Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Religion Barrier
The late George Mason writes of how Islam cleverly disguises itself as a religion, when it's actually a political movement:

Islam is a global movement, the goal of which is to bring every living human being on the planet under its crushing totalitarian rule, the likes of which has never before been seen. Some of Islam is obvious and easy to identify. Some of it, however, lies beneath the surface, like an iceberg. The true nature of Islam sports a remarkable disguise.

No other movement, not even Fascism or Communism, has been so determined to conquer the world and rule with such rigid, detailed, complete control over the day-to-day activities of the lives of everyone on the planet. Islam has a multi-pronged plan in place to accomplish this goal, and it is being implemented with increasing success throughout the world. Islam seeks to make the rest of the world become just like it: squalid, backward, and primitive.

Wherever it interfaces with populations it has not yet conquered, Islam destroys buildings, blows up men, women, and children, and imposes tight controls on people's lives. Islam is nihilism personified. Most of the worlds wars and conflicts are due to aggression caused by Islamists, fueled by Islam's evil doctrines. Islam brainwashes its own children, as well as the children of the conquered, in order to assure that future generations will continue carry out Jihad. This has been going on for 1400 years, yet the movement remains unopposed in any meaningful way anywhere in the world to this very day.

Why is Islam meeting with so little effective resistance?

The most important reason for its success today is that it has a very clever "cloaking device." It calls itself a "religion." The evils of Fascism and Communism, the one passively allowing Christianity, and the other openly rejecting all religion, were much more visible to the world. These clearly political movements were content to call themselves just that: "Political movements." They did not attempt the intellectual fraud of calling themselves "religions."

For most of the world's population, a religion is an institutionalized set of beliefs relating to the divine, and its purpose is to act as a spiritual guide in the personal lives of its followers. Most of the world's religions embrace, at least to some degree, the laissez faire attitude of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Judaism and Christianity do not serve as action plans for world conquest; their sacred documents are not war manuals that describe some of the cruelest, most inhumane strategies and tactics ever devised; they receive no divine marching orders to bring the world's population into submission.

Most of us subscribe to the principle that whatever philosophy we choose as roadmaps for our lives, be it related in some way to a divine source or not, is a matter of our personal choices. We can talk to each other about the pros and cons of each others belief systems; we can try to persuade each other to adopt our views. That is where it ends. Force plays no role here. For Islam, there is just one acceptable religion and way of life: Islam. Force is indispensable to the implementation of Islam's agenda.

Since Islam claims about one billion adherents, it is often called one of the "three great religions," along with Judaism and Christianity. Americans, accepting Islam as one of the big three, accord Islam the same respect they give to Judaism and Christianity.

I once shared some of these confusions about Islam. Stripping Islam of its "cloaking device" that makes it fully visible to everyone has made it easier for me to see Islam clearly. For example, I feel no self-consciousness about thinking about Islam divorced from any association with a deity. Freed, I cannot stand by, seeing so many good, patriotic Americans utterly paralyzed in so much of their thinking about Islam, simply because they cannot cross this "religion barrier."

His claims that there's more or better substantiation for Judaism and Christianity don't hold, but I don't care what nitwittery you believe in, sans evidence, as long as your ultimate goal isn't converting or killing the rest of us, or legislating our lives based on your evidence-free beliefs.

He is right about this:

Start calling Islam what it is.

Call it a toxic ideology, a death cult, even your death sentence. In fact, Islam, among other things, is a vicious political movement, which gives itself a mantle of respectability and gets away with its actions only by providing itself with the "cloaking device" of religion. Islam is totalitarianism. It wants to conquer you, and kill you and yours. It wants to destroy everything you value.

If you do not withdraw your sanction of Islam, you will play right into the Islamists' hands. This is happening right now at the highest level of government. We watch our highest officials bowing and scraping to their future Muslim killers, while reassuring our people that Islam is peaceful, that Islam is a great religion, that Islam is wonderful, and worst of all, that Islam has been hijacked by some bad guys who twist it to their uses. Don't be played like a Wurlitzer. Islamists are selling you sanitized Islam while practicing the real thing. It is terribly important to remember that lying and deceit are among Islam's most valued weapons.

Jump over the religion barrier. Keep your own peaceful religion, which teaches that the initiation of force is wrong, but that self-defense is right. Recognize and reject Islam, which has as a central commandment to erase the Infidel -- that's you -- from the face of the earth.

Posted by aalkon at December 4, 2007 1:59 PM

Comments

I think the most convincing argument from Hitchen's Big Godless Year is condensed into this easy-to-enjoy clip, beginning at 2:50.

http://urltea.com/2a1e

One reason you know you're dealing with a religion instead of a science is that you can accuse people of heresy. Einstein's overthrow of Newton didn't hurt anyone's feelings, because improved, more-efficient explanations are always welcome in the rational world. But if you tried to pull the dangerous stuff out of the Koran, believers would be very upset. (I think this also applies to global warming fanatics. Politically correct gay marriage zombies are similarly enamored of irrational cant, and get very upset [and very quiet] when you demand explication of the base "texts".)

The principle described applies to all religions, but it especially brutalizes Islam. Human beings are more fascinated with authenticity than with truth or decency.

Posted by: Crid at December 4, 2007 5:41 AM

> Keep your own peaceful religion, which teaches that the initiation of force is wrong...


Tell that to George W. Bush.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at December 4, 2007 6:23 AM

i think this is the most biased, eurocentric article that i have read in a long time.

"No other movement, not even Fascism or Communism, has been so determined to conquer the world and rule with such rigid, detailed, complete control over the day-to-day activities of the lives of everyone on the planet."
To this comment i think that you should go and take history 101 because obviously you missed pretty much every "ism" and religious movement of the past 2000 years.

"Wherever it interfaces with populations it has not yet conquered, Islam destroys buildings, blows up men, women, and children, and imposes tight controls on people's lives. Islam is nihilism personified. "
And why do people feel the need to resort to this type of behavior. Hmm it dosnt have anything to do with imperialism hangover they are dealing with or the continued corporate exploitation from America and Europe that they are continuing to be subjected to today?

As for the comments about how christianity is so great and dosnt force any of its belifes on anyone i think again you should take history 101. Christianity and Catholicism in particular has a long histery of forced hegemony with death to the poor souls who disagree. Lets look at the witch hunts in Europe or the missionaries who labled anyone who wasnt white/anglosaxon as "savages" or lets look at how native and indienous cultures were erradicating for refusing to convert to christianity and the "christian" or "cultured" ways of life. Not to mention the church's continued treatment of women, gays, anyone who dosnt fit their enforced status quo. Yes Islam is violent, but peole drawn to that are reacting to the foced violence that we helped create in thier life. we like cheap oil, we like our comforts therefore we allow our leaders to exploit the rest of the world.

"Call it a toxic ideology, a death cult, even your death sentence. In fact, Islam, among other things, is a vicious political movement, which gives itself a mantle of respectability and gets away with its actions only by providing itself with the "cloaking device" of religion. Islam is totalitarianism. It wants to conquer you, and kill you and yours. It wants to destroy everything you value."

