never criticised the Nazis? Have you defended them from others because "many Nazis were peaceful"? > You are saying that "ideas inevitably imply action", and I am > pointing up counterexamples. I am actually questioning your apparent argument that as long as some members of an ideology are peaceful, then we shouldn't criticize that ideology. Seems to me that your "logic" would render it impossible to criticize *any* ideology, however vile. I am also skeptical that you actually apply this reasoning consistently. You have thus far been unwilling to explain these problems. >>>But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful. >> Uh...see my point? If you're gonna excuse Islam because you believe that >> some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white >> supremacy and other vile ideologies. > *I* don't have to excuse them - they are , under the present state > of rule of law, perfectly legal ideologies. It is only when > a criminal *act* occurs that , well, we can begin to think > significantly askance of them. Actually, your statement is incorrect. Many European governments have the power to criminalize ideologies that they find objectionable. Indeed, the Nazi party is illegal in much of Western Europe. You'll also note that Britain just convicted that lunatic Muslim cleric under its hate speech laws. His crime was preaching hatred of infidels. His defense was that he was merely reading from the Koran. Unfortunately for him, that's not a defense under British law. Now I don't like hate speech laws at all, but at least the Brits are trying to apply them consistently. > You cannot have an open and pluralist society, except when you arbitrarily > don't choose to. It's either universal or it's > not. Well, I am a free speech absolutist, so I'd agree with you. But I strongly disagree with your apparent contention that free speech requires that we refrain from criticising any ideology. The philosophical theory of free speech assumes frank and blunt criticism of ideas. For some reason, you seem to want to eschew that...at least in the case of Islam. >> I am pretty sure that most members of the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful -- >> are you prepared to defend the KKK against criticism merely because of >> that? >> You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder >> why? > My motiviation is simply to show that it's not a simple, black-and-white > "truthiness" thing. I don't beleive for > one minute that a "state of war" exists categorically > between all Islamics and all non-Islamics. <shrug> So what? A "state of war" didn't categorically exist between all Fascists and the Allies in WWII. Is that mere fact sufficient to preclude any criticism of Fascism? > And here we have you pulling the ol' false dichotomy: "if'n > ya ain't with us, yer again' us". So would you condemn a black person for considering the KKK to be "again' him", merely because some KKK members don't kill blacks? Hmmn? > Isn't that a hallmark of Fundamentalism? Ask the Muslims. *They* are the ones whose religion commands them to murder or enslave everyone who isn't a Muslim. And yes, I tend to consider as my enemies those members of ideologies that want to kill me. And I'm not impressed with folks who attempt to somehow persuade me that I am wrong to believe what my enemies say about their own intentions. >>>>Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam? >>>Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First, >>>you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist >>>tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can >>>show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a >>>very good rule. >> Your logic fails. >> First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea >> should be criticized. > Of course it doesn't. So we agree that your first point is invalid. >> Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore >> crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against >> all kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers, >> etc. Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are >> the Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands >> to slaughter infidels. > I don't particularly ignore them. If they're dangerous people, > they're subject to whatever law applies to that. So we agree that your second point is invalid as well. >> Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a >> generalization. The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that >> some KKK members didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both >> groups follow murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain >> from all criticism of them as well? No answer? This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims with an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every other vile ideology in human history. I think you should address this point. >>>That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified. >> It is "in context". And I am perplexed at your sudden reticence to >> question your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less >> circumspect if we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims. > Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see how > anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't > *really* understand it. Oh, I think you understand it. I think you just don't like what it says. >> It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic >> law is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia, >> misogyny, amputation and capital punishment, etc. In those nations, >> non-Muslims live are legally treated as second class citizens. Indeed, >> every self-identified Muslim nation lacks all those values that lefties >> claim to hold dear. >> And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent. > The Lefties are constrained by the belief in pluralism and > national self-determination. Even if true -- which I dispute -- I still don't see that mitigates their hypocrisy. >> Thus, those who try to alter the Prophet's words are apostates (and get >> the death sentence). In the meantime, members of the Religion of Peace >> (tm) are gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And >> lefties hypocritically say nothing. > Just to be clear, I think that whatever steps are