The Aspiring Terrorist
It's so Letters To A Young Poet, except that this "young poet," a Muslim girl named Samina Malik, wrote notes to herself on the back of used sales slips at the Heathrow W.H. Smith bookstore where she worked -- little memos about murder in the name of Islam that she posted on the Internet. Oh yeah, and she did it while enjoying subsidized health care, free education, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the other benefits of being a British citizen.
Are we westerners dim or what? We fork over all these benefits to the people who want us all dead. Or claim to. There are those who mewl that this Samina Malik case is a freedom of speech issue, but that's not what our poetess is actually being sent to jail for. And frankly, while I am a staunch defender of free speech, including a person's right to blather on about how their particular evidence-free belief in god is really cool and everybody else's sucks, etc., etc., I don't see Malik's brand of speech -- inciting violence -- as a right. (Check out the charming bit about how to saw off somebody's head.) Silly girlish stuff, along the lines of some 16-year-old goth girl's diary? Not quite.
Kim Murphy quotes some of this British girl's terrorism-celebrating (or even terrorism-inciting) verse in a piece for the LA Times:
"The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom," Samina Malik, a soft-spoken 23-year-old usually draped in a modest black headscarf, wrote on one receipt. A judge yesterday sentenced Ms. Malik, know as "the Lyrical Terrorist" for her Internet name and her poems celebrating beheadings, to a nine-month suspended sentence and 100 hours of volunteer work. She was convicted for possessing material ranging from a Qaeda manual to a reference work on "mujahedin poisons" and bomb-making instructions, which prosecutors said suggested the British-born woman's linkage to violent extremists."You're 23, of good character 'til now, and from a supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you're in," Judge Peter Beaumont said. At an earlier hearing, the judge had confessed that Ms. Malik remains "a complete enigma to me." The case comes amid a mounting debate in Britain over where to draw the line between terrorism and those who merely applaud it. Radical Muslim clerics have been sentenced to years of imprisonment for calling for the deaths of infidels. In July, three men were jailed for six years each for statements they shouted during an emotional demonstration over a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad, one of which was "Bomb, bomb the U.K."
Ms. Malik was convicted over her terrorism manuals, not her poetry. But it is her verses that have captivated and horrified the public and sparked the row over when radical statements cross the line into inciting terrorism.
"It's not as messy or as hard as some may think," she wrote in her poem "How to Behead." "It's all about the flow of the wrist. Sharpen the knife to its maximum. And before you begin to cut the flesh, tilt the fool's head to its left. Saw the knife back and forth. No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream. But ignore the donkey's ass. And continue to slice back and forth. You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe. But Don't Stop. Continue with all your might."
Ms. Malik sat silent as the judge read out her sentence, twisting a tissue in her clenched fist. At one point, she buried her tearful face in her hands. She has claimed she was seduced by the violent preachings of radical clerics as she began exploring Islam and adopted the Internet moniker "Lyrical Terrorist" because it "sounded cool." Though her writings appeared to revel in violence and condemned the nonbeliever as a "stinking kuffar ape," she never meant any of it, she told the court during her trial. "This doesn't mean I wanted to convert my words into actions," she testified. "This is a meaningless poem, and that is all it ever was. To partake in something and to write about something are two different things."
Here's a much more reasonable, civilized woman on Islam, Gina Khan, 38, who, (via the Times/UK's Mary Ann Sieghart) was born in Birmingham to Pakistani parents, ran away from an arranged marriage, dresses in jeans and dares to speak against the increasing radicalisation of her community. Below, she's interviewed by Ophelia Benson. Khan tells Benson:
Islamic history is important to study and analyse. It wasn't always like this. Islam was frozen in the middle ages: it's time to defrost Islam. The Quran is a magnificent historical record. Even Imams couldn't possibly understand the depth of it. Millions of us read the Quran in Arabic...that doesn't mean we under stand what we read, we are dependent on translations. That's why I call it the biggest con of the century...interpretations and translations imported into this country for 40 years were more to do with Jihadism than with a peaceful Islam that gave equality to women and was plural. There is an American woman, Laleh Bakhtiar, who is a convert and isn't extreme...she still wears jeans - she doesn't wear the hijab as most do, she has interpreted the Quran in English and has had death threats. I'm waiting to read her translation. Jihadists don't want women translating the Quran or women becoming Imams...Yet the Prophet had a woman Imam in his first mosque who preached where men and women weren't segregated.Islamists have almost written Muslim women out of history and their natural rights. I do acknowledge that the Quran has violent edicts, but you have to read the Quran in context and time. To say that what happened in the 7th century must be revived and considered the 'true Islam' is ridiculous to any reasonable thinking human being - that would mean reviving desert Arabic Islam, which is becoming obvious and beginning to look like a cult. Muslims have to revive the spiritual message of the Quran, which is often suppressed by Jihadists. I guess I'll get a lot of hostility, but no one owns Islam. We all can have our own personal relationship with God. I'll do as I damn please. Islamists psychologically suppress us. It never worked on me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a Muslim. I'm against the idea of a revived Calipha...I mean for God's sake, who do these people want as a Caliph, Osama bin Ladin or Omar Bakri??
Benson asks:
It can be hard to reform religious practices and rules, because they are supposed to be 'above' human beings. It's always open to people to tell you 'That's not what Allah says'. Do you get comments like that? If so how do you deal with them?
Khan responds:
Yes all the time; Allah's name is used to put the fear in us and close off debate or logical thinking. I ask Muslims to look within themselves and ask themselves - question their own humanity. What God would want you to behead an apostle or murder a gay or hate Jews? We are all human beings, no one is better than anybody else. The truth is the majority of Muslims like my mother lived through Partition and never wanted to live through it again, but there are signs that Jihadists want to revive Partition again. Indians and Sikhs understand this supremacy better.The reason it is diificult to change is because Islamists have invaded the public domain and media beneath the skin of the nation for nearly 40 years; we have been fed lies and they use the Quran to justify their actions. Watch Osama bin Ladin in videos and you will see he uses 7th century history in the Quran in order to strengthen the cause. Their aim is to spread extreme Islam to 'the four corners of the world'. Their ideology is the cause of terrorism and the young turning themselves into human bombs...brainwashing them to believe they will be blessed with 72 virgins in heaven or that female suicide bombers will sit at the right-hand side of God . What an insult...these guys kill themselves as well as others, in order to be blessed with milk, honey and perfect virgins...so that Isalmists can revive a Calipha and change the order of the world.
...Islam is in crisis...
I don't quite think so, but it sure should be. And we certainly are in crisis -- one of denial, "tolerance," and un-scarved heads buried in the sand. Still unscarved and still connected to our shoulders for now, but give the Islamists time to get the Sharia law thing going. No, it won't happen here in America so soon. But, I wouldn't buy an apartment in Europe unless you eventually plan on trading your western-style clothes for a burkha.
If you're a free speech absolutist, either accept her poems or send someone like Ice-T to prison for recording "Cop Killer."
I wouldn't buy an apartment in Europe unless you eventually plan on trading your western-style clothes for a burkha.
How exactly do you think such laws will be voted in in a democracy? Seriously, get a grip. I'll take you more seriously on this once you stop going to Paris.
LYT at December 12, 2007 2:04 AM
Islam = Bad
Limiting Free Speech = Even Worse
This: I wouldn't buy an apartment in Europe unless you eventually plan on trading your western-style clothes for a burkha. = Needless Bedwetting Hyperbole.
Or like LYT said, you should get a grip.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 5:20 AM
LYT, Ayn_Randian - it doesn't have to be voted in by a free democracy to become an issue of "if you want to be safe in your own neighborhood, you'll do this." People who are willing to kill their own daughters because those daughters want to be like their friends at school are NOT going to quietly allow other women in the neighborhood to walk around uncovered. As conservative Islamic families spread from neighborhood to neighborhood, modern women will have to move away or adjust to living with Islamic expectations. (Unless, of course, someone stops appeasing them SOON.)
jenl1625 at December 12, 2007 5:33 AM
I have to agree, Amy. The extremists need to be stopped -- plain and simple. I don't know UK laws but, if they don't have an equivalent to our incitement to riot, they should. And, frankly, I don't have a problem applying that to Ice T or any artist that urges their listeners to kill the cops with at least fines if not prision time though I confess "The Warriors" is one of my favorite movies since I saw it at the theater and I do own the video game based on it. However, I think we should definitely begin also in this country to apply those kind of standards to extremist Christians such as the Reconstructionists or the God Hates Fags group. (Although, yay, those assholes did suffer a setback: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=9506#cs7 )
I am not an absolutist. I think it's obvious that free speech can't exist at all unless there are a few limits. I do think as few as possible but inciting to riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater and slander and libel are all good limits, frankly. So should writing instructions on how to behead then calling it a poem (that was supposed to be poetry?) or disrupting soldiers' funerals with your hate speech. It may be difficult to set legal limits (can pro-choice or right-to-die arguments be considered a call to murder) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to. Let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
Donna at December 12, 2007 5:42 AM
I have to agree, Amy. The extremists need to be stopped -- plain and simple. I don't know UK laws but, if they don't have an equivalent to our incitement to riot, they should. And, frankly, I don't have a problem applying that to Ice T or any artist that urges their listeners to kill the cops with at least fines if not prision time though I confess "The Warriors" is one of my favorite movies since I saw it at the theater and I do own the video game based on it. However, I think we should definitely begin also in this country to apply those kind of standards to extremist Christians such as the Reconstructionists or the God Hates Fags group. (Although, yay, those assholes did suffer a setback, lost a million dollar lawsuit)
I am not an absolutist. I think it's obvious that free speech can't exist at all unless there are a few limits. I do think as few as possible but inciting to riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater and slander and libel are all good limits, frankly. So should writing instructions on how to behead then calling it a poem (that was supposed to be poetry?) or disrupting soldiers' funerals with your hate speech. It may be difficult to set legal limits (can pro-choice or right-to-die arguments be considered a call to murder) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to. Let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
Donna at December 12, 2007 5:52 AM
Folks, if you really think that at its root, Islam is an evil political movement hellbent on world domination, then the only solution is war. Muslim camps, banning the writing and ownership of the Koran, etc.
Oh, you don't want that to happen? Your bedwetting rhetoric would have told me otherwise.
Popular speech isn't what needs First Amendment protection; unpopular speech does. Donna, you're advocating gutting the First Amendment because you're scared. Senseless.
So should writing instructions on how to behead then calling it a poem (that was supposed to be poetry?)
Instructions and knowledge are just that; they don't become evil until evil people use them in evil ways. Kind of like guns, knowledge is neutral.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 6:04 AM
Do you even read AR or just pick up on a sentence or two you don't like? I am hardly talking about gutting the First Amendment or suppressing speech I disagree with. And, no, I don't think the Koran should be banned. What I said was urging someone to kill another should fall in with inciting to riot, slander, libel, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. and, even then, I stated we need to define it specifically because to define it that widely (encouraging others to kill) would encompass things that are debatable. Do I think Ice T should be imprisioned, no? But, frankly, I don't think a fine would be out of line, urging people to kill cops is not the same as encouraging peaceful protest or non-violent civil disobedience. Likewise, I don't think the British government is out of line to do something about this chick before she blows something up.
Donna at December 12, 2007 6:25 AM
"...if you really think that at its root, Islam is an evil political movement hellbent on world domination, then the only solution is war."
It IS and we ARE, AR. Not that you would know it, living in America's culture of endless teenage masturbation.
The politically expediant name "war on terror" aside, the war in Iraq was never about WMD, and only tangentially related to oil.
We needed a battlefield in the heart of Islam, and we found it in Baghdad. We defined the battlespace by fighting radical Islam on their territory, not ours.
Now be a good girl & take a sip of your latte'.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 6:38 AM
I don't know UK laws but, if they don't have an equivalent to our incitement to riot, they should. And, frankly, I don't have a problem applying that to Ice T or any artist that urges their listeners to kill the cops with at least fines if not prision time - Donna at 5:52 AM
Do I think Ice T should be imprisioned, no? - Donna at 6:25
Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth Donna. I read what you write, I really do. The questions is whether YOU do.
I am hardly talking about gutting the First Amendment or suppressing speech I disagree with.
Yes, you are. You just don't like how it sounds so you cloak it in "protection of the public" or "prevention of terrorism" rhetoric. You won't even let a man angry with the police vent without threats of prison. So get in a tizzy all you want, but you're advocating serious and far-ranging curtailment of free speech. Don't be mad that I called you on it.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 6:38 AM
We needed a battlefield in the heart of Islam, and we found it in Baghdad. We defined the battlespace by fighting radical Islam on their territory, not ours.
Wow, if ignorance were gold...
Did you know that the pacification of Iraq is occurring by United States Soldiers working WITH Shia and Sunni clerics, imams, tribal leaders and sheiks? Who do you think composes 99% of the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi National Police? Christians?
Baghdad isn't the heart of Islam or anywhere close to it. Given that the majority of the world's Muslims are Sunni, but that the majority of Iraq and Iran are Shia, it'd be goddamnded impossible for Iraq to be at "the heart of Islam". There isn't even evidence that Baghdad or any part of Iraq harbored significant numbers of "radical Islamists". Saddam was a national socialist and a pan-Arab unionist. He and the radical Islamists didn't even get along.
Dear Galt, dude, do you even know anything about Islam other than what the Freepers tell you?
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 6:53 AM
This is what I took away from the quoted article. It seems to me that the point in the article above is for promoting, rather than limiting free speech. They're not saying that terrorists can't speak their mind. It's promoting people using their own freedom of speech to speak AGAINST those specifically calling for oppression and murder. It's moronic to believe that "religious tolerance" should silence someone when another is talking about killing you. A complaint I see here often is that - while it may be a minority in Islam - the extreme view is very loud, and the supposedly moderate majority is silent rather than outraged. When anyone talks of murdering another person, it should get scrutiny, regardless of what religion you are. If someone was walking around on the street, pleasantly talking to himself aloud and saying things like "I really want to kill someone right now" and passed by a police officer while doing so, it's perfectly reasonable to presume that person will get more than a second glance.
I personally think that most organized religion is used to control people, and historically has been used to rationalize atrocities. It's even easier to do when it requires no reason, only blind obedience. I'd never propose outlawing one however, but I feel perfectly fine speaking out against things they promote that threaten me or others.
As for the following: Folks, if you really think that at its root, Islam is an evil political movement hellbent on world domination, then the only solution is war. Muslim camps, banning the writing and ownership of the Koran, etc.
Responding to what you see as hyperbole with hyperbole isn't very productive.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 7:16 AM
Ayn, take a breath, sweetie. You're rant is showing.
"Baghdad isn't the heart of Islam or anywhere close to it." Yes it is, Ayn.
Baghdad is at the geographic center of the Islamic world, which makes it a very convenient place to combat radical Islamists. They come from all corners of the Middle East and we kill them in Iraq.
And OF COURSE we work with Sunni & Shia clerics and tribal leaders. So what?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 7:22 AM
It's perverse of you to use this case as a hook on which to hang your often-expressed opinion that sharia law is about to be imposed on Europe. As I read it, the case demonstrates the exact opposite.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at December 12, 2007 7:27 AM
Here in Toronto a father just strangled his own 16 year old daughter because she wasn't wearing her headscarf at school, and her brother tried to prevent the police from doing their jobs. These people live in a nice house in the suburbs.
To kill your own daughter for showing her hair is obscene. I think the govenment should just deport them, since they obviously don't know how to live in a civilized society.
Chrissy at December 12, 2007 7:38 AM
Amy,
I had the same thought as Stu.
Legally, it was the terrorism manuals that got her in trouble. But the case shows, I thought, the opposite of soggy Euro tolerance for the vicious scribbles of Little Miss Holden Caulfield-in-a-headscarf.
Jody Tresidder at December 12, 2007 7:39 AM
So, Snoop, invading a country devoid of responsibility for Islamic terrorism, subjecting its people to slaughter and mayhem and disrupting the way of life for millions, and expending what will certainly be more than a trillion dollars and almost 4000 American lives is worth it because "Baghdad is the geographical center".
And I suppose you think that our invasion of said country never, ever would've spawned those angry Islamic terrorists you're worried about? While it's true that foreign fighters have come to Iraq to kill American Soldiers, the majority of the chaos and violence comes from Jaysh-al Mahdi, a homegrown little band of terrorists who want America out. Oh, and don't forget that strongman Saddam, being the good fascist he was, kept the peace (even if it was through brutality) between Sunni and Shia. That peace doesn't exist anymore, and the sectarian violence kills American Soldiers in its wake.
So, Snoop, all that innocent blood is worth it for your thoroughly debunked "flypaper theory" huh?
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 7:58 AM
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=159480
I sure hope we see some outrage from the "moderate" Muslims in this country over this. They were "outraged" when a soccer referee in Calgary pulled a Muslim girl from the field because her hijab wasn't a "sport" one that would tear away if it got snagged.