I think this statement sums up your position in an ironic sort of way. It wants to destory everything you value? Maybe what you value YOU shouldn't impose on the rest of the world. Mayb your ideas and values arnt the best. Maybe your way of life should be destroyed instead of vice versa. Im not saying I want to be Islamic but I'm saying that mabye we should listen to waht they have to say and read between the lines. Its the fastes growing religion in the world and I'm sure will soon outnumber christians jew and who ever else if it hasnt already. WE need to stop this them vs. us thinking and try to talk to each other.
When it comes down to it we really do have more in common then we have in differences but if we're going to keep up this xenephobic mentality we will never get to make this discovery

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 6:47 AM

"Most of the worlds wars and conflicts are due to aggression caused by Islamists, fueled by Islam's evil doctrines."

Please, Everyone knows the Jews have caused all the worlds wars.

Posted by: Scott at December 4, 2007 6:56 AM

I agree with discounting religious beliefs; they're silly superstitions to me.

However, George Mason needs to turn down the hyperbole and scaremongering from the "11" he currently has it cranked to.

What is Islam, the Borg or something?

Chicken-littleism runs rampant.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 7:01 AM

i think this is the most biased, eurocentric article that i have read in a long time.

Forgive me if I go all Eurocentric on you and start rhapsodizing about Enlightenment values.

Meghan, you have to read the whole sentence comparing Islam to communism and other movements. Islam wants to control every aspect of your life from toilet to grave.

I'm no friend to any religion. But, Islam is the greatest danger to our way of life, and, in fact, the continued existence of the planet.

Christian and Jewish leaders aren't standing up on their pulpits calling for the death and conversion of the infidel. The Christians do try to meddle legislatively, and inject the results of the evidence-free belief in god into the lives of the rest of us. But, as we still live in a democracy, not a theocracy, this can be dealt with electorally.

You are a cultural relativist to an utterly absurd degree. Guess what: Western civ is better. By far.

You write: "When it comes down to it we really do have more in common then we have in differences"

You out in the streets calling for the death of some lady who puts a "Jesus" tee shirt on the classroom teddy bear?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 7:04 AM

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 7:17 AM

Sorry - link is fixed.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 7:30 AM

Okay, I give up on the link thing. Sorry Amy, would you be able to fix my botched links? It looked fine in preview.

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 7:30 AM

Islam wants to control every aspect of your life from toilet to grave.

Maybe that is become some other culture (*cough* Anglo saxon culture *cough*) is trying to force its imperialistic hegemony onto it. Islam is spreading fastest in oppressed people in exploited countries. These people have little control over their lives due to the economic exploitation of American and European corporatism. It’s a psychological fact that human beings need control (or perceived control) over themselves in order to be happy, healthy, and well adjusted. People who cling to religious dogma usually don’t have actual control over their lives therefore need to adhere to something that gives them perceived control. Maybe instead of condemning religious fanatics we should actually do something to change the situation and get at the root of the problem. Or is blowing hot air a better substitute for activism?

I don’t advocate the death penalty for naming a teddy bear Mohammed, but I don’t advocate condemning an entire group of people just because their beliefs are different then mine either. That is true intolerance and fascism.

Western Civilization stared down a nuclear armed commie super power and now we are poised to surrender to a bunch of savages because we don't want to seem too pushy

A bunch of savages? I think you’re the savage one martin. Its not about surrender its about compromise and cohabitation. We all live on the same planet and we all have the same basic needs. Violence breeds violence and will continue to bring humanity on this downward spiral unless we do something to subvert this trend. Maybe you’ll appreciate us so called “multi-culties,” or people that actually believe in equality for all humanity, when its your rights we are fighting for.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 7:40 AM

The biggest problem with Islam is that the Koran is the belief that it was handed to Mohammad directly from God. Therefore, none of its followers may dispute the Koran. Even through out history the meaning of the Koran has never been debated by Islamic scholars. You can find Islamic scholars philosophizing about the meaning of the New Testament or the Torah, but never the Koran.

So when the Koran calls on its followers to slay the unbeliever, they must slay the unbeliever. They view the world in two ways; 1) always at war, 2) at peace under Islamic rule. I just don’t see how to reform this religion. It has been a bane on humanity. It has allowed thugs to become holy while they practice their trade at the expense of the non believers.

Unfortunately all early political structures were religious. I still believe that religion is a political organization. However, none has done the damage that Islam has. They will not rest till we all are there subjects.

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 7:41 AM

PS No need to make links - just post the URL and it will work. And one URL to a comment, or you'll go into spamland. If you want to post two URLs, post a separate comment for the second one. Thanks. -The Cleanup In Aisle Four Lady

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 7:44 AM

Meghan, the "savage" culture I am a part of does a better job of recognizing that violence breeds violence. My "savage" culture does a better job of protecting people's rights even when those people despise those who risk their lives to defend them. My "savage" culture does a better job of respecting other cultures.

"Equality for all humanity" is a nice ideal but you might be surprised at how little appreciated your ideals are around the world. There are vast oceans of injustice in this world and it is often the U.S. (and a select few of our friends) alone making any effort at all to make things better. Every tank or rifleman or fighter plane you see on CNN is escorting a long column of aid and assistance that you (well, maybe your parents) paid for. Civilization is spreading and some people don't like that; that doesn't mean civilization is evil.

(And yes, if ever my rights are dependent on people standing around singing "Kumbaya" I owe you an apology.)

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 8:00 AM

Martin I think your projecting an awful lot of hostility from your personal issues onto me. Its not “your savage culture.” You (the individual not the culture) are the savage if you think you are better than other people to the fact that you can demean an entire generalized group of people. The US does not do a good job of upholding the ideals of equality around the world, it was the US who destabilized the Middle Eastern region in the first place! Osama Bin Ladan and all his cronies were on the US PAYROLL until the mid 1990s. Who do you think supplies all these so called terrorists with weapons?
As for bringing up the military I said nothing about them, you’re the one who brought them up. IF you want to sacrifice your life for this countries and its perceived ideals and agenda that’s your thing. But it is each person’s civil responsibility to stand up for what they believe in and promote equality for ALL. I thought we agreed that we are supposed to live in a democracy.
Civilization is spreading and some people don't like that; that doesn't mean civilization is evil
Who says our culture is “civilization”. And who says it has to be the only one, in the only way. Civilization isn’t about one group of people proclaiming their culture as civilization its about people agreeing on the direction they want to progress towards.
And by the way I’ve never sung Kumbaya in my life, thanks for the stereotype.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 8:16 AM

> I’ve never sung Kumbaya in my life

But you just gave us the first stanza:

> its about people agreeing
> on the direction they
> want to progress towards.

As if Islam was about personal choice.

Posted by: Crid at December 4, 2007 8:28 AM

"Please, Everyone knows the Jews have caused all the worlds wars."

FINALLY we get a rational explanation as to why we should stop blaming the Lemurians and their constant backroom scheming.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 4, 2007 8:30 AM

Maybe you’ll appreciate us so called “multi-culties,” or people that actually believe in equality for all humanity, when its your rights we are fighting for.

Dear, sweet, naive Meghan, we are fighting for our rights! Our right to live in a world where we have freedom of speech, religion that does not OPPRESS others, and free enterprise. Islam seeks to destroy those very things by deluding youngsters such as yourself into beleiving that the USA is the big bad wolf, and eradicating it and its peoples from the face of the earth. Don't kid yourself honey, you're the wrong color and wrong religion to be exempt from Islam's wrath. And it is wrath that they're preaching; they're not the ones singing 'Kumbaya'.

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 8:37 AM

Islam is the greatest danger to our way of life, and, in fact, the continued existence of the planet.