necesary to > gently convince deep Fundamentalists of any stripe that these > things are Wrong are justified to fix this sort of thing. But that's a > very unsatisfying process. Well, when you find a way to "gently" convice Muslim suicide bombers to change their ways, let me know. >> You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years >> of Muslim history. Why? > Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have > been identified to me as qualified to do so. You are *still* willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years of Muslim history. Why? >> This is a common mistake made by lefty Islam apologists. The problem is >> that the two faith are profoundly different in their conceptions of >> secular authority and tolerance. >> Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not. > No, I understand that. No mistake here. IMO. Big mistake there. > on the part of Islam. So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up beheaded in Muslim nations for being apostates. >> Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told >> Muslims to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors. > As I stated, that was only in the case pertaining to a war > between early Moslems and people around Medina/Mecca etcetera. Your point is irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam and Christianity are similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become civilized like the Christians did. >> So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed >> Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the >> Prophet. >> Christ never ordered his followers to murder those who convert from >> Christianity. The Prophet explicitly commanded that convert from Islam be >> murdered (along with the person who converted them). >> Surely you'd concede that there's a profound difference in culpability >> where one one kills in violation of the tenets of his faith and where one >> kills in obedience to the tenets of his faith? >> Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists >> have violated their ideology and killed? > I also beleive the Bible states clearly "thou shalt not suffer a > witch to live". You can divine any meaning you want from either > text. Christ made no such statement. And Christ's words ("love your enemy", "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you") take precedence over the Old Testament. That's why the New Testament is "New"...it replaced the old covenants. There is nothing comparable in Islam. So again, the analogy of the two religions fails. > If Islam is so bloody-sword violent, why are the actual recorded > instances of violence relatively rare? <blink> Did you actually type that? Islam was spread by *military* conquest. The only significant exception is Indonesia, and that's only because the Muslim armies couldn't get there. And all over the world today, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are slaughtering many thousands of infidels in the name of Allah. Indeed, the source of Muslim rage these days is that their military conquests were finally halted and turned back by the infidels. If you are going to defend Islam, I suggest you familiarize yourself with its (bloody) history. You'll be surprised, I expect. >>>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be >>>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam >>>>will be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* >>>>perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as >>>>apostates. >>>That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the >>>apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which >>>is the root of all apocolysm. >> >> Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today. > It's *hardly* irrelevant. That's the point; Islam is an Apocolyptic > faith. This is exactly why it does what it does. I don't *care* why it does what it does. It is a threat to my civilization and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the same way, I don't care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK believe what they do. If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand there trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real impressed with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while agonizong over *why* the dog wants to bite me. >> Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of >> Muslim thought? > Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we > see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime, > why does it happen so often? Actually, Muslims are told to infiltrate infidel countries so that they can lay the groundwork for conquest, so it isn't a crime. I think Muslims come to the infidel West for the same reason most third world folks come to the West -- things are *far* better in the land of the infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile to Western civilization. >> I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have been >> murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use >> their real name in their books. >> Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you >> really willing to take that step? > I won't expiate either of the KKK nor Naziism, nor the more > bloodyminded parts of Islam. Ah, so now it's only "part" of Islam that's bloodyminded. Progress, of a sort. > But absent significant stimulus, I won't outright > declare war on 'em either. You don't have to. They've declared war on you. At this point, the issue is whether you will decide to acknowledge this fact. > Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time, > and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to > even dicuss it's overturn. You are impaled on the same multicultural delimma that has so many lefties confounded. A categorical committment to "pluralism" or "tolerance" sounds good on paper. But it leaves one question unanswered -- does a categorical committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of intolerance? Myself, I am committed to Western Civilization, for the simple reason that it has resulted in far greater happiness, health and prosperity than any competing civilization. Part of that is a committment to free speech, religious tolerance, etc. But only to the extent that these values do not seriously jeopardize Western Civilization. So while I am content allowing Muslims to practice their faith here, I will not allow misguided notions of religious tolerance to blind me to the dangers of their faith. Same with the Nazis...they have a legal right to exist in the US, but I have an affirmative obligation to criticize their murderous ideology. >>>Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols. >> Weakness, regardless of lineage. When faced with a clearly violent, >> misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the >> multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites. > Hardly. They just aren't as quick to discard pluralism. Hypocrites. Their purported "committment to pluralism" hasn't stopped them from bitterly condemning other ideologies. Just Islam...and Communism. >> So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to >> apply their principles evenly? > Nope. Just addicted to one principle in particular - our > old friend, pluralism. Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective. They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or Communism. Hypocrites. Or idiots. >>>I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of >>>every Muslim soul. >> Well, it would solve the problem. > No, it wouldn't. Yes it would. No Muslims, no Muslim threat. But as I said, I'm not a big fan of genocide -- unlike the Muslims. >> However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real enthusiastic about "final >> solutions". >> In any case, you present a false dilemma. > To an extent. >> There are a variety of options besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim >> depravity or doing to them what they'd do to us if given the chance. >> We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that >> they hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting >> hypocrites. No answer? >> The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a >> catastophic clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders >> (correctly) interpret this as weakness and are emboldened. > Emboldened to do... what, exactly? Demand (and get) capitulation on core Western rights -- women's rights, free speech, religious tolerance, etc. > I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists. > Tactically, strategically, > they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh. Hence the tragedy of liberal capitulation. Lefties are appeasing and surrendering to the most incompetent ideology in history. >> And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more >> Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things -- >> the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and >> modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in >> history. Not a good equation for the Muslims. > No, not at all. Our weakness, if it is one, is that our > threshold of wrath is quite high. But once set to motion, > we tend to be quite .. thorough. Yes, the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo could enlighten the Muslims...if they'd listen. So could the Chinese, who lost millions of troops in Korea. Or the Vietnamese...whose "victory" was purchased at the cost of over a million dead (vs. about 50,000 US dead). The list goes on and on... >> If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash >> could be averted. > I rather doubt that. The Western pluralist tradition leaves us > with a blind spot. NOthing is perfect. Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I think you are rationalizing hypocrisy. >> Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human >> life -- are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they >> have so much sympathy for. > It is positively Orwellian. I know. >>>We haven't even seen an implication that >>>some of your fierier comments even have substance. >> You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your >> desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre >> twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how >> vile. > Actually, that's pretty much true. I don't hold any much great > regard for Islam. But I hold to the tradition of leaving it to itself. I > would almost exactly do that - I would defend people's > right to beleive any perverse thing whatsoever, *until they > act to violate the rights of others*, and then I'd act. Well, I tend to believe folks when they say they intend to kill me or my family. And I act accordingly. > That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or > persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime". Then we agree. Understand... Muslims are free to believe whatever they want. However, this should not blind us to the fact that we are at war with a religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually necessary to identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him. >> When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much >> persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up. > For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just > don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving > bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops > on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business. Oh I agree that the threat to the US is minimal. I am not so sure about the threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the order of the day. I am particularly troubled by the willingness of many lefties to capitulate on free speech. They seem blissfully unaware that free speech is the key right...once they lose that, the game is over. However, the willingness of lefties to hypocritically ignore what Islam is makes things infinitely more dangerous. Eventually, some Muslim terrorist will get a nuke. When Paris goes up in a fireball, my predicted war between Islam and the West will become obvious to all. > And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more > careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite. My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless reserves of patience and good cheer. :-) >>>What we have >>>seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living >>>selling their children into becoming walking IEDs. >> Amazing. Lefties use isolated examples of abortion clinic bombings (7 >> dead in 30 years) to condemn Christianity. They get the vapors whenever >> some idiot like