I'd expect to see a whole lot more work done on the whole "killing your own daughter" front than in the "right not to wear a safe version of your headgear that might save your daughter's life" arena.
moreta at December 12, 2007 8:01 AM
Regarding the notion that terrorism is caused by American invasions -- Al Qaeda primitives just murdered a bunch of people in Algeria yesterday. I was against invading Iraq before I was against Iraq, but the "Islam is not a religion but a tool of totalitarian world domination" notion of George Mason is, I believe, correct. For those who missed it, my blog item on it is here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/12/the_religion_ba_1.html
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 8:08 AM
I agree with some of the others, the "poetry" itself should not have gotten her into trouble. It's no worse than much of the crap that is getting kids into trouble here, the "death lists" of 3-4 other kids, the drawing of a gun, .... Written expression is not the problem, incitement to violence is.
Without having read the news reports, I'm not even sure the possession of the Qaeda manual. I've owned Mao's little red book, and the Anarchist's Cookbook, and there are lots of manuals and downloads that can tell you all sorts of nasty stuff.
Currently I must admit to wanting to know more about building portable EMP devices that can be used to knock out speed cameras. I am very curious if a person can build a focused EMP device that can say, be carried in the trunk of a car or under the hood, and have a range of about 100 feet, but no further. Just a hypothetical interest of course.
Someone else I like reading is Wendy Kaminer, a free speech zealot and feminist.
jerry at December 12, 2007 8:16 AM
Regarding the notion that terrorism is caused by American invasions...
Of course, I agree...there are going to be Islamic (and other kids of) crazy-tards with or without American intervention abroad.
The question lies in whether interventionism exacerbates the problem.
And of course, Iraq was entirely the wrong country to invade, if we were serious about terrorist interdiction.
jerry - ha! You could just do like the Brits do and rip the damn things out. That's my kind of protest.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 8:27 AM
"...invading a country devoid of responsibility for Islamic terrorism, subjecting its people to slaughter and mayhem and disrupting the way of life for millions, and expending what will certainly be more than a trillion dollars and almost 4000 American lives is worth it because "Baghdad is the geographical center".
Yes Ayn. It's worth it. It's ugly and unfortunate, but absolutely worth it.
We could have chosen to wage this war in a number of places: Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc., but we chose Iraq. Who cares if AQ wasn't there in 2003? All that matters is that we combating them now.
"And I suppose you think that our invasion of said country never, ever would've spawned those angry Islamic terrorists you're worried about?"
Ayn they've been pissed-off at us and attacking us for decades. Iraq didn't change any of that. This is nothing NEW. Doing NOTHING is exactly what got us 9/11.
And as far as Saddam "keeping the peace"? Good God, man if you think killing 200,000 of his own citizens is "keeping the peace", then you can have it.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 8:35 AM
This is all just a hypothetical intellectual curiosity Ayn, I would never undertake such a subversion of our government.
Hypothetically, I do enjoy the yobbos that "necklace" a speed camera.
The hypothetical interest in EMP devices arises because many of the cameras take video, not just stills.
Otherwise, a simple paintball rifle would probably do the trick.
jerry at December 12, 2007 8:42 AM
Yes Ayn. It's worth it. It's ugly and unfortunate, but absolutely worth it.
I suppose that is really easy to say when you're barely feeling the cost, given that the war is funded through debt our grandchildren will pay off and there's no chance you'll get drafted. Oh yeah, and I guess you won't ever know the pain of being an innocent Iraqi who is killed because we just decided to plant ourselves in the middle of their country to fight a war they had very little to do with in the first place.
Ayn they've been pissed-off at us and attacking us for decades. Iraq didn't change any of that. This is nothing NEW.
No argument, that's why we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. My point about spawning more was made with Jaysh Al-Mahdi's (JAM)formation, which would not have happened if we hadn't just thrown a dart at a map of the Middle East and said "Let's fuck up those people's lives!"
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 9:00 AM
I imagine if I worked in an airport bookstore I would want to kill a lot of people on a fairly regular basis too. Fortunately Atheism doesn't teach me that I would be right to do so because the man in the sky hates everyone who isn't just like me.
Shinobi at December 12, 2007 9:27 AM
I'm not defending the invasion, but that take on Iraq is just absolutely incorrect. Iraq provided money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and provided money, bases, and training to numerous terrorist organizations for the entirety of Saddam's rule. Saddam's Iraq was always included in the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Before we invaded Iraq allowed al-Qaida members fleeing Afghanistan to set up offices in Baghdad, provided medical care to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when he arrived in Iraq, and refused to do anything at all when the murderers of a US diplomat to Jordan was murdered on Zarqawi's orders.
Again, I'm not saying the invasion was the right response, but it's just plain ridiculous to say a country that was always in the same ballpark as Iran and Syria's levels of state sponsored terrorism was "devoid of responsibility for Islamic terrorism". Saddam wasn't motivated by Islam, but that doesn't change the fact he harbored and aided plenty of nasties who were.
SeanH at December 12, 2007 9:51 AM
SeanH - good post; I overextended.
I continue to question the morality of those (Snoop, this is you, so listen up) who think that invading a country for the purpose of turning into a battleground is a good thing, especially when said country had very, very little to do with 9/11 and the more prominent acts of al-Qaeda.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 10:08 AM
"I suppose that is really easy to say when you're barely feeling the cost, given that the war is funded through debt our grandchildren will pay off and there's no chance you'll get drafted. Oh yeah, and I guess you won't ever know the pain of being an innocent Iraqi who is killed..."
Ayn, are you this angry all the time? I'm in the military & I did a tour in Iraq in 2005. I'm sure I'll be up for another one soon, so go ahead and wish 'death' on me if it makes you feel better.
Innocents are always killed in war, without exception. But it's not an excuse to continue sitting on our hands while the Middle East becomes more & more radicalized. Sometimes war is necessary.
Who cares why the Jaysh-al Mahdi was formed? If they weren't the "JAM" they'd be some other damn group rampaging around raping & head-chopping anyone who doesn't 'submit'.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 10:21 AM
Back to Samina Malik for a moment--I wonder if there is a mentoring program in London and other European cities where intelligent, rational women like Gina Khan can take girls like her under their wing and show them how to reject extremism? Kids learn by example (or, in horrible instances like moreta's link, molded by brutality). If examples of acceptable adult behavior in their families and neighborhoods include suicide bombers, messages like Ms. Khan's get lost in the romance of religious and cultural revenge. A European Muslim equivalent of the YWCA or Big Brothers-Big Sisters (even with shelters for those from especially repressive families) would be a great way for young Muslims to break free from extremism and connect with Western culture.
Rebecca at December 12, 2007 10:35 AM
Ayn, it doesn't matter whether that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
The issue isn't Iraq. It's Islam.
Taking the fight to the Middle East changed the jihadis focal point from places like New York and L.A. to Iraq. Have you noticed the curious absence of terror attacks on American soil?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 10:40 AM
Rebecca, it's not a bad thought, but those young women would probably have go into a witness protection program to avoid an honor killing at the hands of their own family.
Ther's no way out for a lot of women in Islam.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 10:44 AM
> perverse of you to use
> this case as a hook on
> which to hang your
> often-expressed opinion
The dials are twisting and the needles are shaking over there. This must be a clarifying time, especially for people who thought --as many western Europeans themselves apparently thought-- that their safety and affluence was a function of their own interior excellence. The role of the United States [and a few other forces] in guaranteeing the first fifty years of peace in about six centuries (nine? fourteen?) seems always to have been discounted.
> As I read it, the case
> demonstrates the exact
> opposite.
Amy acknowledges a new threat to European integrity, one which can't be fought by the United States' 100,000 remaining European troops. The Malik story indicates that Western Europeans aren't doing a great job of defending themselves, or of insisting that newcomers shed the traditions that kept them in poverty and wretchedness in their former homelands. Basically, Malik was prosecuted for thought crime, right? Especially because of Amy's affection for that part of the world, it's interesting to watch her sort out what's happening there.
> scribbles of Little Miss
> Holden Caulfield-in-a-
> headscarf.
Good one.
> I suppose you think that our
> invasion of said country never,
> ever would've spawned those
> angry Islamic terrorists you're
> worried about?
So the hazard is created by resistance to it. Golly, that's quite a paradox! In fact it's such a powerful paradox that I don't believe it's true. When people talk about "disrupting the way of life for [Iraqi] millions," it's a safe bet they weren't thinking clearly about what life was like over there anyway, to say nothing of how that "way of life" impacted the rest of the globe. (Does anyone remember Michael Moore's Baghdad kite flyers?)
--
BTW Stu: I've told your 'NYC diner @ 2:00am' story to about 15 people. Women from the Big Apple seem to like it best. You should post it to www.overheardinnewyork.com. My favorite entry--
A hobo picks up a fruit stand banana, holds it to ear like a phone, and says: Hello potassium! --112th & Frederick Douglass, August 2005
Crid at December 12, 2007 11:14 AM
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg Yes, converting Iraq from a secular dictatorship into a religious fueled terrorist training camp where our happy ending now is going to be an Islamic dictatorship is definitely an advance towards peace. I don't think we're going to be feeling any blowback from this one.
jerry at December 12, 2007 11:16 AM
I'm in the military & I did a tour in Iraq in 2005. I'm sure I'll be up for another one soon, so go ahead and wish 'death' on me if it makes you feel better.
Thank you, SnoopDDD, and tell your brothers- and sisters-in-arms thanks, too. Don't think that some of us haven't noticed that there haven't been any more attacks here in the USA, and that you guys are to thank for that. (I'm also not naive enough to think that there haven't been attempts. BF says that the Navy Seals and other special forces are taking care of business that the general public doesn't get to hear about, and we need to be grateful for that.) o_O
Flynne at December 12, 2007 11:23 AM
Who cares why the Jaysh-al Mahdi was formed? If they weren't the "JAM" they'd be some other damn group rampaging around raping & head-chopping anyone who doesn't 'submit'.
Um, dude, JAM or any other Iraqi terrorist group wouldn't be an issue for Americans if we weren't in Iraq.
Have you noticed the curious absence of terror attacks on American soil?
Familiarize yourself with post hoc, ergo propter hoc and get back to me.
I did a tour in Iraq in 2005. I'm sure I'll be up for another one soon, so go ahead and wish 'death' on me if it makes you feel better.
Wow, because anyone opposed to the Iraqi invasion must be wishing death upon you, right? Wanna take a SWAG where I'm writing this comment to you from, high-speed?
Crid - like you said, this is a trans-national force with which we're dealing. So what's with your support for nation-building again?
I am not seeing the logic, as I said before, of rampaging about, checkbook in one hand and gun in the other, attempting to fix every failed nation-state in the Middle East.
By the way, Snoop, we used to have troops stationed in the true heart of Islam (and close enough to Iraq for government work) in Saudi Arabia. Tell me again why we decided it'd be a wise move to leave there? Oh yeah, because American boots on Muslim holy lands was radicalizing Muslims. That's not me talking, that's the CIA.
Besides, we could have staged massive amounts of Soldiers prepared to interdict terrorism in Kuwait...why did we need to invade and overthrow a government that was a natural buffer zone to the crazy government of Iran again?
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 11:27 AM
> So what's with your support
> for nation-building again?
Oil isn't owned, pumped or defended by a international alliance of whackjobs.
Crid at December 12, 2007 11:30 AM
> why did we need to invade and
> overthrow a government that
> was a natural buffer zone to
> the crazy government of Iran
> again?
Waitasec, you admired Iraq? You were comforted by the effect they had on Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Crid at December 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Crid - I didn't admire Iraq; try to keep up, OK?
Iraq was useful in that helped maintain the balance of power. Iraq was useful for being run by a socialist pan-Arab unionist who didn't particularly truck with Islamo-fascism.
Kind of the way the U.S. has entered into a practical, friendly relationship with the secular military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf. Distasteful? Yeah. Unpleasant? Sure. Necessary as a buffer to Islamic extremism? Uh, yup...and no, I don't admire military dictatorships either, thanks.
Remember, Crid, a lot of intelligence folks worldwide thought that Hussein still had a large, formidable army and (possibly) WMD and the will to use them (I didn't believe this, but it kept Iran in check).
If you're going to declare Islamic fundamentalism Public Enemy No. 1, that means you may have to form alliances with what would normally be Public Enemies 3, 4 and 5. We're learning that lesson in Iraq, in that we're coming to peace and actively arming those who may have attacked American Soldiers, provided they go after the larger and more deadly enemies.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 11:47 AM
"Um, dude, JAM or any other Iraqi terrorist group wouldn't be an issue for Americans if we weren't in Iraq."
Sure. The same way Al Qaida has never been an issue for the U.S. because we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.
"..because anyone opposed to the Iraqi invasion must be wishing death upon you, right?"
Hmmmm, from Code Pink HQ?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 12:12 PM
> try to keep up, OK?
Enough with snot, little Cadet. From your first comment (with the "yawn"), you've done everything you can to make sure people don't like you. But every two days, you rise to your tippytoes and proclaim through moist eyes and a sniffle that the opinions of blog commenters mean nothing to you... Nothing, nothing, nothing! Then you come back the next day and start it again.
You just don't need to work that hard. Your silly beliefs alone will ensure that you're disliked.
> government that
> was a natural buffer zone to
> the crazy government of Iran
I read that as admiration. That "balance of power" that it "maintained" nourished the suicidally violent tendencies of badly-governed nations throughout region, both wealthy and impoverished. (Mostly impoverished.) At this point, it's possible that any historical admiration earned by the Baby Boom generation will accrue from its disruption of this balance of power... Otherwise it's all about Ebay and getting blown by interns.
> I didn't believe this
I seriously doubt that you were old enough to have ever considered the matter at all, let alone researched it. They only "buffered" the Saudis from the reality of the non-Arab monster across the Gulf. I'm quite happy to think that Riyadh is feeling the quakes more directly nowadays.
> that means you may have
> to form alliances with
> what would normally be
> Public Enemies
Says who, babycakes? That's what got us into this to begin with... Supporting the least objectionable crime families.
Crid at December 12, 2007 12:17 PM
Sure. The same way Al Qaida has never been an issue for the U.S. because we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.
Wow...do you read at all or just reflexively respond? The reason that Osama bin Laden came to truly hate the United States was because he viewed his family as dependent upon us. In case you forgot, Bin Laden offered to fight Saddam Hussein himself, because Bin Laden is a sworn enemy of pan-Arab socialism, and Hussein was a pan-Arab socialist. We further radicalized Muslims by remaining on their holy lands after the First Gulf War.
So perhaps that's why we have problems with al-Qaeda? How radicalized would you be if foreign Soldiers were permanently stationed in NYC or DC, even if you didn't live there?
But I said all that already...you just chose to ignore it.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 12:25 PM
Enough with snot, little Cadet. From your first comment (with the "yawn"), you've done everything you can to make sure people don't like you. But every two days, you rise to your tippytoes and proclaim through moist eyes and a sniffle that the opinions of blog commenters mean nothing to you... Nothing, nothing, nothing! Then you come back the next day and start it again.
He has probably read this blog before, and realized that getting into an argument with Crid, Radwaste, or Norman (dunno how I've managed to avoid that, what am I doing wrong?) is a rite of passage here. So he made a point to hit topics in such a way as to raise your righteous fury. Maybe he's trying too hard, but that's just the zealous sort of trooper he is.
I kid. More likely he's just got a bit of Troll in his family lineage.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 12:30 PM
Crid - I can only presume that all of your cracks about how "young" I am means that you're paranoid and uncomfortable with how old you are. What's next, you telling me to get off of your lawn?
I read that as admiration.
Well, we'll blame the public schools for your low reading comprehension skills, then.
Says who, babycakes? That's what got us into this to begin with... Supporting the least objectionable crime families.
Crid, America is the greatest nation on earth. It has the greatest people and the greatest military ever seen. We still cannot win a war against everybody. The pacification of Iraq alone will cost 1 trillion dollars. One...trillion. How much money do you think we have?
I agree with the underlying premise of that, though...since we can't support anyone without looking dirty, how about we support no one.
Maybe you're old enough to remember George Washington warning about entangling ourselves in alliances. I am sure he didn't mean "Go wage war every where you see a failed state...and do it alone" either. G-Dubs just wasn't that kind of guy.
With that, good-night! I look forward to another day of spirited debate.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 12:40 PM
So perhaps that's why we have problems with al-Qaeda? How radicalized would you be if foreign Soldiers were permanently stationed in NYC or DC, even if you didn't live there?
That would depend on how needy and impoverished we were, and whether they were there to liberate us from the likes of Osama or oppress like Saddam did Iraq.
Flynne at December 12, 2007 12:46 PM
Jamie I appreciate the previous comment you made on my behalf. I think Ayn thinks being disliked is a sign of his greatness (instead of a sign of being annoying). He gives off the killjoy vibe. I think it has to do with his immaturity, something that hopefully he'll outgrow. The non-internet outdoor real interaction with people is such a stern master that it might beat it out of him one way or another.