Ms. Alkon, I agreed with everything in your post (NO to cultural relativism, YES to Enlightenment/Western values), except the above sentence. I'll believe that Islam is on the level of Communism/Fascism when Islam has even 1/10th of the death toll of either of these two political movements.

Islam isn't even in charge of any military power rivaling Communism or Fascism/Nazism. There are no "Infidel Death Camps" or "Fatwa Five-Year Plans"...there's no major Islamic world leader threatening to "bury us" or stationing ICBMs 90 miles from our coast.

Overall recommendation still stands: tone down the chicken-littleism about Islam.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 8:43 AM

Our country DOES oppress others that’s the point that everyone is missing. Our country CAUSED a lot of the problems that are keeping the Islam fire fueled. Halliburton? Blackwater? Oil Profiteering? These things are real and they are pissing people off. Of course I’m not exempted from Islam’s wrath, and they have a lot to be pissed about. That’s not the issue. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom to the persuit of happiness that’s why its important that these things are brought to the public attention and that the public actually does something about it.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 8:46 AM

The late George Mason, I suspect, died of apoplexy. Or frustration.

Here's my question: how is it not possible for a modern Muslim to maintain the same sort of ambivalent distance from his/her religion and its original tenets as a modern Catholic or a modern Jew? I would hold that it is possible to be generally pro-secularism and yet still light a menorah, as I plan to do tonight, despite Christopher Hitchens's best attempts to dissuade me. (Amy, how have you not seen that piece yet? You'll love it.) Similarly, I am not convinced that it is not possible to be generally secular and yet fast for Ramadan to please the parents, or be generally secular and yet be able to quote the Qur'an, or be generally secular and yet have an Eid party. I do not understand why Islam would be any less susceptible to muddled modernism than Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism. (I don't know enough about Buddhism to include it.) Because Muslims are taught that the Qur'an is the word of God? There are plenty of Christians who will tell you the same thing about the Bible. And plenty of Christians who will roll their eyes at that statement.

Brutal Islamism thrives in a certain political context, as brutal Catholicism (Catholicismism?) did from about 300 AD to Luther, give or take a century either side. It wasn't just that the teddy bear was named Muhammad; it was that the teddy bear was named in Muhammad in a state with a bitchy dictatorial government looking for a handy excuse to encourage anti-Western (and thus pro-government, and pro-janjaweed) sentiment. The unfortunate thing is that such governments nowadays are frequently, though not exclusively, in majority-Muslim countries (China, Russia, and Zimbabwe are doing just fine with the repression without Islam; Indonesia, Malaysia, and India have tens of millions of Muslims but aren't dangerously Islamist).

And of course, I have work to do before my 1:30 doctor's appointment, so I'm not going to be able to respond to rebuttals.

Posted by: Jessica at December 4, 2007 8:51 AM

Even though I disagree that Islam presents a grave threat, I want to thoroughly and vehemently distance myself from anything Meghan is saying.

Sounds like someone let Dennis Kucinich out of his cage again...

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 8:53 AM

"As if Islam was about personal choice."
This is the crux of it, in my lowly opinion

If I want to wear a burka, or a cross, or a star of David, I can do that. If I was a blood drinking satanist I could probably find a similarly fucked up donor. People get off on that sick shit.

"The West" is FAR from where I'd like to see it and it is FAR from having an innocent history. So could some people stop glorifying it? Please...it's such crap.

At the end of the day, though, civilians living under Sharia law don't. Have. A. Choice. They MUST abide by the rules they're given and if they aren't they're fucked. Just watched a news clip: woman was gang raped by 7 men. She was sentenced to a lashing b/c, at the time of her abduction and rape, she was w/ an ex boyfriend (unaccompanied by male family member).

She appealed the lashing (first time this was done). She was sentenced to a double lashing and six months in the slammah.

That's not choice....

I also don't think going in w/ our big, bad guns is going to do anything, Martin. We will not be able to spread our "civilization" by force. Their ideas are so ingrained and prolific throughout all aspects of their lives from before they're (they're = middle eastern muslims) born that going in and taking over their government and trying to create change will only piss them off more.

I don't reject the idea of a defensive war - if it's me or them I'm going to pick me (and my family, and friends...not THAT selfish). And I'm sure people can make the argument that this IS a defensive war but that's bollocks. When it comes down to it we're trying to force a shift in cultural values, norms and most importantly, their religion (forcing the shift as a preemptive strike?). They won't change because we force ourselves and our ideas/value system down their throats. Who gives a shit about "who's right who's wrong" "which is better." It's all irrelevant. They won't change just b/c we roll in w/ our tanks.

And no, I am not singing Kumbay-fucking-a, and I pay my own taxes.

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 8:54 AM

Oh Meghan, where to begin.

"it was the US who destabilized the Middle Eastern region in the first place! Osama Bin Ladan and all his cronies were on the US PAYROLL until the mid 1990s. Who do you think supplies all these so called terrorists with weapons?"

You speak the language of the indoctrinated undergrad. The history of the Middle East is a bit more complex than your professor is letting on. The mythology about bin Laden cashing U.S. treasury checks has been debunked to the satisfaction of anyone not wearing a tin-foil hat. And is someone who is murdered by a "so called terrorist" really dead or is it all relative?

"But it is each person’s civil responsibility to stand up for what they believe in and promote equality for ALL. "

That sounds absolutely great but it doesn't stand up to the slightest analysis. People have the civic right to be sniveling cowards if they want to be. And when you say "promote equality for all" you don't mean equally poor or equally wretched. You mean equally comfortable, equally respected etc. don't you? People are BORN equal but don't end up that way. People have the RIGHT to benefit from the rewards of their hard work and good judgement. Your brand of "equality" means some form of enforced redistribution. They tried that, it didn't work.


"Civilization isn’t about one group of people..."

When you use "about" in that way, it makes it obvious you are in over your head. The dictionary if full of great words you can use to express your ideas; give "about" a rest. You say civilization is "about" people agreeing on direction. Agreed (minus "about".) Any time two people agree on a course of action and set to work, a periphery of grumblers will appear to carp and whine; grumblers increase exponentially as the project increases geometrically. But you don't get a seat at the table until you have an affirmative vision and a meaningful constituency. The savages I refer to are being forced to let go of centuries of petty banditry. They are complaining by murdering and your sympathy for them is childish and self-loathing.

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 9:00 AM

> tone down the chicken-
> littleism about Islam.

No, how about this: You should try to make a case about how agreeable Islam is, and how its strictures nourish and reward human nature and ambition as western mores do. You'll have a tough time of it.

Posted by: Crid at December 4, 2007 9:04 AM

Meghan,
“it was the US who destabilized the Middle Eastern region in the first place!”
No, it was the Brits that ran the Middle East and it has never been stable. Before that it was the Turks. Why do you insist on dropping the blame on the US?
“Who do you think supplies all these so called terrorists with weapons?” Uh, they aren’t all from here. Many are from Russia, China, India, England, France, and etcetera. Do you hate the US?
“I thought we agreed that we are supposed to live in a democracy.” Uh, what? We live in a republic, not a democracy. Jezzzzz.
“Who says our culture is “civilization”.” Are you trying to say that we are not civilized? If we aren’t would you define it for us?
“Halliburton? Blackwater? Oil Profiteering?” All recent developments, those points fail to explain the march of Islam over the last 1300 years.
Ayn_Randian,
“Islam isn't even in charge of any military power rivaling Communism or Fascism/Nazism. There are no "Infidel Death Camps" or "Fatwa Five-Year Plans"...there's no major Islamic world leader threatening to "bury us" or stationing ICBMs 90 miles from our coast.” There plan is to out bred us and take over are societies from with in, or at least that is what they preach. Also, up until the late forties, a non Muslim had to pay the Dhimmi in order to live in an Islamic country. Non Muslims have few rights in Islamic countries, etcetera. They have systematically killed or removed every most Christians from their lands during the last Century. Ever here of the Armenians?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 9:04 AM

Our country DOES oppress others that’s the point that everyone is missing. Our country CAUSED a lot of the problems that are keeping the Islam fire fueled.