Pat Robertson says anything remotely intolerant. These >> are sufficient in the minds of liberals to conclusively convict >> Christianity of intolerance, violence, bigotry, etc. >> But for some reason, these very same self-righteous lefties steadfastly >> maintain that far more extensive examples of Muslim violence, >> intolerance, misogyny, etc., are merely the act of a few fanatics. This >> despite Muhammed's numerous commandments to slaughter unbelievers, the >> many thousands of infidels murdered by Muslims each year, the hatred >> spewed from mosques all over the country, etc. >> *This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties??? > This is an example of me being critical of the Muslim practice of > blessing a son or two to become a walking bomb. Nobody can > possibly explain that. It's just Wrong. Agreed. But there's far more Wrong -- or at least dangerous -- about Islam than that. >>>You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the >>>pattern of terrorism. >> A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the >> Religion of Peace (tm). > Eh, it was concentrated among the Jacobites, then a dozen other "sects". > It's as old as the Kali-worshipping Thugges. >> Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups: >> 3181 from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims >> in 2005 alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels >> killed by Muslims in places like Darfur. > That's true. >> So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% >> of people killed in terrorist incidents? > Sorry; I wasn't keeping score. Some of that is just ... technology. > Really. 95%? >>>It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime >>>ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long >>>time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior >>>to Solzhenitsyn. >> Not really. Although I would admit that it would have been easier if >> liberal journalists hadn't knowingly covered for the Soviets. >> In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties >> does not bear even the most cursory scrutiny. > It's all about the pluralism. Takes a lot of convincing to get people to > give up on it. Except that these people have proven perfectly willing to give it up in other contexts -- they seem to worry little about offending Christians or Jews for instance. I dunno...sounds like hypocrisy to me. --Ty <snip> >>>Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a >>>generalization. The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every other vile > ideology in human history. I think you should address this point. Fine. I don't know *how* we got this far astray, but I wasn't saying that Islam should be immune to criticism. I just don't think we can do much else. I am also saying that I dont' think Islam is *inherently* Evil(tm), since there appear to be not-evil interpretations of it. <snip> >>Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see how >>anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't >>*really* understand it. > > Oh, I think you understand it. I think you just don't like what it says. I think it's largely word salad. Might be a translation thing; dunno. <snip> <snip> >>Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have >>been identified to me as qualified to do so. > > You are *still* willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 > years of Muslim history. Why? Because not all the history is that bloody. I have seen things in which people who are supposed to know these things claim that those words do not have those literal meanings. <snip> > So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to > suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they > going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up beheaded > in Muslim nations for being apostates. You got me. Christianity transformed many times over. Perhaps that's what's afoot now in Islam. >>>Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told >>>Muslims to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become civilized > like the Christians did. They'll either be civilized or they'll be irrlevant. >>>So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed >>>Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Islam was spread by *military* conquest. Christianity simply occupied the space of a previously established empire. So? > The only significant exception is > Indonesia, and that's only because the Muslim armies couldn't get there. And [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you are going to defend Islam, I suggest you familiarize yourself with > its (bloody) history. You'll be surprised, I expect. I am familiar with it. The actual war you refer to wasn't too much of the span of 1400 years. It's not the *breadth* of blood, but the sharp *depth* of it. Of course, in 1400 years, there's a great many variations on the Islamic theme. Saladin in particular appears to have been vicious in battle, but relatively humane in peace, either indefeat or in victory. That's hard to dislike *too* intensely. Of course, he was propagandized as Richard I's mighty enemy, so... >>>>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be >>>>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the same way, I don't > care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK believe what they do. It is most decidedly *not* a significant threat. Not even Egypt at its most organized stood up for more than Six Days. It's been downhil from there. And "why" matters a lot. > If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand there > trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real impressed > with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while agonizong > over *why* the dog wants to bite me. Well, you've vastly overestimated the rabidity of this particular dog. It's most likely been chewing frogs. >>>Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of >>>Muslim thought? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile to > Western civilization. Right. And the harshness of the texts is blunted by prosperity. That's the general pattern. <snip> > You don't have to. They've declared war on you. At this point, the issue is > whether you will decide to acknowledge this fact. How nice for them. I'm utterly unimpressed. I know how terror works. It is the use of the media as a force multiplier, and I don't hold this particular "enemy" in all that high an esteem. The tiniest bit of organized opposition, and a rabble falls apart. >>Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time, >>and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of > intolerance? I agree - it's a headache-generator, but I think we've done reaosnably well with it. No, we must not be tolerant of intolerance. But it is a challlenge. > Myself, I am committed to Western Civilization, for the simple reason that > it has resulted in far greater happiness, health and prosperity than any > competing civilization. Part of that is a committment to free speech, > religious tolerance, etc. But only to the extent that these values do not > seriously jeopardize Western Civilization. If I may, the most serious threat is overestimation of the threat, with a resulting overreaction. I am more afraid of Us, than of Them. > So while I am content allowing > Muslims to practice their faith here, I will not allow misguided notions of > religious tolerance to blind me to the dangers of their faith. Same with the > Nazis...they have a legal right to exist in the US, but I have an > affirmative obligation to criticize their murderous ideology. I think Leon Uris did a fine job of it. And that was before the current levels of radicalization. <snip> > Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective. > They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or Communism. > > Hypocrites. Or idiots. Most people are not up to understanding the limits of tolerance, I think. Some days, I'm not either. Again, I don't think Communism was well understood for a *long* time. Plus, lotta people in the U.S simply bought in to it. Naifs. They were naieve. <snip> >>>We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that >>>they hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting >>>hypocrites. > > No answer? I don't think it is hypocrisy *per se*. It's just lack of skill. Nobody taught 'em how to deal with the idea that tolerance-of-intolerance might not be all that wonderful. It's subtle. >>>The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a >>>catastophic clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Demand (and get) capitulation on core Western rights -- women's rights, free > speech, religious tolerance, etc. Uh, sovereignty? >>I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists. >>Tactically, strategically, >>they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh. > > Hence the tragedy of liberal capitulation. Lefties are appeasing and > surrendering to the most incompetent ideology in history. I don't think that can be overemphasized. Some people undoubtedly mutter "but they're so *committed*...." to themselves. >>>And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more >>>Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things -- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > was purchased at the cost of over a million dead (vs. about 50,000 US dead). > The list goes on and on... "You wouldn't like me if I got angry" - The Incredible Hulk ( which I think was specifically designed with that in mind ). I don't wanna come off as JINGOISTIC! here, but there's a pattern. Once the funding starts... >>>If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash >>>could be averted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I think > you are rationalizing hypocrisy. I recognize it as something more like illiteracy. There but for the grace of $DEITY go I, you know? And I am probably a hypocrite more than I should be. T'aint easy. <snip> > Well, I tend to believe folks when they say they intend to kill me or my > family. And I act accordingly. It's bluster. It's crafted for media consumption. Yup, I'm cynical about it. >>That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or >>persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually necessary to > identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him. It would appear that if we just keep making Semtex, they'll take care of the defeat part for us. That was tasteless. Shame on me. I just hate human sacrifice. >>>When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much >>>persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the order > of the day. Well, there's a recent Frontline. I think the denial phase has passed. What's the Henri Bernard Levy quote - 17 areas of France are really no longer under government control? > I am particularly troubled by the willingness of many lefties to > capitulate on free speech. They seem blissfully unaware that free speech is > the key right...once they lose that, the game is over. Precisely. > However, the willingness of lefties to hypocritically ignore what Islam is > makes things infinitely more dangerous. Eventually, some Muslim terrorist > will get a nuke. When Paris goes up in a fireball, my predicted war between > Islam and the West will become obvious to all. Clear as the nose on your face. But here's the *ugly* part - the Top Guys in the terror business *know* that. And they won't do it. It'd shut the sausage grinder down. >>And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more >>careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite. > > My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless > reserves of patience and good cheer. :-) This is emotional. But I'll be dadgummed if I'm gonna give the terrists :) the chance to spoil my mood. <snip> >>>So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% >>>of people killed in terrorist incidents? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 95%? I honestly don't know. I'll try to dig on that figrue a little more. <snip> > Except that these people have proven perfectly willing to give it up in > other contexts -- they seem to worry little about offending Christians or > Jews for instance. > > I dunno...sounds like hypocrisy to me. Couldn't hear you - I have this giant beam in my eye.... > --Ty -- Les Cargill >> This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims >> with an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every >> other vile ideology in human history. I think you should address this >> point. > Fine. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message