"Crid - I can only presume that all of your cracks about how "young" I am means that you're paranoid and uncomfortable with how old you are. What's next, you telling me to get off of your lawn?"
As someone who has great interactions with men in their 50's Ayn you are incredibly thick headed. 20 something year olds are the ones notoriously uncomfortable with life.
Anyways ravers can be annoying after a long period exposure.
PurplePen at December 12, 2007 12:48 PM
Ayn, your posts are positively bizarre. They drift aimlessly from one strain of logic into another completely unrelated stream.
"The reason that Osama bin Laden came to truly hate the United States was because he viewed his family as dependent upon us."
What?!? Your argument was that radical Islamic groups (JAM) fight us because we invaded their country (Iraq). I countered that Al Qaida attack on 9/11 wasn't in response to an invasion, and you give me "Osama bin Laden came to truly hate the United States was because he viewed his family as dependent upon us".
So we should have done what, exactly? Sign bin Laden up for some therapy sessions with Dr. Phil? Unbelievable.
And then this?
"In case you forgot, Bin Laden offered to fight Saddam Hussein himself, because Bin Laden is a sworn enemy of pan-Arab socialism, and Hussein was a pan-Arab socialist."
Therefore what?!? We should have solicited bin Laden's services to oust Saddam? We should have allied ourselves with a pan-Arab socialist to combat bin Laden?
Your only solution for dealing with radical Islam is to retreat into a cubby hole and 'wait it out'.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 12:50 PM
> (dunno how I've managed
> to avoid that,
You are so wrong about this guy. Also, you have a bad haircut.
(Is that enough? You don't leave much to work with.)
> cracks about how "young"
We don't hate youth, we hate immaturity. And unnecessary quotation marks.
> George Washington warning about
> entangling ourselves
Some of us feel the reason Iraq failed is that we left Saddam in charge of it. 2003 was far too late in the day to pretend we could was our hands of it.
Crid at December 12, 2007 12:51 PM
think Ayn thinks being disliked is a sign of his greatness (instead of a sign of being annoying). He gives off the killjoy vibe. I think it has to do with his immaturity, something that hopefully he'll outgrow.
This from the girl who felt it necessary to broadcast, in the middle of an Iraq war thread, how good she got fucked the other day.
And I'm the immature one. Ho-kay.
Therefore what?!? We should have solicited bin Laden's services to oust Saddam? We should have allied ourselves with a pan-Arab socialist to combat bin Laden?
Uh, hey, Snoop? Why did we have to pick a side to support in the first place?
I'm just as inclined to let one group of psychos (Ba'athists) wipe out another group of psychos. See...less psychos, no dead American Soldiers. Everyone wins.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 12:59 PM
My high speed skim of the comments here shows to me that "young" "snotty" "dislikable" A_R is mostly correct in his analysis in this thread.
jerry at December 12, 2007 1:02 PM
"Why did we have to pick a side to support in the first place?
Because the West has been attacked relentlessly for decades and the Middle East was becoming increasingly radicalized. Doing nothing (your strategy) wasn't appeasing the jihadists. It emboldened them.
"I'm just as inclined to let one group of psychos (Ba'athists) wipe out another group of psychos."
Agreed, Ayn, but that wasn't happening. The Ba'athists were never going to challenge Al Qaida. At best Saddam would have attempted to subvert and twist them for his own purposes.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 1:07 PM
Snoop - final word, too...just because we didn't out and out invade Saudi Arabia didn't mean that it didn't piss off a lot of folks (think Al-Qaeda) that non-believers were permanently stationed on their Holy Land.
So, to summarize: we supported the Shah of Iran; that pissed of Islamic fundamentalists, who then took over Iran.
So then we had to support Saddam, who acted as an important buffer to the new radicalized Iranian government.
Meanwhile, we're supporting Bin Laden in his fight against the Soviet Union.
Then, Saddam gets too big for his britches and invades Kuwait...now we rebuff bin Laden's offer of help (remember, he was an ally at the time) and permanently station troops next to Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam.
Throwing Bin Laden under the bus, and then offending his religion, makes him mad, and he reforms al-Qaeda into an American-hating terrorist group.
Now we're fighting al-Qaeda, and propping up Musharraf (because we need him) to do it...
How much you want to bet something bad comes out of our support for Musharraf?
How much headache could we have saved if we didn't bother in foreign nations' affairs?
In short, snoop: read history and think gooder.
Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 1:07 PM
"..we rebuff bin Laden's offer of help (remember, he was an ally at the time)".
Bin Laden was never going to be a threat to Hussein's regime, and if you think he would have done anything to help the U.S., you need to put down the crack pipe.
Cheese-eating surrender monkey alert:
"How much headache could we have saved if we didn't bother in foreign nations' affairs?"
Yeah, that's a brilliant answer, Ayn. Total isolationism. Ayn's strategy for world harmony: don't do anything.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 12, 2007 1:19 PM
This will warm Amy's heart:
"A suspected bias attack on four Jewish subway riders has resulted in a friendship between the Jewish victims and the Muslim college student who came to their aid."
Full story:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/12411086.html
Franko at December 12, 2007 1:31 PM
This from the girl who felt it necessary to broadcast, in the middle of an Iraq war thread, how good she got fucked the other day.
And I'm the immature one. Ho-kay.
She also had a reply specific to an earlier post by you, which you ignored and chose instead to say how classless she was - all for what I thought to be penetrating (pun intended) the heated conversation with something Mi>casual (pun intended again). You seem to confuse class with conforming to your sense of propriety.
There are plenty of people here that state their mind rather bluntly, but it comes across still as having some levity, or at least honesty within. You're just being pissy for the sake of being pissy.
In every post, you make it a point to be inflammatory and condescending. There are a myriad of ways to state a differing opinion without either. I don't see a reason to address any specific point you've brought up because you're being a troll. The fact that most here think you're young is because you act like a teenager full of angst - a pseudo-intellectual emo-troll.
They HOPE you're young, because if you're as old as Crid (heh) and still acting this way, there's little hope you'll "grow out of it." Whatever merit your point of view might have, is muted by being an ass.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 1:37 PM
You are so wrong about this guy. Also, you have a bad haircut.
Not much of a debate as debates go, but I guess I'll take it. I'll feel free to disagree with you on both counts. I still think he's a troll, and I like the haircut as it's low maintenance and the short hair makes it less likely to catch fire.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 1:38 PM
I didn't mean it, it was just to be sure you weren't feeling left out. Also, thanks for defending Purp. From a 48yo troll like myself it would have seemed like unseemly suckup-age.
Crid at December 12, 2007 1:46 PM
Kinda figured, and the gesture is appreciated. I still felt like replying.
I didn't see myself as having defended PurplePen at all. I figure she's quite capable of doing that herself. Just felt like pointing out what I saw as a patronizing error.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 1:51 PM
BTW, can things seem unseemly, or does that rip a seam in the fabric of the time-space continuum, like moonwalking on an airport walkway?
Crid at December 12, 2007 2:02 PM
BTW, can things seem unseemly, or does that rip a seam in the fabric of the time-space continuum, like moonwalking on an airport walkway?
I would think so. Though it's redundant, the alliteration apparently appeals to me. Since I'm flying from Cowlumbus, Ahia to Des Moines, IA tomorrow morning, I'll see if I can't verify the moonwalking/walkway theory. You'll know it worked if you feel all of existence get sucked away with a giant VOIP-WOOSH sound.
Jamie at December 12, 2007 2:13 PM
Let us know. Remember, if your body goes back in time but your immortal soul moves forward in the present, the only was to re-synchronize them is to brew some instant coffee in a microwave oven... There will be a thunderclap, and a flash of turquoise, and an brief whiff of New Car smell, but then everything will be normal.
I could explain this, but it's technical.
Crid at December 12, 2007 6:33 PM
Is it at all similar to simultaneously holding "Tea" and "No Tea" at the same time?
Jamie at December 12, 2007 6:50 PM
Ok, you guys got off on a wierd tangent here. I have one question. Are you willing to sacrifice Freedom and Diversity in the name of Freedom and Diversity? Because if you are, you are wayyyyy too stupid to survive.
Bikerken at December 12, 2007 9:53 PM
**...you are wayyyyy too stupid to survive.**
I've been that way for years, so I've been lying to survive.
doombuggy at December 12, 2007 10:46 PM
"How exactly do you think such laws will be voted in in a democracy? Seriously, get a grip."
I wonder if anyone will need to vote in Sharia law in the West.
All we have to do is sit back and watch it insert itself into our daily lives and do nothing.
Case in point: hailing a cab at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport. Now about 3/4 of the taxis will not transport you if you're carrying alcohol.
No voting required.
The link is from 2006, I haven't discovered yet if they've installed the "No Alcohol" lights on the cabs as yet. Perhaps someone has a follow-up?
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2458
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 12, 2007 11:09 PM
> "How exactly do you think
> such laws will be voted
> in in a democracy? Seriously,
> get a grip."
Same with Global Warming, which is environmentalism's proud new boner. Some folks assume we'll all be allowed to state our feelings on how things ought to work. But I think a lot of people admire it as a way to tell us what's going to happen.
Crid at December 12, 2007 11:35 PM
there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. if they all wanted us dead, as i have often seen posted here, don't you think we would be?
it's the fundamentalists that are dangerous, not the majority. my grandmother always said fanatacism in any form is dangerous (thus justifying adding chocolate to the daily menu so as not to be a fanatic health food nut) and i personally think she was right on that as she was about most things.
additionally, there are many many scary changes happening here as a result of a minority population of fanatical christians. perhaps it does not involve beheadings, but perhaps as well beheadings are not the scariest things. (please don't be stupid and think that i'm saying beheadings are wonderful) and has anyone ever noticed how violent the bible is? i'm not saying that the fanatical christians are currently advocating enforcing those rules, but who's to say they won't someday?
i personally am getting tired of the villification of 1.5 billion people in place of the - horrible - but minority group of fanatics. the muslims i know are some of the most peaceful people i've ever met, and not a one of them has ever tried to convert me or make me wear a hijab.
kt at December 13, 2007 12:02 AM
kt - You just brushed up against an important point and then read it backwards. This is a repeat, but see 2:50 in this youtube clip:
http://tinyurl.com/2pzx4s
I'd be more receptive to your point if there were moderate Muslims complaining about "vilification", and expressing in turn and as a defense their affection for secular law. They're big boys and girls, and they're expected to stand up for themselves, like all free people. But I never hear of any of them doing that.
Last week Amy had a minor dustup in her comment section from an aggressive guy who claimed to be an aggrieved and offended Muslim. But I don't think he was; I think he was just the kind of American ninny who gets upset anytime someone speaks so clearly that some imaginary third party might take offense. Go to the main page of Amy's blog and search to December 5, 2007.
Crid at December 13, 2007 12:29 AM
there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. if they all wanted us dead, as i have often seen posted here, don't you think we would be?
You go kt. Seriously, a lot of people think that Muslims are like the Borg: all of one hive mind and that hive mind is focused on YOUR destruction. Along with that bit of crazy megalomania, kt, in case you didn't know, there are some semi-schizo people on this blog who believe that Muslims have some ancient plan to outbreed "us" (no word on who "us" is yet...christians? westerners? white people?)
I can tell you this: if 10 million Muslims (which is what, less than one percent of Islam's adherents) wanted to rush camps and FOBs in Iraq, the 160,000 U.S. Troops would absolutely be overwhelmed. Given that has yet to happen, I seriously, seriously doubt that you could get 1.5 billion people on the same sheet of music.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 12:46 AM
I'd be more receptive to your point if there were moderate Muslims complaining about "vilification"
Please, I doubt that you stand up and shout loud and hard every time somebody makes fun of Fred Phelps' group.
Somehow one billion people failing to make the point you'd like to see them make is evidence that they deserve vilification?
What’s your point about moderates’ silence anyway? That they are complicit in the actions of the extremists? Why?
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 12:51 AM
**there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. if they all wanted us dead, as i have often seen posted here, don't you think we would be?**
They are up against the logistics, as all campaigns are.
**it's the fundamentalists that are dangerous, not the majority.**
20% of the people do 80% of the work. The fundies are the ones to watch.
**there are many many scary changes happening here as a result of a minority population of fanatical christians.**
The gradient is flowing against Christians in this country. I'm not sure of what scariness you speak.
**...has anyone ever noticed how violent the bible is?**
We are reminded often. But Bible violence is not a touchstone for young men on a mission.
**i personally am getting tired of the villification of 1.5 billion people**
I'm willing to cut the 1.5 billion some slack, but I would appreciate some clarity on where they stand regarding jihad et al.
doombuggy at December 13, 2007 1:13 AM
**Please, I doubt that you stand up and shout loud and hard every time somebody makes fun of Fred Phelps' group.**
I do.
**Somehow one billion people failing to make the point you'd like to see them make is evidence that they deserve vilification?**
Yes.
**What’s your point about moderates’ silence anyway?**
We want to know where they stand. Maybe they stand for goodness and light. Maybe they don't. How are we to tell? We are needing some information here.
doombuggy at December 13, 2007 1:22 AM
I think you're 17, maybe nineteen. I wrote a bunch of paragraphs about it but decided to be nice.
Specifically-
> I doubt that you stand
> up and shout loud and hard
> every time somebody
> makes fun of Fred Phelps'
> group.
Not certain... Is that the weasel who pickets funerals in the midwest? Why should anyone defend him? Has anyone argued that he's making a defensible expression of religious faith? If that's the guy you mean, it would be great to see him vilified.
> failing to make the point
> you'd like to see them
> make is evidence that
> they deserve vilification?
No, they deserve vilification for presuming that a modern world of lawful commerce, invention and competition can make room for players with a seventh-century mentality. It can't, and they know or they should know that it can't, and they should say so, even if the primitives claim to be reading from their same holy book.
> That they are complicit
> in the actions of the
> extremists? Why?
Because they too often won't renounce them. Again, see the link from a couple comments ago. Even the Pope's being a pussy about it.
Crid at December 13, 2007 1:51 AM
re-read yourself the article of the mainline muslims of canada condemning the father of that 16-yr old. they are speaking. several of them, in fact, that say it in arabic, but our news doesn't generally broadcast that stuff.
and yes, i actually did read the posts with that angry muslim of which you speak, i was too generally pissed off at the constant anti-muslim rant to speak.
and how is the gradient flowing against christians here, when the christian right-wing is passing anti-choice laws, anti-gay marriage laws, and prevented the passing of the matthew shepherd bill? and no, i don't really want to turn this into a debate on those topics. huckabee is a serious candidate for president. that's enough right there to disprove that idea. should have started with that.
the fanatics are always the ones to watch. that doesn't mean they speak for the majority.
i once took a course on world religions, and the imam of the mosque in cedar rapids - yes, iowa, (where, coincidentally, is the first american mosque) - who said that the actual definition of jihad was not to wage war on your neighbor, whether he/she was muslim or not, but to wage war on your own human flaws and be the best person you could be. he said that to use the koran as a reason to kill anyone, including yourself, for any cause was blasphemy.
useless fact for the evening: does anyone know who has the only key to the church of the holy sepulcre in jerusalem and why?
kt at December 13, 2007 1:56 AM
I think you're 17, maybe nineteen. I wrote a bunch of paragraphs about it but decided to be nice.
I only respond to your posts about my age because I am fascinated by the fetish it seems to have become for you. Mayhap you should seek help?
Because they too often won't renounce them. Again, see the link from a couple comments ago.Even the Pope's being a pussy about it.
Wow, a billion people and mulitple major world leaders fail to echo your oh-so-wise point, and you think it's a failure on them. Try doing a little self-reflecting and ask why your viewpoint isn't all that widespread. And try not to spittle back about how the "elites" are "playing politics"...a real reason would be nice, not paranoid conspiracy theories.
So, Crid, anybody and everybody who fails to speak up against evil is complicit in it and deserves vilification? Have you been protesting against the Government's torture chambers and the PATRIOT ACT lately? Or should I consider your silence on those evidence of your support?
Should everyone in Germany who failed to speak up about Hitler have been vilified?
I could go on, but you get my point: you're preaching a radical war-based religion, where every single person who fails to hold your specific viewpoint is a villian. I guess there's enough perpetual sin and guilt to go around in your world, eh?
We want to know where they stand.
Only a narrow-minded bigot and a paranoid prick would demand that 1.5 billion people make their position known to him. Would you like it in e-mail format, doomy, or can they just write an essay?
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 3:32 AM
Not certain... Is that the weasel who pickets funerals in the midwest? Why should anyone defend him? Has anyone argued that he's making a defensible expression of religious faith? If that's the guy you mean, it would be great to see him vilified.