NO IT DOESN'T. We have been fighting against oppression for years! World War I or II, anyone? We weren't even a nation when Islam was first brought into being! Meghan, where the hell do you get your information? And you can bet your naive little ass that I will fight Islam with my last breath if it means saving my children and anyone else's from Islam's special brand of oppression! Wake up, child, wake up before it's too damn late.

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 9:05 AM

"I also don't think going in w/ our big, bad guns is going to do anything, Martin. "

Lest we misunderstand each other, neither do I Gretch. If ordinary people could go about their busine$$ anywhere in the world, the arms industry would dry up and blow away.

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 9:06 AM

Crid:

You should try to make a case about how agreeable Islam is, and how its strictures nourish and reward human nature and ambition as western mores do.

I don't have to make that point. I don't believe Islam does any of those things.

I also don't believe it's "the GREATEST THREAT evar!!!111!"

There plan is to out bred us and take over are societies from with in

Wow, someone needs to adjust their meds.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 9:18 AM

And is someone who is murdered by a "so called terrorist" really dead or is it all relative?

What about the amount of people killed by US weapons or Israeli bombs, or does that just not matter because their not European, from the USA or white?

Your brand of "equality" means some form of enforced redistribution. They tried that, it didn't work.
Again your projecting some of your issues onto me. Your left over Cold War Propoganda no longer words. Equality is everyone having the same opportunities to achieve what they consider to be success (bearing the infringement of other people’s civil liberties)
Any time two people agree on a course of action and set to work, a periphery of grumblers will appear to carp and whine
If the action of the two impacts that “periphery of grumblers” why weren’t they allowed to have a say in the decision? Perhaps that is why they are grumbling and perhaps there are institutions in place that systematically bar them from even taking part in the conversation.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 9:21 AM

If the action of the two impacts that “periphery of grumblers” why weren’t they allowed to have a say in the decision? Perhaps that is why they are grumbling and perhaps there are institutions in place that systematically bar them from even taking part in the conversation.

Well, dear little Miss Naivete, perhaps they didn't want to be part of the conversation! Perhaps they were offered a say, and said, oh no thanks, you go ahead and take care of it, and then when they didn't like how is was being taken care of, then they wanted in on the action!! PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That's all it takes. NOT, oh let someone else do it, but if they don't do it my way, I'll bitch about it until they do!

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 9:27 AM

Ayn_Randian,
So the Imans are lying? I need to adjust my meds for repeating what they preach weekly? Tell it too Europe.
Meghan,
How many dead have we killed with bombs this year oh Knowledgeable one?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 9:42 AM

The US didn’t fight WWI or WWII to fight oppression, try looking in something that gives you actual information and quoting verbatim out of your high school text book. US fought those wars because it was economically beneficial. I know people are gonna jump all over me for that one but I don’t care. The US knew about internment camps long before pearl harbor. You keep calling me naïve but I think it is you that is the naïve one. Why don’t you try a little independent research instead of just quoting what other people tell you. Your response to my comment about “periphery grumblers” didn’t even make sense. How can one NOT want to be part of a conversation about what effects them and simultaneously take personal responsibility? If you had correctly read my comments you would have noticed that I advocate personal responsibility AND collective responsibility, there has to be balance.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 9:47 AM

Rusty,
I said US guns and I can't give you a precise number because it increases daily and Israeli bombs (that the US supplied).

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 9:49 AM

Wow! You guys are so stimulating. Many of you know I have recently starting studying this issue. I am glad to have such differing views to read. Thanks for your ideas, Megan. Funny point, Stu. And Martin, I am starting to fall in love with you...although I am maintaing my committed relationship to Crid. But seriously...Jessica makes an interesting point. What I am thinking is, yes, Christians and Jew can be practicing what some might consider half-assed religion, but then I was thinking about what Gretchen said about picking her family and friends. I mean, if it came down to it and I had to appear to be a rabid Lutheran to save the lives of friends and family, I would.

As I have posted before about this, I get confused (or stumped) when Muslims I know don't know about the violence (that amy and others)describe Islam is about. (just kidding, martin). They talk about the religion of peace and all, but what I (humbly) believe is that if it gets to a point where our politics are at a tee-tottering, the Muslims will tott on the side of Islam (violence, Sharia, all the other shit) and that is what scares the fuck out of me. And I really don't know what to do about it except be as knowledgeable as possible so I can vote right.

Posted by: kg at December 4, 2007 9:54 AM

Meghan,
WW1 was against Islam among other things. People don’t go and die for economic reasons, no matter what you read about the French and English owing us more than the Germans.
“The US knew about internment camps long before pearl harbor.” Are you trying to refer to the Philippines? Indian reservations? Can you be a little specific?
Since you are so well read, would you tell us where the word Palestine came from? Also, could you elaborate about the Palestinian refuges?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 9:54 AM

"How can one NOT want to be part of a conversation about what effects them and simultaneously take personal responsibility?" - Meghan

...hey now, THERE'S an idea!

"Well, dear little Miss Naivete" Does that give the argument more clout?

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 9:54 AM

> I don't believe Islam
> does any of those things.

You're naive.

> "I also don't believe it's
> "the GREATEST THREAT evar!!!111!"

Why the quotation marks? Who said it was?

Do you want us to beg you to explain what you really think, or are you going to continue to drop day after day after day to say that we're boring you, or beneath you, or whatnot? I think you don't have a firm grip on the asymptotic nature of the Kausian internet dialectic.

You got no play, playah!

Posted by: Crid at December 4, 2007 9:58 AM

US fought those wars because it was economically beneficial.

No we fought those wars, especially WWII, because we were ATTACKED. I'm not "quoting from what other people tell" me, I'm relating what I've seen with my own two eyes! My god, child what book are you reading from?? And where in your little world are all those imaginary people on welfare taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

How can one NOT want to be part of a conversation about what effects them and simultaneously take personal responsibility?

Um, how about all those people who are collecting welfare checks, going on, let's see, this is the 4th generation now. Personally responsible? Guess again.

If you had correctly read my comments you would have noticed that I advocate personal responsibility AND collective responsibility, there has to be balance.

Ah, yes, that's so wonderful that you do, and you're going to be the one to enforce it on everyone else, I suppose. You cannot make people be personally or collectively responsible, they have to want to be, and then act accordingly! Balance? What balance? Why does there have to be a balance? Who said so? And how do you hope to achieve that balance?

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 9:58 AM

"US fought those wars because it was economically beneficial. I know people are gonna jump all over me for that one but I don’t care."

On the contrary Megs, the fact that you can use the words "economically beneficial" gives me hope for the future. Please, PLEASE bring your economics argument; it's not a dirty word off-campus.

"What about the amount of people killed by US weapons or Israeli bombs, or does that just not matter because their not European, from the USA or white?"