No, Crid, I want to see you on every message board on which Fred Phelps is ever derided and shout "Yeah, I'm a moderate Christian! I fully and whole-heartedly renounce Fred Phelps!".
Does that sound sufficiently ridiculous? Because that's what you want the vast majority of Muslims to do...prove to you that they believe what YOU want them to.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 3:36 AM
I can't get my mind off it. You won't let me. You keep talking like a child. You think like one.
Come on, tell the truth. How old are you?
Crid at December 13, 2007 3:53 AM
Give me some examples of how I "talk like a child".
And how is my age, whatever it is, in any way relevant to the conversation? Methinks you just want to write me off as some smartmouth kid so you can go back to your tired old echo chamber where you're the wise old man.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 4:25 AM
When I read your comments, I'm magically transported to a carefree world of pre-sweetened breakfast cereals, flannel jammies with little footsies on 'em, and Saturday-morning cartoons.
Dude.
How old?
Crid at December 13, 2007 4:57 AM
Crid. I love you. Marry me, NOW. o_O
Flynne at December 13, 2007 5:38 AM
Crid - I guess that's fair since your comments remind me of Metamucil, Viagara, gated "care communities" and gray Lincoln sedans.
Oh, and Bob Barker pimping Polydent.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 6:03 AM
Pssssssst, Crid. C'mere. Ayn Randian is a freshman at Wellesly, and doesn't want us to know she's still beholden to Daddy for that affair with the elderly CEO of his company that was exposed at the company picnic this summer. Sssshhhhh. o_O
Flynne at December 13, 2007 6:33 AM
Ayn Randian is a freshman at Wellesly
Oh to have been a man at a woman's college...
*looks wisfully up and away to the sunset*
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 6:47 AM
Don't know about all Muslims renouncing the hatred taught by fund Islam but here is one current example.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/holiday-greetings
-spark-subway-brawl/20071213072209990001
I suck at the whole link thing so you'll have to cut and paste both lines into your browser.
"Oh to have been a man at a woman's college..." Only if you like walking around with a paper target on your back. I visited there once, now I know what standing before a firing squad feels like.
vlad at December 13, 2007 6:55 AM
kt - There is a word for what you were fed. It is taqqiya. It is an explicit exemption from truthfulness that is granted to muslims representing their faith to the outside world. They are allowed to lie about anything (typically their motives) if it is in defense of the ummah.
A_R - just because you insist something is so does not make it so. We invaded Iraq for one simple reason - they were the only country we could topple without halting the flow of oil in the middle east. Had we invaded Saudi Arabia, they would have blown up their oil fields, and we would have had France and China declaring war on us within hours. But, as a marginal thinker, you hadn't bothered to reason that many moves ahead.
Lemme guess - you aren't very good at Chess either.
brian at December 13, 2007 7:01 AM
Racial/religious hatred breed only more racial hatred. Having been picked on a lot as a child due to the tail end of the red scare and not being catholic (still Christian though) I speak from personal experience. After years I finally got over both my class related hatred (they were blue collar I'm white collar) and ethnic distaste. This did take a great deal of effort not to hunt these little fucker down in random dive bars in my old hood and double tap the friggers in the back alley. I years out of undergrad so it's not an age thing. I sure a shit am not naive about the world either.
My dad served in the US marine corp. still I was a filthy commies. Paid out taxes, gave to US charities, nope still filthy commies or Russian mob.
vlad at December 13, 2007 7:14 AM
If Saddam was so bad, why did Big Dick Cheney and Rumsfield do business with him? Why did Reagan support him during his war with Iran??
The Mad Hungarian at December 13, 2007 7:22 AM
We invaded Iraq for one simple reason - they were the only country we could topple without halting the flow of oil in the middle east.
Do you contend that's a GOOD reason to invade a country? And the underlying premise that you're peddling is that we just "had to invade" a country, so Iraq was just as good as any other.
Are you serious?
we would have had France and China declaring war on us within hours.
I may not be good at chess, but this little nugget shows that you fail at living in the real world.
It is taqqiya. It is an explicit exemption from truthfulness that is granted to muslims representing their faith to the outside world.
Wow, wrong again. Taqiyya is the belief that one may conceal one's faith in order to protect his/her sacred body from harm. It's not "lying about anything". Do you read at all? Not only that, but it's generally limited strictly to the Shia sect. Do you have any idea if the said imam was Shia? Or do you just parrot your talking points from Free Republic? Start over, you fail.
Daniel Pipes, no dummy on the Middle East, takes down your ignorance here.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 7:25 AM
TMH - what the fuck are you, 12? Do you know anything at all about the history of the last 50 years?
1) In 1979, there was this little tiff about hostages. It was in all the papers.
2) The doctrine of "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch."
3) It was necessary to prevent either Iraq or Iran from gaining an upper hand in the region.
4) If not us, then the Soviets. And we were doing everything in our power to minimize their influence in the world.
brian at December 13, 2007 7:41 AM
Daniel Pipes, no dummy on the Middle East, takes down your ignorance here.
Looks to me like it reinforces brian's assessment. Did you read the whole thing?
Flynne at December 13, 2007 7:47 AM
Flynne - read it again. Pipes is responding to someone who uses brian's argument. Damn, do I have to put it into SparkNotes for you or something?
OK, for your edification, here's what Pipes (partially) wrote about taqiyya:
I do not agree with much in this posting. Three corrections are needed, in particular:
1. Taqiya is a Shi`i practice, not a Sunni one.
2. It concerns hiding one's Shi`i affiliation, pretending to be a Sunni.
3. It is done only under stress
Must suck to have the "immature snot-nose" demonstrate that you have no reading comprehension skills. The main point of course, being that brian's contention that Muslims can use this religious tenent to "lie about anything (typically their motives)" is a flat falsehood.
See also The Wikipedia entry about Taqiyya
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 8:16 AM
"If a person knows that the damage from telling the truth is worse from the point of view of God's commandments, he is permitted to lie."
So this is different from brian's assessment how?
It says right in the definition that the person is allowed to lie, based on what his take of the situation is, so what's to prevent him from skewing the situation in his favor, so that he can lie about it?
My reading comprehension skills are lacking? I think not.
Oh and I never called you an "immature snot-nose" but if the shoe fits...seems your reading comprehension skills are lacking somewhat. o_O
Flynne at December 13, 2007 8:28 AM
Flynne - you completely took that quote out of the context.
You're right, you don't lack reading comprehension skills. You lack morals, ethics and intellectual honesty.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 8:33 AM
AR, anything remotely interesting you have to say is layered under so much childish hostility that there is no point in trying to cut through the bluster.
martin at December 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Thanks for that little outburst, martin. Do you feel awwwl better now?
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 8:43 AM
Flynne - you completely took that quote out of the context.
Right, and every Shi'i will only practice Taqiyya in an honorable way, never seeking to use it to his advantage, or take it "out of context" themselves. What a fantasy world you live in, A R. Have fun!
Flynne at December 13, 2007 8:53 AM
You lack morals, ethics and intellectual honesty.
Well of course I do, I'm a witch, and, like Amy, a godless harlot, to boot! /sarc
Judgemental much?
Flynne at December 13, 2007 8:57 AM
"Do you feel awwwl better now?"
You know, I do. Thanks for asking.
martin at December 13, 2007 8:58 AM
Flynne - start over. Try again. My contention was with brian's rank mischaracterization, not with the idea that someone (gasp!) might twist a religious doctrine to meet their personal/political ends.
In other words, I never said that every Shia was honorable, just that brian's lies about the dispensation of taqiyya were, well, lies.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 9:21 AM
So you picked on brian for his interpretation. Just because you can. Well, that sure smacks of maturity!
Flynne at December 13, 2007 9:33 AM
"And I'm the immature one. Ho-kay."
See! It's those little bitchy comments that confuse you for a girl. I will continue to taunt you for it. I dont know if anyone has said this already but....Ayn throws like a girl! Ayn throws like a girl!
PurplePen at December 13, 2007 9:35 AM
No offence to anyone here, but this sort of exegesis (the polite bits, I mean, between AR, brian and Flynne) of translated sacred texts never gets resolved - since it all hinges on context within context within context.
Even when the text IS in your native tongue, you can get down to bloody phonemes without agreement!
(Where IS Joe when you need him!)
Jody Tresidder at December 13, 2007 9:39 AM
AR -- wow you don't even read what you cut and paste then bold (I am impressed that you know HTML if nothing else). Where's the conflict? I said I could apply it to Ice T's "kill the cops" mantra but never mentioned what punishment I'd apply in your first cut and paste then further down because I said a fine would be a more fitting punishment in his case you say I'm talking out both sides of my mouth. Huh? No, actually I was consistent. I don't think he should be allowed to urge people to kill the cops. Does that mean he can't express anger or dislike of the cops? Hell, no. I believe I expressed some myself. But do it without telling people to go out and murder them. That's not free speech, that's inciting to violence.
Donna at December 13, 2007 10:46 AM
"See! It's those little bitchy comments that confuse you for a girl."
Ayn is a GUY?!?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 13, 2007 10:52 AM
yes, Flynne, I am, because brian took a religious doctrine and contorted it into a political talking point. The bottom line is that no reputable scholar or Middle Eastern expert believes that taqiyya is a doctrine that "is an explicit exemption from truthfulness that is granted to muslims representing their faith to the outside world."
I mean, if I got on here and started making completely boldfaced lies like "Immaculate conception is the same as virgin birth", I'd expect to get called on it and backed up by people with a kernel of honesty in their bodies. That fact that folks have turned this into some kind of perverse popularity contest just bespeaks of a willing disregard for the truth.
Ayn is a GUY?!?
Snoop, did you start those history lessons yet or are you still sticking with the whole outdated "cheese-eating surrender monkey" shtick?
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Crid, thanks for the poster. Think it'll work on a 25 year old? My daughter is milking her recent illness a little too far and, now that she's back to work fulltime (and then some), it's time to do something about that.
Donna at December 13, 2007 11:08 AM
That's not free speech, that's inciting to violence.
Donna, incitement to violence limitations on free speech are considered within the context the speech. For example, if I were to shout "Let's go kill some cops!" in an empty room, that would not be speech that would incite violence because there's no one to incite. If I said the same thing at an angry mob with police around, however, that would be a different story.
Since Ice-T's song was sung in a recording booth and played on the radio, I hardly see how he was "inciting" people to violence.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 11:08 AM
Uh, AR, I think Snoop is demonstrating that he knows that Ayn is a woman's name. Frankly, she's proof that an Atheist is cult is just as bad as any other.
Donna at December 13, 2007 11:10 AM
Umm, I do think he had reasonable expectation to have people hear it. Selling it in a hit record is hardly the same thing as ranting and venting alone in his room.
Donna at December 13, 2007 11:46 AM
It's true, Aynnie. I'm a decrepit old coot and it's a burden for everyone around me.
How old are you?
Crid at December 13, 2007 11:50 AM
"That fact that folks have turned this into some kind of perverse popularity contest just bespeaks of a willing disregard for the truth"
You stamp your feet demanding we treat you like an adult yet....you think in terms of popularity contests! Look over previous posts, the regulars on here arent all hugs and kisses with each other. However I will include that comment among my favorites. The others include:
“Wow, someone needs to adjust their meds.”
*rolls eyes*
“I have not ever been, nor can I be, offended. I throw down the gauntlet to you to prove that I ever have been”
*Tee-hee, gosh, I didn't have a thought in my pretty little head until Crid straightened me out*...
“I mean, we don't punish murderers until they murder someone...same with rapists, thieves. Oh but DUI? That's different.”
PurplePen at December 13, 2007 12:08 PM
uh, PurplePen? My point was that others refuse to accept they're wrong (specifically about taqiyya) because they just want to stick it to me. Not that I care, it's your mind your wasting, but that was my point.
Donna - address the point that "incitement to violence" is contextual. You can't just declare written words/songs as "inciting violence". They have to, you know, actually incite violence. Do you have any proof Cop Killa incited people to kill cops? Oh, you don't? Then I guess it didn't actually incite any violence
Frankly, she's proof that an Atheist is cult is just as bad as any other.
Frankly, you're proof that dumb folks shouldn't breed.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 12:51 PM
Just scrolling through...and I find it really, uh, funny (?) that everyone is jumping on A_R for being "immature" and "childish" and "girly" b/c for the little jabs...but guess what? EVERYONE was throwing jabs. So, just b/c you think A_R is an idiot he must be criticized for the jabs...but since the rest of you are "right" your jabs are warranted, appropriate and ok?
Come onnnn kids, settle down!
p.s: not picking sides, just pointing out the inequity of this thread's bias in holding one person to a higher standard than the rest, aka the majority. It's just, ironically, equally as immature coming from "the rest" as when it come from A_R.
Gretchen at December 13, 2007 2:36 PM
oh and A_R, a comment about something you posted a while ago that stuck w/ me about holding society responsible for ills which they do not decry...
I lost a friend b/c she and another person held me, personally, and my whole family, personally, responsible for Hitler's genocide (b/c my grandparents were German immigrants post WWII). Collective guilt as a philosophical idea doesn't hold water in my opinion and never has. People are not and never will be of a single, hive-like mind.
This argument implies a couple bullshit things 1) guilt is transferable b/w generations 2) since trying to stop Hitler = death, you are guilty for protecting your own kids' lives over a stranger's life? In theory no one should stand for such injustices but not speaking out doesn't infer consent, it infers "how do I keep my family alive" ? I even let her know my great-grandfather passed out anti-Nazi pamphlets that discussed Hitler's maltreatment of Jews, gypsies, gays, black, and Catholics. No dice.
My closing argument to people who are "collective guilt pushers" is basically this: when you hop the next plane to Darfur, sacrifice your home, career and social ties to go *to your death* by trying to stop what is happening there I'll buy into your bullshit ideology that you can hold everyone responsible for the ills of a few...and that lack of speaking out = consent.
Gretchen at December 13, 2007 2:46 PM
> Come onnnn kids, settle down!
Guilty is charged... More than anything else, what I want from this guy is a guiding principle. But every comment is a bitchy new path...
Crid at December 13, 2007 4:38 PM
"Right, and every Shi'i will only practice Taqiyya in an honorable way, never seeking to use it to his advantage, or take it "out of context" themselves."
But we're allowed to hold every single one of them accountable for the fact that a few misinterpret for their own purposes? how about holding all christians responsible for the few who misinterpreted various passages to permit slavery? or slaughtering the natives? or beating their wives? there's also a passage about killing disobedient adolescents, and a rather amusing part that states that a woman who stops her husband from fighting by grabbing his testicles shall have her hand chopped off. and if i have my tattoo lasered off, am i still going to be punished for having one?
i am tired of the constant rant against muslims. do you think it's any more beneficial than the supposed constant muslim rant against christians? we can say we're educated and civilized and blah blah blah all we want, but so were the nazis. we paint them as devils but they were the same as we are, they got up every morning and tried to make the world a better place for their children. and they did very bad things. but they did them for the same reasons we do. and it probably started from one person saying "watch out, this group is going to try to take over the world as we know it". not all germans were responsible for the holocaust. not all muslims are responsible for terrorism. but blaming them all just makes for a nice way of perpetuating the problem.
so the answer to my question: the only key to the church of the holy sepulchre is owned by the imam of the mosque next door. why? because the 13 different christianities residing in that church can't agree on who should get a key and who shouldn't. should the ethiopians on the roof get one? what about the coptics in the closet outside? hmmmm....now for another useless fact for you - the reason that church still exists in the first place. when the muslims took over that region in something like the 3rd century (maybe the 4th. i'm a little rusty on those dates.) the imam at that time asked the christian leader of the time permission to visit that church, because jesus is important in islam as well. permission was granted, and for a few years the imam visited and prayed in that church on a regular basis. the christian leader of the time told the imam that he and his people would be granted permission to come and pray whenever they wanted, and the imam refused. he said that if he did that, then over time the church would become a mosque instead, and he believed it should remain christian, so instead he asked for permission to build the mosque next door.
not that anyone here cares, of course. it is far easier and far more comforting to believe that muslims are and always have been evil. it gives a nice little black and white, good versus evil answer to it all. there's no need to examine the grey area and figure out where we might both be good and both be evil. we don't have to acknowledge the humanity of the other side, we can brand them as the faceless, nameless evil, which makes it easier to feel safe and blameless.
kt at December 13, 2007 7:55 PM
kt - stuff it.
Taliban takes over in Afghanistan. Their priority? Dyamiting the Bimiyan Buddhas.
Hamas takes over the Palestinian territory. Their goal? Complete control of Jerusalem, no non-muslims allowed. Oh, and they want to re-build the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount.
Because one muslim at one time showed respect for one church is no reason to expect or anticipate that the behavior will be replicated. Those presently in control of Islam (in Iran and Saudi Arabia) are actively preaching the misogynist anti-Western strain of Islam that has been the cause of just about every terrorist act in the world in the last thirty years outside of Ireland.
And so far as your knock on Christians and slavery - you might remember this little thing that happened between 1861 and 1865.
And if you're going for moral equivalence, hell, Dred Scott was a bad piece of jurisprudence. Ought we condemn all judges from that time forward because of it?
The problem you and A_R have here is one of scope. You imagine that those of us who see political Islam as a problem are of such small mental faculty as to assume that all muslims must necessarily be monolithic, and furthermore that such a monolith is actually required for them to pose any real threat.
For the most part, that is entirely incorrect. Amy would argue that Islam ought to be tossed on the ash heap of history with all articles of faith. I will argue that Islam, without an enlightenment, is inherently at odds with Western post-Enlightenment civilization. The conflict is evident wherever there is a return to "fundamental" Islam - the eradication of individual rights, the return to chattel status for women and children, the totality of domination by the government and religious authority.
You seem to imagine a world where if we merely "understand" what makes the muslims so mad, we could all just get along. You do not appear to have the understanding of what makes them mad, and simply take what the white-guilt addled professors toss your way in humanities class.
Here's the cold hard reality of "why they hate us". Somewhere in the 13th century, the growth of knowledge, prestige, influence, and power in the Islamic world simply stopped. I do not have any concept of why this should be so, but it is. By the end of the 15th century, Christianity (for lack of a better term to describe post-Renaissance Europe) was ascendant. The pan-Arab culture, and the Islamic religion within it, stagnated, and watched those that they once ruled literally take over the world.
And they have never forgiven us for it.
And now, we have developed all sorts of technologies that they can and do use as force multipliers. So A_R can rave on all he likes about how not all muslims are suicide bombers. They don't have to be. 9/11 showed us that they could easily achieve a 150 to 1 kill ratio with commercial airliners. Had our military achieved this same level of efficiency in Iraq and Afghanistan, there would be better than three-fourths of a million (that's 750,000) dead (assumes 5,000 US military fatalities).
So, even if only one-tenth of one percent of the assumed 1.5 billion muslims on Earth want to destroy us, If they only manage to keep up their efficiency they can wipe another 225 million of us off the map. Think about that for a second. If every Jihadi who wanted to kill infidels managed to take out 150 people with himself, they could just about kill off the United States.
Even if they drop their efficiency by two orders of magnitude, that's still 2 million dead.
If you think that's an acceptable aggregate loss over the next, say, 10 years, then we're just going to have to walk away.
brian at December 13, 2007 8:55 PM
> there's no need to examine
> the grey area
I don't like church, and Islam seems like an especially gruesome one.
Crid at December 13, 2007 9:15 PM
KT, tell us what your best muslim friends are like.
Crid at December 13, 2007 9:27 PM
If they only manage to keep up their efficiency they can wipe another 225 million of us off the map.
Ok, so who is this "us" that will get wiped out? Don't lock me into your petty little "our tribe vs. their tribe" bullshit. I'm an individual; I am not "us" in any form or fashion.
As for the rest of your pseudointellectualism, you can't just take one event that had a high terrorist/kill ratio, make some assumptions and, oogita boogita, assume that radical Muslims will kill 2 million people over the next ten years. That is marginal thinking of the nth degree, boss.
More than anything else, what I want from this guy is a guiding principle.
No, dude, more than anything you want my age so you can dump me in some compartment of your mind that's marked "Young'n...Has No Idea What He's Talking About." I refuse to give you the satisfaction.
we have developed all sorts of technologies that they can and do use as force multipliers.
Don't use military words if you have no idea what they mean. Force multipliers are for, well, forces and armies. They increase one force's capabilities against another force. Given that these guys are nothing but craven criminals and murderers, I won't even allocate them use of the word "force".
Gretch - thanks for the back-up and pointing out the double standard. I 100% agree with you about collective guilt...that shit's for the Church. Too bad some want to declare an entire quarter of the earh's population guilty for the actions of a few.
kt - don't back down. You're right.
And as a final parting shot, I'd like to demonstrate that, yet again, brian has no idea what the hell he's talking about:
Oh, and they want to re-build the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount.
You ignorant slut, pick up a goddamn book once in a while: The Al-Aqsa mosque that currently fucking exists on the Temple Mount. brian, your willfull ignorance makes the baby Jesus cry.
Ayn_Randian at December 13, 2007 11:19 PM
Ok, so who is this "us" that will get wiped out? Don't lock me into your petty little "our tribe vs. their tribe" bullshit. I'm an individual; I am not "us" in any form or fashion.
Are you really that stupid?? Please, let me break it down for you: "Us" is a collective term for ALL of the INDIVIDUALS that live here in the USA and that make up Western civilization. The 200 of "us" that got hurt the first time (in 1993) that the World Trade center was attacked. The hundreds of "us" that got killed on the train in Spain a couple of years ago. The dozens of "us" that were hurt in the London subway bombings. The 3,000 of "us" that got killed in the attack on the World Trade center! Like it or not, all of "us" individuals make up the collective "us" that the fanatical Islams want to eradicate from the world. Do you honestly think that they're going to stop and ask each and every individual one of "us" how we feel about their religion before they blow "us" to bits?? Get your collective heads out of your asses and have a look at the real world, and the real threat that is staring "you" in the face. Oy! You "individuals" are going to get the rest of "us" killed!
Flynne at December 14, 2007 5:44 AM
"you can't just take one event that had a high terrorist/kill ratio, make some assumptions and, oogita boogita, assume that radical Muslims will kill 2 million people over the next ten years."
OK, boss, what are the proper assumptions? What are the proper numbers? Unload your vast and wise knowledge.
"more than anything you want my age... I refuse to give you the satisfaction."
It is pertinent information. A young person at your stage might mature into someone noteworthy. An old person with your views should be avoided.
"I 100% agree with you about collective guilt..."
You don't seem to have a problem casting collective guilt on those who disagree with you.
"And as a final parting shot..."
So in the end, your contribution is a string of insults? You are a person of fixation, not reflection.
doombuggy at December 14, 2007 6:32 AM
Don't lock me into your petty little "our tribe vs. their tribe" bullshit. I'm an individual; I am not "us" in any form or fashion.
AR,
I'm with Flynne here.
That - more than anything else you've written - smells like teen shit.
Jody Tresidder at December 14, 2007 6:49 AM
Flynne, you sound like a hysterical raving lunatic. NO, that's a BAD FLYNNE.
Do you honestly think that they're going to stop and ask each and every individual one of "us" how we feel about their religion before they blow "us" to bits??
No, I don't believe that. What I want to know is this: who is the "them" in "us" versus "them"? Amy and others seem to want to place the entire Islamic faith and all of its adherents as "our" opposition. That was the point I was trying to make...that is, don't lump me in to this "us" stuff if you're advocating a conflict with the entire Muslim world.
A lot of you are conflating wishes and desires with capabilities. I wish I had 100 million dollars and my own harem. Terrorists wish that they could destroy the west, but wish in one hand and shit in the other...
Here's the cold hard reality of "why they hate us". Somewhere in the 13th century, the growth of knowledge, prestige, influence, and power in the Islamic world simply stopped...the pan-Arab culture, and the Islamic religion within it, stagnated, and watched those that they once ruled literally take over the world.
And they have never forgiven us for it.
So, let me get this straight:
1. Muslims harbor a grudge against the West that goes 600 years back. Muslims have, from generation to generation, handed down the tale of how Islam lost its supremacy, from parent to child, from the 15th century to present-day.
2. Muslims have included America in this ancient blood feud, even though America didn't even exist as a Western nation until the 18th century.
So, in summary, Muslims have an ancient blood feud with the west for running them out of power in the 15th century. They have passed down and harbored the hate and bitterness for over 600 years.
You seriously talk about this like it's a plotline from Underworld. You need to get a grip.
A young person at your stage might mature into someone noteworthy.
Oh, thanks doombuggy! I am so glad you deigned to condescend to me and pat me on the head and say "Son, someday you'll be noteworthy".
It is pertinent information.
Either my points are relevant and provide insight or they do not. Age is not pertinent to the conversation.
AR, I'm with Flynne here.
Sucks to be you then, doesn't it?
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 7:10 AM
"What I want to know is this: who is the "them" in "us" versus "them"?"
Flynne answered that, AR.
"Them" is the murderous minority who, yes, punch successfully above their weight. That's the problem. (At least part of it).
Jody Tresidder at December 14, 2007 7:23 AM
AR, I know that you purposely pick and choose what you respond to from what everyone posts, which demonstrates your immaturity all the more.
What I want to know is this: who is the "them" in "us" versus "them"?
I already answered that: "they" are the fanatical 13th-century-thinking Islams seeking to eradicate "us" of 21st century western civilization as we know it.
We are not advocating trying to "lump" anyone into anything with the "entire Muslim world"; we're saying we need to eradicate the Islam fanatics before they eradicate us. Try to read complete posts before you pick and choose what you respond to, because you may find your answers there before you even have to ask the questions. I'm amazed that you still don't get it.
Either my points are relevant and provide insight or they do not.
Well, they don't - all they do is underscore the fact that you haven't lived long enough to have developed a mature thought process.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 7:26 AM
Since I've had a "greatest hits" assembled for me, I'd thought that I would highlight the "best of" from all those people who claim *I'm* the immature:
Now be a good girl & take a sip of your latte'. - Snoop
Ayn, take a breath, sweetie. You're rant is showing. - Snoop again
Hmmmm, from Code Pink HQ? - Guess who again?
Enough with snot, little Cadet. - Crid
Maybe he's trying too hard, but that's just the zealous sort of trooper he is.
I kid. More likely he's just got a bit of Troll in his family lineage. - Jamie
I think it has to do with his immaturity, something that hopefully he'll outgrow. The non-internet outdoor real interaction with people is such a stern master that it might beat it out of him one way or another.
As someone who has great interactions with men in their 50's Ayn you are incredibly thick headed. - PurplePen
Cheese-eating surrender monkey alert - Snoop
you act like a teenager full of angst - a pseudo-intellectual emo-troll. - Jamie
You keep talking like a child. You think like one. - Crid
TMH - what the fuck are you, 12? - brian
anything remotely interesting you have to say is layered under so much childish hostility that there is no point in trying to cut through the bluster. - martin
And yet, I have seen NO ONE talk to any of these peope about their "immaturity". All I've been doing is dishing out what I get sent to me.
And this just in: while I'm writing this post, Flynne cracks on my maturity not once, but twice:
I know that you purposely pick and choose what you respond to from what everyone posts, which demonstrates your immaturity all the more.
Cute...as if you have categorically refuted every single point I have made on this entire thread.
Well, they don't - all they do is underscore the fact that you haven't lived long enough to have developed a mature thought process.
It's your story, sister, you tell it how you like. If nothing I provide is relevant or insightful, then just stop responding and let the people with brains in their heads argue, ok sweetheart?
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 7:36 AM
AR - so I mis-spoke on the Al-Aqsa mosque. Chalk it up to being less than perfectly careful in wording that one section of my post.
In truth, yes, the Mosque is on a part of the temple mount. The entire area is walled off and under control of the PA, and they have a shaky agreement that the site shall be shared. The Jews want to rebuild the temple at the Western Wall. The muslims are expanding their construction in that area, and the wall is bulging. Some fear that the wall itself might collapse - coincidentally removing the reason for Jews to go there in the first place. They have also said that the site must remain entirely in Islamic control forever - and letting the Jews build a temple there is not going to happen.
So the proper formulation of what I said would be that the intent is to deny the Jews the opportunity to build any temple anywhere on the mount, while expanding the Al-Aqsa mosque to cover the entire site.
And if you don't see the connections through history from the conquest of Al-Andalus, to the Reconquista in 1492, to the Barbary Pirates in the late 1700s, etc., there's nothing I can do to convince you that there is a real threat in this world.
You can continue to stick your head in the sand. You can continue to belittle those of us who see the threat for what it is. But you will continue to be wrong.
brian at December 14, 2007 7:36 AM
A_R this is getting quite tiring. I understand the need to attack all that is uncomfortable to one's worldview. But attacking me for questioning the maturity of a hit and run troll who asked this:
Both the content and the form of that question scream "I am an immature child who hates Republicans".
You're going to have to do significantly better than that if you wish to impugn any maturity I might have lying about.
brian at December 14, 2007 7:40 AM
then just stop responding and let the people with brains in their heads argue, ok sweetheart?
I'm not arguing, sweetheart. I'm just pointing out the obvious. You have yet to acknowledge when anyone's been right about anything. I suppose that's because you think you're the only one who is right.
You can continue to stick your head in the sand. You can continue to belittle those of us who see the threat for what it is. But you will continue to be wrong.
What brian said. And just some food for thought: If everyone else on this board is making comments about one person's immaturity, doesn't it stand to reason that that one person just might be immature? You constantly insult people, calling them "hysterical", "ignorant slut", and "dumb folks" among other things, so why do you still post here? Do you honestly think you're going to change anyone's mind about you? Good luck with that.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 7:47 AM
Some fear that the wall itself might collapse - coincidentally removing the reason for Jews to go there in the first place.
Or, you know, the wall could actually be collapsing. But when you're a paranoid lunatic who's convinced that a vast Islam conspiracy against the west has existed for six centuries, well, I guess you read everything, even minor construction problems, through a certain lens.
Chalk it up to being less than perfectly careful in wording that one section of my post.
Ummm...no. That wasn't a misspoken phrase. Someone (freepers?) literally told you that Muslims want to consume the entire Temple Mount and you regurgitated that talking point all jacked up. I mean, instead of backing down, you're just layering the crazy.
I understand the need to attack all that is uncomfortable to one's worldview.
I'm sure you do, because that's all you've been doing. Spinning long, fanciful, ridiculous yarns about the ancient Muslim blood feud with the West and America (which didn't even exist yet) is your fantasy way of justifying your hate of all Muslims.
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 7:49 AM
Sorry, "board" should be "blog". Mea culpa, Amy!
(Oh and AR? Apologizing when you're wrong goes a long way toward's someone's credibility. But I suppose you're mature enough to know that.)
Flynne at December 14, 2007 7:51 AM
Spinning long, fanciful, ridiculous yarns about the ancient Muslim blood feud with the West and America (which didn't even exist yet) is your fantasy way of justifying your hate of all Muslims.
Proof positive that you haven't been paying attention. YOU are the only way saying "Muslim". The rest of us have been emphasizing "Islam". Big difference, AR.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 7:53 AM
Flynne - for your edification:
So, just b/c you think A_R is an idiot he must be criticized for the jabs...but since the rest of you are "right" your jabs are warranted, appropriate and ok? - Gretchen
Like I said, you've been sending just as hard as i have.
I liked this too: If everyone else on this board is making comments about one person's immaturity, doesn't it stand to reason that that one person just might be immature?
Umm...no, unless you believe that reason depends on the overwhelming opinion of like, five people on the message thread.
YOU are the only way saying "Muslim". The rest of us have been emphasizing "Islam".
Oh, you hate Islam as an evil, wanna-destroy-all-of-us doctrine...not its adherents and implementors. That makes sense.
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 8:02 AM
AR, I'm sorry I insulted you because you insulted me and called me names and said things about me that aren't true. But if you feel the way you do about us all, why don't you just take your ball and go home? You don't play fair, and you think that insulting us is in some way going to make us see things the way you do. I'm sorry for all of the misunderstandings. And yes, I do hate Islam and its Muslim followers. But I do not hate all Muslims. Please do not cast apersions on me or try to tell me what I think. That also smacks of immaturity. Good luck to you.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 8:10 AM
And yes, I do hate Islam and its Muslim followers. But I do not hate all Muslims.
Without any insulting, name-calling or anything nasty, Flynne, the above sentence makes NO sense to me...
Wait, you do know that a "Muslim" is by definition a follower of Islam, right?
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 8:20 AM
AR - What the fuck is a freeper? Is that the same thing as a Barking Moonbat? Because if so, I can assure you that I am completely sane.
I'm only going by what the muslim leaders themselves are saying. You can learn a lot by reading translations of the arab-language news. Of course, you'll just say that they are all propaganda rags, and no more indicate the desire of the Islamists to take over the world than did Pravda's boasts about the supremacy of the USSR. In fact, I've saved you the trouble.
The fact still remains that what they say to their followers, and what they say to the west are two very different things.
You could look up the translations yourself. But, since they were done by people you don't agree with, you'll just dismiss them as forgeries by conspiracy-minded lunatics.
Here's a question I know you won't answer: What evidence do you have that the leaders of Islam are not striving for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation or destruction of what is loosely known as Western Civilization?
brian at December 14, 2007 8:20 AM
http://www.demotivators.com/dysfunction.html
brian at December 14, 2007 8:22 AM
What evidence do you have that the leaders of Islam are not striving for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation or destruction of what is loosely known as Western Civilization?
None...what prove to have that they are able in ANY WAY to make their strivings come true?