Surely they still teach argumentation in some form at the old U of [X] and you will be aware that you've transgressed just there. Please explain your qualification of "terrorist" with "so called" and I'll be happy to address your question about casualties of U.S. and Israeli military operations.

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 10:01 AM

Meghan,
The Israelis are not dropping bombs. How many have died from Islamic bombs oh wise one?
We are at war, so of course we are killing people.
You said’ who do you think supplies all these so called terrorists with weapons?” earlier, I replied, you said nothing. So you were wrong?
I love the way you keep moving to new issues with out resolving the ones you brought up previously. Classic.

Posted by: r at December 4, 2007 10:01 AM

Meghan - your proctologist's office called - they found your head.

You've got the causality of Islam vs. Everyeone Else backwards. Mohammed started the whole thing when he created Islam as a method for uniting the various arab tribes in an attempt to conquer Europe. The Crusades were defensive wars aimed at preventing, and ultimately reversing that.

There is precisely nothing that the Islamic world has undertaken in the past 250 years that could be considered self-defense. We have been at war with Islam since before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Look up "barbary pirates" for the background on that.

That you can spout every single Soviet untruth about the US tells me but one thing - you are nothing but an ideology-addled teenager with authority problems.

Ayn - You could not be more wrong about your position on the danger posed by political Islam. You are thinking in 19th century terms - that a war can only be fought with weapons and battles. The Islamists have learned from us, and they are using political correctness and white guilt to get us to give them, incrementally, that which they have never been able to take by force. Within 50 years, the Islamists will have demographic majorities in most of Western Europe. They understand that once they have demographic control, Sharia is merely an election away. And with political control comes control of the military assets.

Islam has been waiting 1300 years to eradicate Western Civilization. They will happily wait 50 more.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:04 AM

who said anything about welfare?

I love how you people project personal bias onto me its wildly entertaining

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 10:05 AM

rusty - there's a big difference between what they say they are going to do (and I'd think you'd have ample quotes, links and evidence to back up that the Imams are going to "out-breed" "us") and actually being able to do it.

Hence why I do not consider Islamists a grave threat.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:05 AM

Amy - you need to adjust the bogon filter. The marginal thinkers are getting through again.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:06 AM

"we were ATTACKED"

We were...? No war has been fought on our soil since the Civil War...Please don't go all Pearl Harbor on me, either.

"And where in your little world are all those imaginary people on welfare taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?"

What are you talking about? Flynne, you're usually pretty on-target. But this is an argument from an unhinged person...who the fuck brought up welfare? There are plenty of lazy, irresponsible welfare recipients but there are also people who have had bad shit happen. That debate is called "welfare reform." Don't worry flynne, all your tax dollars are going towards this war we're fighting, not funding millions of lazy peoples' luxurious lifestyles. Let's keep on track.

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 10:08 AM

Ayn - how about the fact that if not for muslim immigrants the populations of France, Italy and Spain (for starters) would be in decline. Native-born French are reproducing at a rate of 1.1 children per female. Immigrants are more fecund at (if memory serves) 2.3 or 3.2 children per.

Of course, if you knew how to do population calculations (first-year calculus) you'd see the problem. Is it going to happen tomorrow? No. But if nothing else changes (and it shows no signs of changing) then in 50 years, it WILL be a problem.

Are you suggesting that since it's not going to happen in the immediate future that we can ignore it?

Ignoring North Korea worked really well too, didn't it?

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:09 AM

who said anything about welfare?

I love how you people project personal bias onto me its wildly entertaining

Meghan, the people on welfare are the ones who cry the loudest about what injustices affects them without doing anything about them, and letting others foot the bill. I wasn't implying that you are on welfare, although, with the way your convoluted thinking is manifesting, I could be wrong. Unless you're an extremely weathly young coed, living off mommy and daddy's dime. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 10:11 AM

"The Israelis are not dropping bombs" no, but they're shooting people with American guns and ammo to defend a country that was "given to them by god" and officially created by irrelevant "authority" figures while ignoring the fact that there was another group of people living there. Kick me out of my house at gun point and then bulldoze it w/ a Catapillar and let's see what I do. I *might* be able to talk it out rationally.

No one is innocent in any of this. Stop acting like a goody goody.

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 10:12 AM

Marginal thinker?
Hardly.
Is that how you label all people who have a different opinion than you?

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 10:13 AM

Uh, Crid? The proprietor of this blog pretty much said it when she said "Islam is the greatest danger to our way of life, and, in fact, the continued existence of the planet."

brian - I don't even know what to do with your post. I mean, you're actually defending the Crusades? Have you read any history at all, or do you just get your talking points from FreeRepublic and treat them as gospel?

Islam has been waiting 1300 years to eradicate Western Civilization. They will happily wait 50 more.

Wow...dear sweet Christ, somebody shut the door on the loony bin. Apparently Islam = the Illuminati!

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:14 AM

I'm sorry Gretchen, that was just the first group of people who came to mind that don't practice any kind of personal responsibility. It was a weak arguement, but it sure sent Meghan into a tizzy! o_O

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 10:14 AM

Meghan, shut up and go back down into your parents basement! Hah, I don't think they like you. It's kind of fun, isn't it?

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 10:16 AM

I'm not in college I work 40+ hours a week. Again with the sterotypes.

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 10:16 AM

"Apparently Islam = the Illuminati!"

Nooo Ayn. IT'S THE REPTILIANS! Don't you READ?!?!?!?!

Posted by: Gretchen at December 4, 2007 10:18 AM

[I]n 50 years, it WILL be a problem.

Ignoring North Korea worked really well too, didn't it?

It would be a problem, assuming all Muslims thought in groupthink lockstep, which they don't. Ya know, they're people too, not the Borg.

Yes, I think ignoring North Korea would be a splendid idea (although I think we should be able to trade with them); Kim Jong-Il uses our missteps as propaganda tools all while seeking attention and handouts.

Or did North Korea nuke us and I missed it somehow? No? Then how is ignoring them bad?

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:22 AM

Gretchen - Please note that the Mufti of Jerusalem was on the losing side of World War II. To the victors go the spoils. Maybe if the Mufti hadn't backed the wrong horse...
And your position on our entry to World War II would be well served by an immersion into the history of the social condition of the day. The general opinion was that we ought not involve ourselves in another of "Europe's wars", so there was no political will to involve ourselves in preventing the forward march of Hitler.

Meghan - No, I call anyone who displays poor critical reasoning skills as a marginal thinker. That you believe that economic motivations were behind our involvement in WWI and WWII tells me that you've not done any critical analysis of the history of either. You are merely parroting the talking points of idiots.

Ayn - Not only am I defending the crusades, I am telling you the truth of the matter. That you are unwilling to accept reality is not my problem. What came first, the Muslim invasion of Europe, or the First Crusade? And if you don't like that, would you please point to the precipitating event that caused the first Muslim invasion of Europe? If there isn't one, then wouldn't the Crusades have been more likely a retaliatory war?

Another question for you, Ayn - do you think we should have taken Saddam at his word in 2002, that he had no WMD? If so, then why ought we not take the leaders of Islam in Iran and Saudi Arabia at their words when they tell us of their intention to destroy the Jews and subjugate the world under the rule of Islamic law? If not, is there anything that we ought to take seriously?

Finally, for both Meghan and Ayn, is there anything presently in evidence that can be considered a greater threat to either our civilization or our planet?