Jesus...when did I say that they DON'T want to destroy the west? I just questioned your idea that they have been hellbent on it since the 1400s.
I've never said I'm not willing to listen or look at it as a problem. I just don't happen to believe it represents the grave, imminent threat as everyone has made it out be.
Just because I cast doubts on the war-hawks crazier theories about Islam doesn't mean I like it. It means I am questioning your premises. Do you think that everyone that disagrees with you must automatically be your enemies' ally or something?
brian, a freeper is a FreeRepublic message board member...they're generally nasty little right-wingers with nothing good to say about anybody.
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 8:43 AM
A_R -
Has anyone here said that it's an imminent threat? I'm not saying that they're gonna storm the castle tomorrow morning.
But the time to deal with a problem is when it is small. If we wait until the threat is imminent, then far more people will die.
Pipes may not believe in a conspiracy to overtake Europe. I don't think the muslims there do either. An imam in London merely pointed out the fact that muslims are outbreeding Britons by a 3 to 1 margin (roughly). He infers from this fact that eventually non-muslims will be a minority in Europe, and the muslims will then be able to implement sharia democratically.
There's no need for a conspiracy, or even a war, when one side of the conflict has opted out.
Where my fear comes in is what happens in 30 or 40 years, when the muslims HAVE demographically taken over in Europe. They aren't assimilating, they're biding their time. The imams urge them to reject western culture and cling to Islam.
When the inevitable occurs, they will have access to the military hardware of all those nations they have taken political control over. What do you suppose they'll do with it?
Remember, these people believe that they are ordained by God to take over, and do not believe that they can lose. They won't be dissuaded by a mere threat of counter-annihilation.
To answer your last question - I think that anyone who disagrees with me and does not have anything but insults and conjecture is an annoyance. In order to be considered an ally of the enemy, you'd need to do what AP does, and repeat their propaganda as truth, or advocate for surrender.
You just want to kick the can down the street and hope that someone else picks it up. After all, it's only one can.
brian at December 14, 2007 9:07 AM
brian, this whole "this different religion is flowing in to a country with designs to take it over at the behest of their religious leaders" argument is ridiculous, and it's NOT new.
The Know-Nothing Party:
The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.
Does that in any way sound familiar? It should, because it's the exact same argument you're making right now.
And for the rest of your argument: this is EXACTLY why I got nasty with you in the first place. You're assuming that all Muslims everywhere, or enough that move in to any one or multiple countries, are prepared to blindly follow their leaders and implement Sharia law. Tell me this then: why is Sharia not the law EVERYWHERE Muslims are a majority? Why did the Taliban have to implement Sharia by force? Do you think it's possibly because the average Muslim doesn't really want Sharia law? Sharia law does not rule in Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Bangladesh.
But you're painting all Muslims with the same brush: you assume that they are going to move in to a great country, ignore all of its wealth, culture and convenience and vote themselves back to the seventh century. That is absurd, at BEST.
Finally, if Sharia law and radical Islam are Public Enemy Number 1, why would you support removing Saddam Hussein? Iraq was one of the few nations NOT ruled by Sharia, so wtf?
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 9:33 AM
Flynne, seriously, answer my question: Did you know that a Muslim is an adherent of the Islamic faith or didn't you?
Otherwise these statements:
YOU are the only way saying "Muslim". The rest of us have been emphasizing "Islam". Big difference, AR.
And yes, I do hate Islam and its Muslim followers. But I do not hate all Muslims.
wouldn't make a lick of sense. Please, please tell me that you didn't think Muslim = Arab...did you?
You DID!
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 9:37 AM
Yes, you're right AR, I should have said that I hated the Islamist fanatics that hate western civilization and want to eradicate it from the face of the earth. I actually do not care for ANY type of organized religion. If I want to go to "church", I'll take a walk in the woods.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 9:41 AM
A_R the difference between me and the know nothings is quite simple: the Irish did not spend their time telling everyone else of their plans to take over.
As to why Iraq - the idea was to destabilize the middle east in such a way as to not interrupt the flow of oil.
You know, if you could be bothered to analyze anything further than one step out, you could figure this all out for yourself.
And I've also not assumed any such thing about ALL muslims. But the majority of muslim immigrants in London most certainly DO support sharia.
brian at December 14, 2007 9:44 AM
You DID!
No, I did not.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 9:46 AM
Brian, it's not worth it to argue with AR. It's been clear to me for quite some time now that when he wants our opinion, he'll give it to us.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 9:48 AM
You know, if you could be bothered to analyze anything further than one step out, you could figure this all out for yourself.
you know, we were getting back to a civil tone and then you had to be a condescending prick (and a wrong one, at that). It's people like you who don't consider things further than one step out...you support overthrowing the largest secular government in the Persian Gulf and then come up with some "lame excuse".
Back in the '80s, it was people like you who supported Saddam against the radical Islamists in Iran while backing the radical Islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. And instead of taking about, oh, 80 years of Western interference as some kind of evidence of "blowback", you blame it on some 600 year-old grudge and parrot "they hate us for our freedoms".
Occam's razor is sharp, no?
But the majority of muslim immigrants in London most certainly DO support sharia
Um, do you have a link, study, poll or any kind of evidence to back that up in any kind of way, or is this one of those "Miss Cleo" moments you're having again?
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 9:51 AM
A_R: Please explain to me how Occam's razor explains the Barbary Pirates. That was blowback for what, precisely?
And back in the 80s, my personal preference, as a young misanthrope, was to simply pave the middle east and start over.
And I've never ever EVER used that stupid fucking line "they hate us for our freedoms", because it is simply not fucking true,
They hate us because we are not them.
It cannot get any simpler. Islam was built on the promise of the conquest of Europe. Christendom (and as much as you hate the idea, you're living in a piece of it) has been at war with Islam from the day of its birth in the seventh century.
If 80 years of interference should cause blowback, can you explain to me the lack of Islamic terror in Russia? Discounting the whole Chechnya thing, where Islamists and anti-Russian forces decided to kick Putin in the balls, I don't see a whole lot of blowback there.
And Iraq may have been secular, but he was just as interested in regional hegemony as Iran was and is. You might remember that he invaded Kuwait, and was believed to have designs on Saudi Arabia.
How do you think that would have worked out for us?
And as far as the poll, why don't you go look it up at Little Green Footballs.
brian at December 14, 2007 10:01 AM
Man, I almost want to be there when AR explains how he's an individual -- not a member of a tribe -- when and if they do kill off the infidels. Almost. Newsflash, AR, whether you label yourself that or not -- they do. Anyone not Muslim is an infidel. It doesn't get any more us vs. them than that.
Oh, and I don't give a hang if you're 15, 25, or 75, you are stupid and naive and it shows whatever age you are. And you don't even know my daughter and grandson but, yep, all right, I guess everyone's calling you names and you're not doing likewise.
Donna at December 14, 2007 10:25 AM
And as far as the poll, why don't you go look it up at Little Green Footballs.
That explains a lot.
If 80 years of interference should cause blowback, can you explain to me the lack of Islamic terror in Russia? Discounting the whole Chechnya thing
Uhh, so you want the prime example excluded? That's called cheating, dude.
Seriously, knock off the goofy Barbary Pirates shit and the vast Islamic conspiracy theories. We had problems with the Barbary Pirates because they were...pirates, despite whatever the Tripoli ambassador said. As a matter of fact, his explanation sounds an awfully lot like the justification for the Crusades, in that both events happened for economic motivations cloaked in religion.
And Iraq may have been secular, but he was just as interested in regional hegemony as Iran was and is. You might remember that he invaded Kuwait, and was believed to have designs on Saudi Arabia.
Make up your mind, man! Do you want to battle Islamic fundamentalism or not? Then WHY would you go after a secularist and sworn enemy of Osama bin Laden?
And you don't even know my daughter and grandson but, yep, all right, I guess everyone's calling you names and you're not doing likewise.
What? You should try thinking and THEN typing, Donna. it generally does not work in reverse.
Ayn_Randian at December 14, 2007 10:52 AM
Geez, AR, you are beyond arrogant. That's not a compliment.
Flynne at December 14, 2007 11:09 AM
crid: what does black/white dualities have to do with going to church?
and my muslim friends...the one from tunisia never wears a hijab, laughs at them openly (even in tunisia) and has a spectacular sense of humor. you'd like her. another one - oh, wait, she's from milwaukee, but her father is egyptian and her mother's philipino. she's in the marine corps. she's gay, and no, she doesn't wear a hijab either. also very funny. i don't think you'd like her so much, she tells people when she thinks they're stupid in words they can understand. another guy - he's from egypt, lives in minnesota, haven't seen him in a long time - loaned us a bunch of money and makes us free pizza from his domino's branch whenever we visit. he's never asked for the money back, and we still can't afford to pay it to him. but next time we're there, he'll get it with interest.
when i was in the middle east (whoa, you didn't see that coming, did you) i think i saw one hijab the entire time. the al-aqsa mosque is quite beautiful, actually, very bright. i didn't have to wear a hijab there either. they did make sure i wasn't carrying any weapons though. we stayed in the old city, in the ecce homo convent. they have a hostel there. never got anything but smiles and welcomes from the palestinians - or the jordanians, for that matter, who also did not wear hijabs, and where the children regularly handed us roses. i still have a couple of them. roses, not children. the muslims and the christians actually get along quite well there (40% of palestinians are christian, did you know that?).
there's a word, also, for what we hear about these areas here. it's called probaganda. have you ever noticed that nothing good ever comes out of generalizing about any group of people? we all start out with good intentions, though. we even think that this time will be different, because this time we're enlightened, this time we're right. but we're no different than we've ever been. the nazis thought they were enlightened too. and they also truly believed that the jews/gays/gypsies/whatever were going to be the downfall of society as they knew it.
kt at December 14, 2007 2:38 PM
The danger Islam poses can be seen by the way it uses violence, threats and murder against its critics.
You can make the most vile parodies of Christianity or any other religion and feel perfectly safe doing so. Not so with Islam, where even relativly mild criticisms result in death or years under armed protection in hiding.
The "jews/gays/gypsies/whatever" never represented that kind of threat.
winston at December 14, 2007 11:26 PM
we know that they didn't pose that threat now. the point was, which you apparently missed, was that perfectly rational people at that time believed that they did pose a serious enough threat to kill them. and not in a nice way.
as far as islam posing a danger, it's not islam itself. it's the fanatical followers. and it also depends on where you are whether or not your criticisms - which may be mild by our standards and not so much to others - will provoke death.
kt at December 14, 2007 11:56 PM
It's, of course, a given that criticism of Islam can kill you in a predominately Muslim country.
But it can be fatal in Europe as well. This threat muzzles criticism of Islam even in non-Islamic countries. The fact that an ideology can shut down it critics through violence is evidence of its danger.
"...perfectly rational people at that time believed that they did pose a serious enough threat..."
Perfecly rational people used to think tomatoes were poisonous. The fact that those people were wrong doesn't mean there are no poisonous plants.
"...it's not islam itself. it's the fanatical followers" ...and what are they following?
winston at December 15, 2007 12:40 AM
"it's of course"? a given? not quite. maybe in some of the muslim countries. but definitely not all. enough with the sweeping generalizations already.
tomatoes? are you seriously presenting this as a counter-argument? get real. the point. is. that. rational people believe stupid things. the nazis believed some stupid things about an entire group of people and were perfectly rational. we are completely rational people and yet some of us believe that an entire group - this time muslims -are inherently evil and going to kill us all. are we making a connection yet? no? i give up.
the fanatical followers are following a particularly violent interpretation of jihad. this does not imply that islam as a whole supports this interpretation. but just like we do with other groups we don't belong to, we expect 1) that a minority represents the whole and 2) that if it doesn't, every last one of them had better write us a personal email explaining how they don't agree. how reasonable is it for us to expect that? how is the majority supporting peace newsworthy, in the first place, that it would reach us?
kt at December 15, 2007 1:45 AM
> as far as islam posing
> a danger, it's not islam
> itself. it's the fanatical
> followers.
Which of those many Muslim friends you mentioned the other day has publicly renounced the fanatics?
How many of them would brush off the depiction of their deity as a Dashboard Mohammed...
Crid at December 15, 2007 12:15 PM
...as readily as a contemporary Catholic like filmmaker Kevin Smith has ridiculed his own beloved savior?
A tiny percentage of people who drive over the legal limit of blood alcohol levels will get into trouble driving home from the bar. It's nonetheless sensible to harshly punish all of them.
And for the record, kt, you sorta dodged my question the other day: How many of your Muslim friends have actually complained about being oppressed? And why do I have to hear about their burden from you, instead of from them? Are they too mousy to let me respond to their discomfort directly?
I think what you're expressing is your own schoolgirl's timidity to disagreement at a cocktail party... You hate it when people you don't even know just can't get along, and your distance from them allows you to pretend you've found an inner peace that they've not achieved yet. You must not be describing genuine hurt felt by anyone you know... Because if they're living, breathing souls, they ought to be able to squeal for themselves.
Crid at December 15, 2007 12:16 PM
--the fanatical followers are following a particularly violent interpretation of jihad. this does not imply that islam as a whole supports this interpretation. but just like we do with other groups we don't belong to, we expect 1)... 2)...--
The other day I heard someone draw an analogy between the Ku Klux Klan and Islam. He imagined that not all klansman are bad people. Heck, some even pick up trash along the highways, so we shouldn't condemn them all. We need to get to know them as individuals, then make our decision on a case by case basis. No group guilt allowed.
The eventual point was that it is sometimes useful to have product differentiation, especially when the association is with something so monstrous that people opt out of researching its finer points. The Ford Pinto became a symbol of highway danger, so instead of advertising its good points, it became time to replace it with the Ford Something Else. The white robe and hood has become such a negative symbol that it inspires people to grab a blow torch and a pair of pliers. If your intention is highway cleanliness, maybe one could opt for the saffron robe and lose the baggage of the old uniform. If it is important to you how your religion is perceived in the marketplace of ideas, maybe it is time for the peaceful Muslims to start calling themselves something like "Blue State Muslims", so we have a shorthand way to know they won't steal an airplane.
doombuggy at December 15, 2007 7:08 PM
Here in the States, you got yer Catholics, then you got your Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists and Mormons and Episcopalians and your Lutherans and a couple dozen other kinds of Christ-lovers. They all have to get along. Why isn't that happening in Islam?
Crid at December 15, 2007 7:40 PM
crid, you're an idiot. my muslim friends are not going to write on this blog simply to tell you, who they don't know and don't give a fuck about, that they aren't terrorists. or that they feel oppressed. and why should they? who are you to them? just another asshole, that they again, do not know and don't give a fuck about. do we expect every african american person to write you, specifically, that they are not gang members. we don't even expect them to pronounce it to the newspapers. maybe we should start doing that too. maybe we should extend that expectation to actual africans, too, since you can't tell by looking at them that they're african, and not african american. do you see how ridiculous this would get? probably not. even so, there are, as we've said, 1.5 billion muslims. that's a lot of email. and a lot of newspaper.
it is sensible to punish all people with a DUI BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL. being a muslim is not illegal. although apparently you think it should be. who should we make illegal next? i vote for the southern baptists.
you're comparing islam to the KKK. ironic, since you're the one making generalizations about an entire group of people being evil. the purpose of the KKK is to separate groups of people according to race and creed based on racism/creedism/ hatever. the purpose of islam is not. i am not going to try to point out a differentiation between fanatacism and the religion itself again because you are an idiot and can't figure it out.
i'm not a schoolgirl. i'm also not particularly timid. neither are my friends. but why would they go out of their way to clear their names to an asshole they don't know and who wouldn't believe them anyway? they're smarter than you.
kt at December 15, 2007 9:05 PM
--my muslim friends are not going to write on this blog...--
I don't expect them to. In a similar vein, I don't expect the chairman of Ford to write me, and tell me how good his cars are. Nor do I expect any employee of Ford to make a personal pitch to me. But there is a body of work done by Ford, there are ways to get the story out, and we kind of know the score. It would seem the wonders of Islam could be exposed to the world by similar means.
--being a muslim is not illegal.--
Neither is being a Klansman, or a Black Panther. But sometimes groups have baggage one has to explain.
--the purpose of the KKK is to separate groups of people according to race and creed based on racism/creedism/ hatever. the purpose of islam is not.--
Islam preaches a lot of separation and hierarchy, both formally and in practice.
I don't want to dwell on any mapping between Islam and the Klan. It was used to point out that sometimes a group gets associated with acts so monstrous it might be time to re-brand.
--i am not going to try to point out a differentiation between fanatacism and the religion itself again--
Maybe you should. Important points are worth repeating.
--why would they go out of their way to clear their names...--
It might be worthwhile. "No good deed goes unrewarded."
doombuggy at December 15, 2007 10:26 PM
> do we expect every african
> american person to write
> you, specifically
The grievances of blacks, and the traffic of ideas within their 'community,' are all around me in books and magazines and web pages and conversations with friends. Blacks clearly and directly express their individual feelings about race and everything else under the sun. They do this without the help of any white person.
Especially you. It'd be cool if Muslims could do that, too. As noted above, Christianity has fragmented to the point that no sect or pair of sects can run the whole show, which has helped it find a loving home in secular America. Islam hasn't done that yet, and it's not a "constant rant against Muslims" to say so.
A drinker disavows the tragedies of drunk driving by (1.) not doing it and (2.) y'know, disavowing it. The stakes of religious fanaticism are at least that high. Christian churches critique each other with naked relish.
For the last few years, Amy's blog has considered Islam in pretty close detail, and there's some odious stuff that's going to need to be explicitly renounced as its faithful settle in here. And you can't do this for them any more than Amy can speak for inner-city Detroit: You have no standing.
Crid at December 15, 2007 10:45 PM
you completely miss the point. again. not surprising. blacks express their opinions about race. yes. but they 1) are not expected or required to deny gang membership, or any other individual relationship to the problems of that community and 2) often express frustration at being asked to represent their entire race, or prove that they don't fit the negative stereotypes. oh, wait, i can hear your response already - "but they don't commit acts of terrorism" - maybe not per se. but do you particularly want to walk alone at midnight in the south side of chicago? detroit? pick your city. here it's the north side of milwaukee. i don't either. that doesn't mean that every black person i meet is suspect, and it doesn't mean i expect them to all make a point to take out an ad personally arguing against that shit.
actually, christianity has different sects because they disagree. not because they got together one day and decided to have different formats for different people. they also have different doctrines, some of which advocate bombing planned parenthood, by the way.
your whole drunk driving analogy is just stupid. drunk driving is illegal. being muslim is not. you know, that whole freedom of religion thing. i know, you hate it. get over it.
you apparently do want 1.5 billion people to send you personal emails denouncing terrorism. or take out newspaper ads. apparently you do not see the idiocy in this. the leaders of the muslim organizations in this region have already done so. but of course you missed that, because it doesn't fit your rather bigoted worldview. and it appears it wouldn't have been enough for you anyway.
kt at December 15, 2007 11:32 PM
> they 1) are not expected
> or required to deny
> gang membership
Of course they are, just as I'm expected to deny participation in KKK-ish activities. They do and I do.
> often express frustration
> at being asked to represent
> their entire race
Yes, because color is not adherence to a single text, as Islam is.
> oh, wait, i can hear
> your response already
I've been here for years. You can trust me on this: Amy will pay for all the server space we need to make ourselves understood, so there's no reason to anticipate anything. Just hit the Paypal link on your way out.
> maybe not per se.
Not just per se, but in any context for which you could find words, black people aren't terrorists. Nor are terrorism and crimes from poverty the same thing, and I can't imagine what purpose you find in conflating them.
> christianity has different
> sects because they disagree.
Yes; very good. They differentiate for many purposes, and are thus able and compelled to integrate with secular American life. If Islam can't permit at least as much diversity of thought, we're going to have a problem. Capiche?
> some of which advocate
> bombing planned parenthood,
> by the way.
Name one, without Googling. You're new here, so I think you're misunderstanding something: This blog is not part of a Christian Defense Initiative... Quite the opposite.
> you apparently do want
> 1.5 billion people to
> send you personal emails
I have Gmail, so that would be cool, but what I want is for Islam to show (show!) the same diversity of practice and enthusiasm as do the other faiths with which I've made uneasy peace, including the one into which I was born. (I was named for my grandfather, a Methodist minister, and thanks for asking.)
> it doesn't fit your
> rather bigoted
> worldview
I'm starting to suspect that you, like A_R, are a teenager... You have that same compulsive presumption that anyone who has any standards about anything is a "bigot".
Let me try this one more time: Who authorized you to speak for them? Why can't these Muslim darlings of your acquaintance speak for themselves about the heartache of their "vilification"?
Crid at December 16, 2007 1:05 AM
actually, christianity has different sects because they disagree. not because they got together one day and decided to have different formats for different people. they also have different doctrines, some of which advocate bombing planned parenthood, by the way.
As I've said here before, rabbis and ministers are not standing up on their pulpits telling their flock to go murder those who aren't like-minded. I am no fan of religion (nor am I a fan of astrology, homeopathy, or other crap people believe in without evidence), but there's a difference between Christianity and Judaism and Islam. You know it, too.
Be honest: You can live in a Muslim society or a Judeo-Christian one -- which do you choose?
And regarding your Muslim friends -- per your words, "my muslim friends are not going to write on this blog" -- I speak out almost daily against Islamic terrorism and Islam's disgusting treatment of women and homosexuals. Where are these friends of yours? Surely, their voices carry more weight within the Islamic community than mine.
PS If only 12 percent of Canadian Muslims think a terrorist plot that included kidnapping and beheading the prime minister and blowing up Parliament and the Canadian TV network was justified...that's 700,000 people we're talking about.
Now, you mention Christians who want to blow up abortion clinics, or do. Who is that? Eric Rudolph? Maybe two more nutwads? Vive la difference, huh?
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 2:04 AM
Who authorized you to speak for them? Why can't these Muslim darlings of your acquaintance speak for themselves about the heartache of their "vilification"?
You did, you idiot, when you asked me about them and their views. you can't have it both ways, you either get to ask me about them and pay attention to the answer, or not.
i am not a teenager. teenagers are, generally speaking, schoolgirls. but you only want people's age so you can have something inarguable - if a person is "too young", you can negate their opinion just by virtue of that, and it's pretty hard to argue the point. that's the coward's way out.
when have you ever been required to take out an ad or deny to anyone membership in the KKK? you must have done something - like being a bigot - to suggest that you were, because i haven't had to.
why does a religion you don't believe in have to follow your rules for dividing itself? that's asinine. and arrogant. fits you. and, by the way, there's quite a bit of diversity in islam, but that hardly makes the papers either. or our euro-central education system.
you still are being stupid. i don't know why i'm so surprised. islam may be adherence to a single text. so is christianity. but not every muslim interprets it the same way any more than every christian does, and therefore, not every muslim is a fanatic. muslims are not terrorists. fanatics are.
and you may have gmail. whatever, i don't give a rat's ass. who decided that everyone has to justify themselves to you in the first place? oh yeah,that would be you. again, arrogant and asinine.
i also don't give a rat's ass how long you've "been here" relative to myself. it doesn't make you any less stupid or any less of an ass.
kt at December 16, 2007 2:08 AM
Abortion clinic violence. It's epidemic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
That's seven people, since 1993. Meanwhile, a bombing in Algeria last week, by those sweet people in Al Qaeda, took out 37. 3,000 were killed on 9/11, just blocks from my old apartment in NYC.
Those Muslim friends of yours? Tell them to untape whatever they've got covering their mouths, and start squawking, will ya?
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 2:14 AM
quite a bit of diversity in islam, but that hardly makes the papers either. or our euro-central education system.
Yes, in Muslim countries, sometimes they hang 'em, sometimes they stone 'em to death. That'll teach 'em!
Thanks, I'll take the "euro-central" (I think you mean "eurocentric") education system, with all that hooha about the scientific method and freedom of speech and thought that doesn't go over so well in Islamic countries. Notice all the great scientific discoveries coming out of these places lately? Me neither.
When are you moving to Saudi Arabia?
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 2:19 AM
Here in the States, you got yer Catholics, then you got your Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists and Mormons and Episcopalians and your Lutherans and a couple dozen other kinds of Christ-lovers. They all have to get along. Why isn't that happening in Islam?
Great point, Crid. When's the last time anybody saw the Lutherans setting a car bomb for the Unitarians?
Or set one of their kids on fire?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/20/burned.boy.surgery/index.html?eref=rss_us
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 2:23 AM
the point wasn't how many people got killed. the point was that it was done by fanatics. which are not the entirety of the population.
and, by the way, not all the people in the mosques are preaching that fanaticism. my point has been that the entire population cannot be blamed for the actions of the (relatively) few fanatics.
and actually, i wouldn't mind living in Jordan. nice climate. good people. i don't know that i would move there tomorrow, after all my family is here and i like them, but other than the scarcity of water, not bad at all.
my muslim friends - they're my friends. i'm hardly going to advise them to come on this blog to defend themselves for not doing anything wrong, just to be insulted. would you do that to your friends? they speak their mind - against terrorism - whenever the opportunity arises. but they're ordinary people. they don't attract much newspaper attention for saying they don't want to kill anyone. or convert them, either, for that matter.
kt at December 16, 2007 2:29 AM
by the way, i forgot to mention, one of my muslim friends is gay. she started the lgbt group at the local islamic center. neeless to say everyone at her mosque knows about her - and what do you know, she's still alive. not only that, she's quite well accepted there as a leader in the community and has yet to receive a death threat or even much of a criticism.
if i tell you her name, though, she will be discharged from the marine corps. i find it a bit ironic.
and yes that is islam here, in this country. but kind of beats the argument that all islamic churches teach their followers to kill the "dissidents", doesn't it. and that father who killed his daughter - well, he didn't exactly live in iran.
kt at December 16, 2007 2:49 AM
kt - about your gay muslim friend - she will eventually be killed. They always are.
We have honor killings in Detroit.
And for all your complaining that the only muslims doing the killing are fanatics - doesn't it strike you as just a little odd that in the whole of Christendom - some 2 billion people - there have been no terrorist attacks in the name of God in the last 50 years. (The whole IRA thing is political, not religious in nature, even though the basis for the desire for separation is religious. I could explain it, but you won't want to understand).
In the last 10 years alone, Islamic terrorists have killed tens of thousands of people in dozens of countries. All in the name of Allah.
If this is representative of only fanatics, does it not strike you as strange that Islam seems to have such a large percentage of its adherents that are willing to kill for Allah? I mean, come on. You can't expect me to believe that this is all about oppression and self determination here. Blowing up Australian tourists in Bali? Beheading Catholic schoolgirls in Thailand?
Sorry. I'm not buying it. Either there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam, or there is something fundamentally wrong with muslims. You don't get a 10% murderous fanatic rate without some kind of serious defect. Otherwise there wouldn't be any more abortion clinics or condom factories in the west.
brian at December 16, 2007 6:07 AM
the point wasn't how many people got killed. the point was that it was done by fanatics. which are not the entirety of the population.
Seven people who want abortion doctors dead are fanatics. 700,000 people in Canada who think it's okay to kill the prime minister and blow up parliament are not fanatics. They're Muslims.
Jordan, by the way, is lots of fun for Christians. For example:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_in_jordan.htm
For sure don't be Jewish and move there.
And Brian is exactly right about Islam having a serious defect, or that not just 12 percent, but 12 percent of CANADIANS! would not be thinking the murderous thoughts they are.
Islam runs contrary to all the Enlightenment values.
You are disingeneous saying you'd like to live in Jordan. You say you have a family here. Your wife would have the rights of a dog in Jordan, and if you die, she's really fucked. Link on women and honor killings in Jordan below.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 8:19 AM
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/16/jordan8465.htm
Barbarians.
Your little lesbo friend is way fucked, just like the rest of us, when the Muslim birthrate skyrockets to a degree that they can institute Sharia law in this country.
And I'm not surprised your Muslim friends don't come here and join in the discussion. So many values in this religion are indefensible. Also, like in the case of the man, "Muslim Man," or whatever he called himself, defending Islam posting a lot of swear words from a Kaiser Permenente IP, if you don't have reason and freedom of speech as a value in your culture, you have a hard time using it when needed to defend against infidels questioning the Muslim values for violence, persecution of gays and women, etc.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 8:22 AM
> you either get to ask
> me about them and pay
> attention to the answer,
> or not.
OK then, not. You brought them up as a topic when you shouldn't have. After declining to answer four times, it's apparent that there's no reason to think you represent their interests or opinions. You're speaking out of turn.
> i'm hardly going to advise
> them to come on this blog
> to defend themselves
You keep imagining that this is about me personally pulling information from your little Muslim muffins on an individual basis, which not the issue. If they fail to project their identities with greater thoughtfulness, they'll of course be identified with those who claim to be the most authentic practitioners of the faith.
Amy does this all the time with Christians, and it makes me nuts. She really thinks that Jerry Falwell was a typical Christian. I view this as evidence of her own isolation, because I grew up in a Christian house, and we never made any secret of our distaste for the fanatics, nor did an of the millions of other surrounding Christians... Their errors were actually a big topic with us, and you could have gone deaf from our chatter about it.
But for Islam the isolation is with the Muslims, and not for Amy or for me. One quickly notes that unlike Christian texts, the Koran explicitly dictates how an entire society is work, with no boundaries to its authority. One shortly concludes that even the less-fanatic practitioners like having the fanatics at the forefront of our perception of the faith, because it'll give them a little more kicking room... Or because it's impossible to renounce the core principles of their text while claiming to adhere to it. Neither explanation earns sympathy.
> when have you ever been
> required to take out
> an ad or deny
Never required; I always willingly expressed my feelings at first opportunity.
> not all the people in
> the mosques are preaching
> that fanaticism.
How many? What proportion? We have no idea, because the moderates are silent.
> they speak their mind -
> against terrorism -
> whenever the opportunity
> arises.
Funny how we don't hear them. 'Cause darlin', you don't count.
> arrogant and asinine.
Also, those pants make your ass look fat.
Crid at December 16, 2007 8:57 AM
Whoa, Amy says you're a man. I thought you were a girl. Or at least sexually indeterminate, like Ayn_Randian, with panties full of undifferentiated tissue.
Crid at December 16, 2007 9:02 AM
Hermaphroditic, perhaps, but entirely lacking in argument and logic.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 9:06 AM
i am a girl. who gives a rats ass. i don't know why we have to turn it into an insult regarding what fucking gender i am. that's childish. and by the way, i am fat, it's not the pants. also a childish and unhelpful comment.
my gay muslim friend will eventually be killed. well that's nice, turn your argument into something in the future so it can't be disproven? brilliant. should have thought of something that retarded myself. you're an idiot.
i do actually understand the whole IRA business, so you don't have to bother using baby talk to explain it to me. i don't really care about whether or not other groups have fanatics that kill people in the same proportions. or any proportions. it wasn't my point. but i'm tired of trying to make it.
i've not declined to answer any questions regarding my friends. i have a job. better things to do than sit here and stare at a computer screen waiting for you to ask questions about people you wouldn't believe anyway, which, by the way, is not evidence that i don't know them very well. funny you don't hear them? like i said, they're ordinary people, not officials that make the news.
and don't call me a liar when i say i'm not averse to living in jordan. have you been there? i have, actually, and as i said, i enjoyed it.
and i'll say again, my friends don't read this column. and why in the world would i ask them to? that would not make me a good friend.
kt at December 16, 2007 8:19 PM
kt - The rhetorical devices you've just engaged in are called - in order - equivalence and evasion.
You attempted to establish equivalence between Christianity and Islam. When evidence was presented to show that such equivalence is unwarranted, you then evaded by calling me an idiot, and then telling me that you tire of trying to make your point.
Your point is this: everyone is alike.
Your point, however, is wrong. The muslims you know are only the muslims you know. The plural of anecdote is not data.
And as uncomfortable as it is for you to accept, when your gay muslim Marine leaves the service to return to civilian life, eventually someone in the muslim community will find out her sexual preferences. After that happens, her life isn't worth a plugged nickel.
You go live in Jordan. You might actually survive there. There's fewer honor killing there than in other Islamic countries. Jordan (along with the UAE) are at least attempting to become modern. Of course, there are the fundamentalists in each place that are violently opposed to such things.
brian at December 16, 2007 8:30 PM
and don't call me a liar when i say i'm not averse to living in jordan. have you been there? i have, actually, and as i said, i enjoyed it.
I can't enjoy anyplace where women and homos are persecuted and killed. You live it up, though, dear! (Do they sell popcorn at stonings?)
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 9:05 PM
Silly girl. Here's a taste of the beautiful life in Jordan (through the eyes of those who aren't sucking down the propaganda like it's chocolate ice cream):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3094736.stm
Sounds very "enjoy"able, huh?
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 9:13 PM
> also a childish and
> unhelpful comment.
Guilty as charged, kt, but "bigoted, arrogant and asinine" didn't do much for the conversation, either.
Y'know, the topic of interest to me is why, on this blog (or even on this internet), there's never a Muslim who stands up and claims to be offended by what we're saying. But there are plenty of others --usually middle class, vaguely Christian or atheist people-- who'll jump to their keyboard to anonymously accuse commenters of untoward vilification of Muslims, as you have. There was a guy a couple weeks ago who claimed to be Muslim and wrote some obnoxious stuff to Amy, but I think he was taking offense on someone else's behalf, as you did, and similarly without license... The offended parties were imaginary.
Why does this happen? I have some theories.
Crid at December 16, 2007 9:25 PM
PS- I like bigbottomed girls, though... At least some of them....