I eagerly await your considered replies.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:24 AM

Ayn_Randian,
Fine. That can always be true. But in this case, do to polygamy, Islamic men are fathering fifty to sixty children. They have immigrated to Europe, and then proceeded to out breed the Europeans. The Europeans have had a negative birth rate for sometime. They are using the Europeans political systems against them. Once they have the numbers, Islam and Shera law will be a reality. This is what they preach and this is what they are doing. So once more Ayn, why do I need to have my meds looked at for pointing this out?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 10:25 AM

Ayn - Name one thing that North Korea has to offer in trade.

And thank you for cementing your position as a Paulian. Unless someone has directly attacked us in a state-sponsored attack, we ought not involve ourselves in their affairs at all.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:26 AM

Gretchen - damn! I didn't get my weekly "Muslims are Aliens What Want to Out-breed Us!" raving-conspiracy theory mag.

Could you forward it to me? I never miss an issue!

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:27 AM

Gretchen, she said bombs. Besides, when the country was partitioned, there were only a few nomads living there. They were all given citizenship. Don’t they have the same rights as the other partitioned countries? Are you saying Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a right to exist?
I am not acting like a goody? goody?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 10:29 AM

Ayn - This is the hallmark of the marginal thinker. One who dismisses empirical fact (the population dynamics of muslims in Western nations versus the dynamics of the native populations of same) as scare-mongering is quite obviously not thinking.

You're feeling. Not thinking. And emotion is not a sound basis for public policy.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:30 AM

brian -

A. Ron Paul voted FOR authorizing force against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

B. I'm not a Paulian, I'm a Randian (or, an Objectivist, if you prefer); Rand was opposed to United States entry in WWI, WWII (pre-Pearl Harbor), Korea and Viet Nam. There's a lot to be said for the position that our support of the Soviet Union led to it dominating the eastern half of the globe for fifty years. I think we should have let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union destroy themselves whilst we bit a piece off of Japan's ass.

do you think we should have taken Saddam at his word in 2002, that he had no WMD?

No. But I don't see where it warranted an invasion either way.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:34 AM

No, brian, the hallmark of the marginal thinker is to seize on recent trends and extrapolate them 50 years to support one's personal or political hobby-horse.

The hallmark of a racist is to think that it matters that a majority Muslim-country is somehow automatically a bad thing, as if all Muslisms think alike and act like the Borg ("WE ARE THE MUSLIMS. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE")

You're both a marginal thinker AND a racist.

Your mom must be so proud.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:38 AM

Our policy of non-involvement in WWII led directly to the deaths of 50+ million people. Our policy of appeasement at Yalta led to the cold war.

Rand was wrong.

I didn't mention Afghanistan. But since you bring it up, Afghanistan was about immediate reprisal for 9/11. Iraq was about rolling back the Islamist juggernaut that was a result of the proxy wars fought in the Middle East for the duration of the cold war. Again, caused by our appeasement of the Soviets.

We didn't SUPPORT the Soviet Union, we treated them as an equal after WWII. That was our mistake. Giving them one of the permanent positions on the UNSC was a further capitulation to their status as 'victim' in WWII.

That you don't see why we needed to invade Iraq tells me that you haven't thought this through. Either that or you really, honestly believe that if we just let the Islamists have Israel then they'd leave us alone.

Hitler didn't stop with Austria.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:38 AM

Ayn -

You have never been more wrong about anything in your life.

To call the rise of political Islam "recent events" is to be terribly ignorant of history. Or are you one of those for whom history began with your birth?

Every majority-Muslim country presently in existence has as its policy the violent persecution of all non-muslims in their nation. They also have as their policy the marginalization of all western influence. They also have as their policy the destruction of all Jews.

Sounds pretty monolithic to me.

And to be a racist, I would need to harbor ill-will toward someone because of their race. Islam is not a race.

You've been reading too many CAIR press releases.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:42 AM

Brian: Corporate Favoritism
Economic Exploitation
Intolerance
Environmental Crisis

Posted by: Meghan at December 4, 2007 10:50 AM

Iraq was about rolling back the Islamist juggernaut that was a result of the proxy wars fought in the Middle East for the duration of the cold war

Too bad Saddam was not an Islamist, otherwise that argument would hold water.

Good luck getting new underwear, since you'll be constantly wetting your pants about the BIG, BAD ISLAMIST "juggernaut" that inhabits your bedroom closet.

Every majority-Muslim country presently in existence has as its policy the violent persecution of all non-muslims in their nation.

Really? Turkey has this written in to policy? Someone call NATO!

You're right about one thing, though: Islam's not a race, so you're not a racist. You're a stereotyping bigot, if that makes it awwwwl better in your tummy.

America allied itself with the Soviet Union instead of just staying out of Europe's wars. We could have just let the Third Reich and the USSR destroy themselves, giving neither one dominance.

Rand was wrong.

BLASPHEMY, SIR! I'LL HAVE YOUR HEAD! ;-)

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 10:51 AM

Ayn_Randian,
Why are there no Jews in Muslim countries? They had hundreds of thousands of Jews in each Muslim country fifty-five years ago. What happened to them? Why are there no Christians in these Muslim countries? There were millions of them Fifty five years ago. What happened to them? What is happening to all the Jews and Christians in Southeastern Europe?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 10:51 AM

Ayn_Randian,
Turkey was responsible for one of the biggest mass exterminations of people during the last century. Hummm, they were all Christians.

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 10:53 AM

Ayn -

Without US involvement on the Western Front, Germany would have taken the USSR. By 1945, they would have resolved their problems with the atomic bomb. All of Europe and Russia would have been under the boot of the Nazi regime.

In short, Hitler would have the resources and manpower to rule the world.

And with the recent takeover in Turkey of an avowedly anti-western party, you'll be seeing the same Islamist 'reforms' coming about. I don't expect they'll care about admission to the EU either.

I'm not a stereotyping bigot, I simply recognize that Islam is objectively evil, and has been against the form of civlization in which I live (one devoted to self-determination, and not omniderigence) since its inception.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 10:55 AM

Without US involvement on the Western Front, Germany would have taken the USSR. By 1945, they would have resolved their problems with the atomic bomb.

Wow...that's a lot of historical guesswork. Did you turn in to Harry Turtledove when I was not looking?

Any particular reason Germany would have beat us to the bomb? Or are you just pulling stuff out of a hat to win an argument?

And with the recent takeover in Turkey of an avowedly anti-western party, you'll be seeing the same Islamist 'reforms' coming about.

From Harry Turtledove to Miss Cleo! you sly devil!

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 11:04 AM

This is a quote from someone on an elist I'm on, and some of the points are relavent to this discussion:

"For some reason, America tends to bear the brunt of the conquering country, destroying indigenous people, and enslavement. We forget about the Vikings, the Huns, Mongol Empire, Greeks, Romans and many other groups who at one time or another sought to increase their borders at the expense of those whose lands they coveted. At one time if you lost a war/battle you belonged to the victors.
Where we make our mistakes is not in learning about history in order to not repeat it, we make the mistake about becoming emotionally attached to an event, which generally occurred prior to our birth, and making adjustments based on emotion. Since they have been brought up lets discuss Sharpton and his ilk: Sharpton is in a position based on his popularity to help people... to make a difference and move forward. Instead he cultivates the emotional cesspool of hatred and in effect is responsible for creating divisions within a country that can ill afford to have divisions.
When it comes to the discussion of immigration, as soon as the world illegal appears, logically the conversation should be over. Of course I also get upset when I hear about the burglar who injures himself breaking into a home and is allowed to sue the homeowner! We as Americans allowed this to happen because of our emotional attachment to issues. The law is not supposed to be emotional. Individuals of any culture/race/ religion can find a time when "their people were persecuted", however it takes someone of character to move beyond that. We live in such a burger king society (my way right away) that we forgot anything worth having rarely comes easily."