Crid at December 16, 2007 9:28 PM
What are your theories on that, Crid?
And is there anything you'd like to add about big-bottomed girls?
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 9:36 PM
my gay muslim friend: did you miss the part where she started the lgbt group at the islamic center and everyone in that community knows she's gay? apparently. re-read. it was there. and she is, yes, still alive.
the muslims i know are only the muslims i know. correct. but they kind of disprove the premise on this site that ALL muslims are evil and terrorists. which was the point. which is continually missed and ignored in favor of hating the entire population. which would be much more fun, and easier too, but not right.
WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY SELF-RESPECTING MUSLIM TRY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAITH ON THIS SITE? why would anyone subject themselves to the abuse they would get here? and all for a bunch of people who wouldn't believe them anyway?
kt at December 16, 2007 10:09 PM
my gay muslim friend: did you miss the part where she started the lgbt group at the islamic center and everyone in that community knows she's gay? apparently. re-read. it was there. and she is, yes, still alive.
In part because of the vastness of our population, we don't have the kind of danger here yet from Islam that they do in Europe. Did you miss the killing of Theo Van Gogh? Did you miss the fact that Ayan Hirsi Ali lives in danger? Did you miss what happens when people in Europe criticize Islam? As Wafa Sultan (one of a handful of those raised Muslim who speaks out against Islam's sicknesses) noted, you don't see Jews blowing up German restaurants.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 11:22 PM
Here's how it works in Holland when you even want to discuss gays and Islam:
http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1354132.php/Dutch_Muslim_critic_announces_film_on_Islam_and_homosexuality
About the director: "Jami lives in a so-called safe house in a secret location. He was placed under heavy personal security after being attacked for the third time on August 4."
Still feel all squishy and good inside about defending Islam?
And regarding why Muslims wouldn't "defend themselves" on this site...I attack all belief, sans evidence, in god, and plenty of Christians and Jews have it out with me about why they're right and I'm wrong.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2007 11:28 PM
> What are your theories
Thanks for asking.
Point One....
Prager has many tragic faults, but years ago he noted that you could get a pretty good fix on someone's politics, and maybe the seriousness of their engagement with the world, by whether or not the person thought that folks were naturally good.
If you think people are naturally good, then you probably think that everyone in the world has something precious and meaningful to contribute to civilization's project. (You also adore the United Nations, but we'll cover that later.) And if you think that, it probably breaks your heart when commenters on blogs get all judgmental about a religion practiced by so many of the little people. But I think Islam is not going to improve the human condition, and will continue to work as a means of manipulating populations already mired in poverty and ignorance. Of its five pillars, almsgiving to the needy is the only one with anything admirable behind it. And even then, wealth creation will often be choked by the other four, which are about magical thinking.
It's really, really important to be judgmental. And when you can't make a judgment more precisely correct, you should try to do it a little faster, just for the practice. People aren't naturally good. Decency is often cultural.
Point Two...
There are people --very often Point One people-- who get upset anytime anyone expresses a strong opinion. They assume it means that a horrible, avoidable conflict is in the cards. And so when you express an opinion, especially on a computer forum like this, they'll try to shoot it down, and expect to be honored for their angelic pacifism besides. (Seriously, did anyone here "vilify" Muslims?)
But these are usually folks who haven't seen much of the world for close study, or ever tried to do anything great, like build a business or raise a loving family. (For the record, I've never attempted either.) Most people I've know who've done something like that understand when they get out of bed in the morning that there are going to be conflicts, and there are going to be losses, and that some things are worth fighting about despite risks. And that even when you're dreading a battle in the coming afternoon, both you and your adversary might have a better day tomorrow.
That's how life is. It's not a policy problem.
So anyway, when a Point One-er with strong Point Two Tendencies sees you saying anything critical about Islam (or anything else), they'll think you're full of yourself and will construct fantasies about these wounded parties, imaginary friends who will be imaginarily grateful to them for saying that we should all be blank slates with no blood in our veins. Or as Iaccoca once said in a somewhat different context, "They want America to be great by accident (emphasis his)."
> anything you'd like to add
Naw. The last few dates have been really skinny. I'm attracted to anybody who'll put up with me.
> they kind of disprove the premise
> on this site that ALL muslims are
> evil and terrorists.
Could you point us to where someone said that?
Crid at December 16, 2007 11:57 PM
you only call christians and jews stupid. you call muslims many other things. and you're still missing the point. my point is not that there are no fanatical muslim terrorists. my point isn't even that fanatical muslim terrorists aren't more dangerous than other fanatics. my point is, and has always been, that not all muslims are fanatical terrorists, and not all muslims believe in honor killing for anything. there is a difference between christian fanaticism and muslim fanaticism in that the latter is definitely more violent and more dangerous. but their fundamental mistake is the same - a misinterpretation of the text. it's the same difference that exists between the religion itself and the follower - the follower always and without fail interprets within the context of whatever he/she wants to believe anyway.
and i know you attack all belief in god regardless of which. you're rather proud of yourself for it, too, as you bring it up as often as possible. i've never understood why people bother to argue with other people why they should or should not believe in a particular god or not at all. i really don't care, i'm not going to change your mind. but that doesn't mean i think you're an idiot for being an atheist, or i think someone else is an idiot for being jewish, or hindu, or buddhist, or whatever. the born-agains drive me crazy. and we're not talking about my friends defending their right to be muslim, per se, but defending and proving whether or not they want to kill you. they don't. but either way - you want to believe that all muslims are inherently evil, all muslims want to kill anyone not muslim, and you want to believ it with or without evidence to the contrary. seems to me that's just as blind as they are.
kt at December 17, 2007 12:15 AM
> not all muslims are
> fanatical terrorists,
Never said they were. Thanks for stoppin' by.
Crid at December 17, 2007 12:52 AM
--my point is...that not all muslims are fanatical terrorists, and not all muslims believe in honor killing for anything.--
I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. But Islam has problems remaining, even taking your statement into account.
--their fundamental mistake is the same - a misinterpretation of the text.--
It is much more than this, including leadership and policing the ranks.
--you want to believe that all muslims are inherently evil...--
No, I believe there is a monstrous evil in Islam so large it it beginning to wash away consideration for the good parts of the religion. I'm sure there were good and decent Nazis prior to 1945, but the exposed monstrosity of the movement washed away any support from reasonable people.
doombuggy at December 17, 2007 12:56 AM
you only call christians and jews stupid. you call muslims many other things
Yes, dangerous, because they so often are. 700,000 people in Canada who are Muslims think it's okay to murder the prime minister and blow up Parliament and the CBC for Islam, and this doesn't...give you pause about the religion?
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but far too many Muslims are terrorists, and 700,000 in Canada alone is buttloads of them, don't you think?
And per Crid's remark above: Could you point out where somebody said all Muslims are terrorists?
If you're not an atheist, why don't you think I'm an idiot for being one? Does that mean that you don't really believe in what you do because your beliefs have value, but simply because you are a sheep who follows what you're told to do? How can your beliefs be right and my beliefs be right if they're quite different? And if your beliefs aren't better, for some actual reason, than my beliefs, what, exactly are you huffing and puffing about here?
I said this above, I believe -- I thought of Muslims like I think of astrology nuts until 9/11...silly to believe what they do, but...whatever. I realize now that, in my lifetime, thanks to the fact that the Muslims are breeding like bunnies vis a vis more modern people's more moderate birth rate, the Mona Lisa will probably be painted over by Muslim fanatics, and a whole lot of blood will be shed.
You don't see cause for alarm? Why not? Doing your best impression of an ostrich? Brain removed and replaced with styrofoam peanuts? Do tell!
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2007 1:03 AM
i don't think you're an idiot for being an atheist because whatever you believe regarding god (or lack of one, whatever) is what you see from your experience. and that's fine. i've got no argument with it. and the only place i do what i'm told is at work, actually, i believe very little of what i was taught. i was raised lutheran. my stepfather is a lutheran minister. i went to a lutheran college - the first time - and a lutheran seminary (for a master's degree in old testament/biblical history, actually, because i thought it was interesting, not a preaching degree). i still like lutheran, as far as the christian denominations go. but there isn't a church for what i believe. religiously speaking, i mean.
am i bothered by the fact that there are a relatively large number of violent muslim fanatics? yes. can i acknowledge a difference between a religion and the fanatics who misinterpret for their own purposes? most of the time, unless the culprits are born-agains. i also acknowledge my hypocrisy there, before you do, nobody's perfect. am i going to condemn every muslim i meet and require them to personally apologize for and denounce the terrorists claiming the same religion as them? no. but that seems to be the expectation here. perhaps it was not explicitly stated that all muslims are evil, but they are until proven innocent it seems, and it also seems to take an exorbitant amount of proof.
not particularly alarmed, no. not happy either. i don't have a brain made of styrofoam peanuts, no. i will refrain from any personal insults on my part there.
kt at December 17, 2007 3:14 AM
kt - There you go again.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions here.
First - there was never, nor could there ever have been, a good and decent Nazi. Not prior to Hitler's taking over the party, and certainly not after. The Nazi party was quite vile to begin with. Sure, they weren't murderously nationalistic, but they were certainly not in favor of liberty or free enterprise. They were socialists, after all.
Second - You are stuck on the idea that somehow Islam is a good and noble religion that's been led astray. You are quite wrong. Islam was born in blood, raised on conquest, and feasts upon the death of the unbelievers. Those muslims that don't actually believe in jihad and the caliphate are the heretics, not the ones that believe in slaughtering the insufficiently pious.
And you're right - muslims are, and ought to be, considered dangerous until they prove otherwise. Too many muslims have gone on killing sprees where everyone who knew them, muslim or not, all say "He was such a nice boy, I can't imagine him doing something like this". But he did, and he claims he did it for Allah.
You can live in your little bubble, where everyone is nice and good and benevolent. My experience with this world tells me that people with those traits are outliers.
brian at December 17, 2007 5:24 AM
first - i wasn't comparing the muslims to nazis. and it wasn't the socialism aspect i was referring to either, while we're at it. try reading.
second - your argument: islam was "born in blood", as you say, and i suppose that's true. your logic leads you to conclude that this is the reason that their fanatics are inevitably violent. let's compare. christianit started with a crucifixion - not exactly a peaceful and sanitary beginning. it continued with roughly the same rate of martyrdom that islam did, although it took place in the gladiator ring as opposed to stonings. also not particularly nonviolent or sanitary. what followed was the conversion of rome to christianity and the subsequent conversion - by force - of what became the roman empire. following that, the crusades and the inquisition. christianity hasn't had a very bloodless history either. by your above logic, christianity should still be killing everyone. now wait - i can hear you now - "christianity isn't killing everyone! you're an idiot!" is that an accurate representation of your thoughts at this point? i thought so. but that's actually my point - christianity, while it has done its fair share of killing in the past, is not currently doing so. therefore, the violent beginnings of a religion do not make it's present inevitable. so. islam is not inevitaby violent. so what is it exactly that causes the islamic fanatics to be violent? perhaps its situational? cultural in some way? (and yes, that is different from religious factors) maybe there's a valid reason for their being pissed off at us? i don't know. i'm not saying there necessarily is. but i do think you're off your rocker saying that the majority, and not the minority, are the culprits.
personally, i consider the born-agains far more dangerous than muslims, if only because their dangers are a bit more subtle. but either way, even if we went with the "guilty until proven innocent" idea, there would never be enough proof for you, would there? because for you, the fact that a particular muslim hasn't blown you up yet is evidence that it will happen someday, and the fact that another muslim who doesn't wear a hijab is still alive is evidence that she will be killed in the near future. now that's good logic.
thanks, i will stay in my bubble, i prefer it to yours. not everyone is nice and benevolent - but i given them a chance to prove it first.
kt at December 18, 2007 2:30 PM
kt, you are not fair, you are not reasonable.
Much of the violence attributed to the early Christian church came about from the Church administering the secular duties of governance, when things were a bit cruder than today. Progress was made with the separation of Church and State. Islam has not let go of that stone, and that is one reason the whole enterprise is under a cloud.
Another cloud is that Islam is a 'works' based doctrine, i.e. you work your way to Heaven. Such sects run the risk of going off the rails.
>i consider the born-agains far more dangerous than muslims
'far' more dangerous? This is not reasonable. How many other people believe this besides you? Five?
>so what is it exactly that causes the islamic fanatics to be violent?
To state this is to cede the argument.
doombuggy at December 18, 2007 6:40 PM
christianit(sic) started with a crucifixion - not exactly a peaceful and sanitary beginning.
Um, no. Christianity started with a baby's birth. We're almost to that part of the year that celebrates this. Peace and love, joy and giving, remember? And what has "sanitary" got to do with anything, except maybe the fact that fanatical Islams don't bathe as often as those of us in Western civilizations are inclined to?
I am reminded of the article I read about a muslim store owner in Northern California, who, along with a friend, was celebrating the fall of the World Trade center at his store when the local beer dsitributor came along to make a delivery. He saw the 2 guys celebrating, dancing around the store and laughing, with the footage of the Towers falling on the tv in the store. He called his boss and told him what was happening, and his boss told him to pull every one of their products off the shelves. Along comes another distributor, asked what was going on, was told, and then he started pulling products off the shelves. Needless to say, word got around and that muslim is no longer in business. He's lucky that's all that happened to him. You cannot have it both ways, living here, making money off of the people of this country, and celebrating acts of terrorism. You cannot expect that people who don't believe in acts of terrorism to celebrate that type of "diversity". You cannot keep on living with your head in the sand. Smarten up, little girl.
Flynne at December 19, 2007 6:08 AM
the violence of the ealy christian church. the roman government, before it's conversion, sentenced christians to fight to the death in the gladiator pits, or crucified them if they were lucky. or several other methods of killing them. the early muslim church started much the same way - stoning them because they didn't agree with the local religious ideas.
so islam is a works based doctrine. so what? now are you going to start dictating what doctrines other religions are allowed to even have? that's fair. sure.
saying that i believe the born-agains, in many ways, are more dangerous was a bit tongue in cheek, but they do pose a much more insidious and subtle threat to me personally than any muslim i've ever met. (and i've met more than the ones i call friends, by the way) i don't really care how many people agree with that.
what makes the muslims more violent cedes the argument? huh? did you even read what i wrote? obviousy you didn't understand my point. try again.
christianity, by the way, did not become a religion until AFTER the crucifixion. before that it was a guy with a few disciples running around the countryside performing miracles, much like some of the earlier israelite prophets. but however you define its beginning, the crucifixion was the defining moment.
and did you know that muslims are required not only to pray five times daily, but to wash their hands, feet, and face before doing so? and to wash more than their hands when they use the restroom? and all this in a desert. water is not exactly prevalent. so where you got this idea that they don't wash as often, i don't know. smarten up yourself, you're obviously talking out your ass.
kt at December 19, 2007 8:02 AM
Sure, whatever, I'll concede to the "expert." When they come for you, because you're "friends" (don't think you're getting a 'pass', an infidel is an infidel), good luck.
Flynne at December 19, 2007 8:52 AM
kt writes:
"i don't really care how many people agree with that."
I suspect you do, or you wouldn't post here, telling us how smart you are, so we will line up behind you, and validate your (pathetic) view of the world.
doombuggy at December 20, 2007 6:40 AM
doombuggy, you're not paying attention. i said i don't care how many people agree with that particular opinion, because even if i'm the only one it doesn't make me wrong.
i do care how many people are completely bigoted. how is my view of the world pathetic, anyway? i think it's far more pathetic to condemn 1.5 billion people based on the actions of a relative few. that's a limited worldview. that's pathetic.
kt at December 20, 2007 8:22 PM
>i said i don't care how many people agree with that particular opinion, because even if i'm the only one it doesn't make me wrong.
Opinions are not facts. You generally can't apply rightness and wrongness to opinions. Thanks for trying.
>i think it's far more pathetic to condemn 1.5 billion people based on the actions of a relative few.
That is your assessment of the discussion here. At times we may use too broad a brush, but it is the nature of such discussions. I don't see anyone 'condemning 1.5 billion people', I see Islam condemned for fostering the current terrorist activities. What you call a 'relative few' is seen by many as a number significant enough to worry about the whole enterprise of Islam and what it holds for the future in the modern world.
The terrorists loudly proclaim that they are acting under the banner of Islam. I'll take them at their word. In the process, I'll do my best to acknowledge the good guys, but I could use a little more help from those inside the religion for clues.
doombuggy at December 20, 2007 11:04 PM
Travel to Rome, tell me your shenanigans, and I tell what kind of person you are....;)
Rome Hotels at September 9, 2011 1:36 AM
You really make it appear really easy together with your presentation but I to find
this topic to be actually one thing which I feel I'd never understand.
It sort of feels too complicated and very huge for me. I am having
a look forward for your next submit, I will attempt to get the
cling of it!
youthful face at August 23, 2015 12:07 AM
Leave a comment