Thanks to lynx.

Posted by: Flynne at December 4, 2007 11:05 AM

“Any particular reason Germany would have beat us to the bomb? Or are you just pulling stuff out of a hat to win an argument?”
Welllllll, if we were not in the war, we would not have had the Manhattan project.
“Wow...that's a lot of historical guesswork. Did you turn in to Harry Turtledove when I was not looking?”
Well what are you doing?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 11:21 AM

I have studied many different world religions, and Islam is a religion. As far as religions go, it's a far sight more rational than Christianity.

The only reason Christianity is not all "Kill the non-believers, and rule your LIFE from Cradle to Grave!!" is because we place the Law ABOVE it. If Christianity had the rule of Law in this country as Islam does in the Middle East, they'd be just as bad. It's not a difference of religion at all, it's a difference of cultures.

As Islam spreads, it will eventually encounter cultures who allow free thought, and Islam will recieve the thought and scrutiny it has so long avoided by a closed society.

Believe me, I have no particular love (or even interest) in Islam, but to try and make it out as "An EVIL which must be stopped!!!" is short sighted reactionism. I believe this is the same argument that feuled the Holocaust, no?

Islam has a lot of growing up to do, that's all.

Posted by: Morbideus at December 4, 2007 12:13 PM

> when the country was partitioned, there were only a few nomads living there.


I posted this once before, in response to a particularly ignorant paragraph by the late Cathy Seipp. At partition, 950,000 arabs lived in the territory that became Israel. All but 156,000 were expelled or fled. Today the Israeli Arabs are about 20% of the population.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at December 4, 2007 12:27 PM

Ayn_Randian - you've beclowned yourself.

How someone could argue WWII history from such a position of ignorance baffles me.

Were you not aware that we were not researching an atomic bomb prior to WWII, or that all the advancements in nuclear physics were coming from Germany? Or that we had kidnapped several of Germany's top nuclear physicists? Had the remaining German nuclear scientists had a bit more time, they would have figured out their errors in calculating critical mass, and would have had an operational nuclear bomb.

This is not projection, prognostication, obfuscation, or fiction. It is historical fact. And without us sapping the resources of Germany through Lend-Lease, and later through direct military involvement, Hitler would have had significantly more resources to dedicate to the Eastern front. And Germany would either have gotten to Moscow in their planned timeframe, or they would have had the ability to resupply their troops with more appropriate gear.

Without the intervention of the United States, Germany would have won. But given the late time at which the US finally got involved, if Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR, he probably would have taken all of Europe.

We didn't win World War II because we were better than the Germans, or because we were ordained by God to do so. We won because Hitler's stupidity was more damaging to him than our apathy was to us.

Morbideus - Christianity has been around only about 300-400 years longer than Islam. Christians stopped slaughtering in the name of the Pope (which is Catholicism, but it's close enough for government work) over 400 years ago. If the time scales were perfectly aligned, the muslims should have worked it out of their systems by now. That they haven't says something about their religion.

Christianity has been able to look back upon the interpretations of their holy writ, and say "no, that's not right". In Islam, to suggest such a thing is to invite death.

They have a lot more than mere growing up to do. Islam has some serious doctrinal issues to work out if it is going to be compatible with a post-Enlightenment West.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 12:43 PM

Oh brother, there is so much bullshit being spouted on this thread, that I don't even know where to start. So I will just grab one obvious point:

[quote]and I'd think you'd have ample quotes, links and evidence to back up that the Imams are going to "out-breed" "us[/quote]

Kaddafi, the leader of Lybia, said that "victory will come from the wombs of our women", that is, the Muslim women living in the West. He was expressing the preference for the slow jihad as opposed to the fast jihad, which is obvious considering his conciliatory manner towards the West of late. He knows that immigration and demographics and democracy is a perfect storm which will turn the West into Islamic theocracies. You think that I am exaggerating? Did you realize that the headscarf is banned in Tunisia and Turkey, but that the UK has police officers wearing it as a part of their uniform? Obviously some Muslim countries have more experience with extremism than we do. Although I have a feeling that we are gonna learn pretty fucking quick.

Posted by: liz at December 4, 2007 12:47 PM

Morbideus,
Well and that love your neighbor stuff.
Gee where in the New Testament dose it tell it’s believers to kill? You got me on that one.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris,
I was referring to the original partition, done by the League of Nations, not the 1945 partition done by the United Nations. By that time the green line drew many Arabs in for work.
All but 156,000 were expelled or fled. Uh, they were invited to leave by the invading Arabs. The Arabs stated that if they remained they would be slaughtered as if they were Jews unless they left. Furthermore they could return and take possession of the land as conquers.
The figure I gave came from a 1905 census of the area, which I admit is a good 10 years or so before partition.

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 12:53 PM

---The only reason Christianity is not all "Kill the non-believers, and rule your LIFE from Cradle to Grave!!" is because we place the Law ABOVE it. If Christianity had the rule of Law in this country as Islam does in the Middle East, they'd be just as bad. It's not a difference of religion at all, it's a difference of cultures. ---

Can you please rewrite your comment? I don't understand it. You are saying that because of Pax Romana, Christianity developed the concept of "Render unto Caesar"?

And if that is what you meant to say, does it excuse sedition now in countries that ARE ruled by Law?

Posted by: liz at December 4, 2007 12:54 PM

Been on deadline, so I haven't weighed in since early am, but just had to mention about "beclowned yourself" -- great term, Brian!

Just sent the column...in recovery now. Will be back soon.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 1:09 PM

Regarding the alleged brutality of the United States and Israel: While a terrorist, sorry, asymetrical warfare participant, actively conducts "counter value" operations, suicide attacks on buses full of children for example, western forces are willing to spend millions of dollars on these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919249.stm

for counter-force operations.
These are laser-guided cylinders of concrete that can de-operationalize (wreck the shit out of) legitimate targets even if they are nestled between a mosque and a children's hospital with minimal risk of collateral damage (overlooking the gross impropriety of placing military assets in civilian areas.)

We'll play by the rules of civilization and we'll still beat them.

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 1:17 PM

Stu "El Inglés" Harris,
Did you leave or do you only insult dead people?
Why don’t you tell us about the origin of the word Palestine?

Posted by: rusty wilson at December 4, 2007 1:27 PM

Amy - I can't take the credit for that term. I believe it was the BlogFather himself that first used it.

It looks like our marginal thinkers left, Meghan after throwing a little hissy fit, and Ayn appears to have disappeared in a puff of illogic.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 1:29 PM

Amy, I just started to read your post and I really liked it. Then I read this racist shit. Your just another racist retarded uneducated idiot and will not be reading your stupid shit anymore. This is 100% false information that you are spearding and maybe some muslim girl with a scarf on will be attacked because of this shit. And I say girl because your fucken cowards dont have the balls to attack a Muslim man. My friend was seriously hurt on a motorcycle because some stupid fuckhead like yourself attacked him because he was muslim. Yup he just called him some racist shit and hit him and drove off. That peice of shit is going to jail for a long time!! I guess he was trying to protect the homeland or some shit, like you are, just a diffrent level of hate. Your just as brainwashed and extreme as the people you like to point the finger at and excuse. Look in the mirror. What do you see? Your a racist bitch. And you hate me because of false information. No other reason, just that, now my buddy has brain damage. So keep your fucken hate speech to yourself you FUCKEN CUNT!!! Your a Racist BITCH!!!

Posted by: Muslim Guy at December 4, 2007 1:55 PM

This is a country of freedom of speech and ideas. We don't solve problems here by beheading people but by discussing the issues. That's what this blog is about.

I don't believe in physical violence against anyone - -man or woman. It's primitive and uncivilized -- and a hallmark of Muslim countries. Beheadings, lashings, stonings -- absolutely disgusting, primitive stuff.

To speak out against this, and against all the speechmaking of Muslim leaders who condone the conversion and/or murder -- or at least the taxing and state-based humiliation of those who don't believe as they do -- is not racism. It's the foundation of democracy. Freedom of speech must be used to be maintained.

In this culture, you're free to tell me I'm wrong, an idiot, or anything else. What happens to people who speak out in Muslim cultures? I mean, if they get to live?

I deplore violence -- including that against your friend. Luckily, as I'm part of Enlightenment culture, I can speak my mind and even be persuasive through use of logical arguments. I don't feel intellectually impotent, as you must -- reflected in your cutting off all reason and reverting to (punctuation-free) namecalling.

I urge you to read Walter Benn Michaels on the difference between difference of opinion and racism. Here's a link with an excerpt of the essential portion of his book:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/07/theres_nobody_u.html

PS Muslims aren't a race.

An example of the way I think: I used to think of Muslims like astrology buffs. I think astrology is dumb and baseless, but if people want to believe in it, and waste their time on it, whatever.

I felt that way about Islam until 9/11, and until I started reading Jihadwatch.com with regularity. Now I understand how sick and dangerous it is.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 2:08 PM

PS I notice that you don't bring up any solid information about how wonderful Islam is to non-Muslims -- us "dhimmis."

Not a surprise!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 2:09 PM

Amy, Thanks corrected me, my engrish is not goot!! And one more thing, fuck you!! You know what I mean. I'm regular guy, who is so regular, I'm below average just like our President! Now I'm talking about whats happening on the ground, not in your la la coke land. You need to do some more lines of that shit, or not! How many honest muslim people do you know? Have you been over for dinner? Now you really need to do some research. And who said we have to be all wonderful to you? We can all just coexist. No one needs to be kissing anyones ass here. But at the sametime, you have no solid basis on your crap. What some website called jihadwatch.com. Are you kidding me? Did some unbasis source put that up or some predigests like yourself put that website up. Who put that site and where do they get their info? Could you get some unbasis info regarding this shit before you make statments and start calling me a terrorist and me and my leaders are plotting to take over the world. And you say you dont believe in physical violence against anyone but what I'm telling you is that when say shit you have not right saying and innocent muslim people get hurt and are getting hurt. But you dont metion that in your little blog do you? Not getting jobs or getting dirty looks and that hurts my our feelings. Because we're human beings you dumby! Becuase I might just be really nice guy who has to deal with assholes like you on a daily basis and after 30 years of that it gets old. And I'm starting to feel like we're your punching bag/ whipping boy, get a little steam off today, hey everyone Amy is having a bad day, so take it out on those evil guys (musilm) and if we say shit or disagree ship us off to gitmo with no trail. We are constantly attacked by you do gooders. So fuck your blog, its shit and so is your information. Do more research!! quit using that high grade coke in LA, Go to school, visit a muslim family and have some dinner. The food taste good and the tea is great!!! Just do somthing beside getting 100% of your info from people who hate us more then you do. You Brainwashed zoombie!

Posted by: Muslim Guy at December 4, 2007 2:50 PM

"Muslim Guy" (yeah, what are the chances...)

1) Learn English. It makes it easier to comprehend your rants.

2) I doubt the person who hit your buddy had a clue what his religion was. I can tell you from personal experience that the mere act of being on a motorcycle makes you a target to some of the less intellectually capable drivers on the road.

3) I'm not one to randomly start abusing people, but I can tell you that if I'm ever on an airplane and some fucknozzle hops up, shouts 'Allahu Akbar' and heads for the cockpit, I'll snap his neck if someone doesn't beat me to it.

4) It is precisely because I am educated about what Islam is that I am against it. You might consider what forcing 13 girls to burn to death because they weren't wearing appropriate headgear does to the public image of muslims. Really, your co-religionists aren't doing you any favors in the PR department.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 2:53 PM

1)Tell that to our President before you tell little old me! A HEE HOOO HAAA dem texas boys sho can make a gooooood point!

2)He was getting harrased by the same white racist asshole like yourself for several weeks and they're police reports and and the guy is in jail! So fuck you on behalf of my good friend.

3)Snap necks, lol wow, OH NO Macho MAN!! save the tough talk pussy lips, for your airport bathroom gay lover you in the closet tough guy.

4)Exactly my point about you assholes having false information! what girl are you talking about. Do you just make shit up. Their are innocent people getting hurt on the daily basis by shitheads like you that probally hit and run or attack women.

Posted by: Muslim Guy at December 4, 2007 3:15 PM

salam Muslim Guy,
Sorry to hear about your friend, that is unconscionable; can you provide contact information for a fund where I can make a donation for his family?
It's a good thing the guy who did it is in jail. Can you provide a link to a news story that gives details of the assault, investigation and trial?

Posted by: martin at December 4, 2007 3:25 PM

Martin calls the bluff! I think we're being spoofed.

Posted by: Crid at December 4, 2007 3:45 PM

Good one, Martin!

Yes, we're waiting for the news links!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 3:58 PM

Yet another uneducated marginal thinker.

This is the barbarity that I am talking about.

I've noticed that these apologists always fall back on calling those they disagree with cocksuckers.

And of course, impugning their masculinity by implying they beat up girls.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 4:22 PM

[i]Without US involvement on the Western Front, Germany would have taken the USSR. By 1945, they would have resolved their problems with the atomic bomb. All of Europe and Russia would have been under the boot of the Nazi regime.[/i]

Hate to break it to you, but despite having an inferior military with sub-standard equipment, the USSR had beaten Germany before the D-Day invasion. US involvement on the Western Front only hastened the fall of Germany and made sure the Nazis couldn't hold out long enough to sue for peace with the Russians. Stalingrad broke the back of the Wermacht. Allied strategic bombing made a dent in wartime production, but only a small one.

The Battle of Stalingrad ended in February 1943. That same month, US soldiers were incompetently led by Lloyd Fredendall at the Battle of Kasserine Pass and slaughtered. The American army posed no threat to the Germans at that time.

The Soviets turned the Russian Front into a meatgrinder for both sides - but the USSR's willingness to absorb casualties that would break any other army meant the difference.

The Germans had little chance of getting an atomic bomb at that point. Hitler and Goerring had no patience for drawn out scientific research or the design process.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 4, 2007 4:29 PM

Conan - if the United States had not been arming the English through Lend-Lease, Britain would have fallen, and Germany would have had significant additional resources to devote to the attack on the USSR.

It's entirely possible that Germany would not have defeated the USSR (as I said, Hitler's defining trait was the heights of stupidity to which he was driven by his ego), but it's equally likely that he could have beaten old Joe into submission.

Germany managed to survive for a full two years after Stalingrad. I don't think the USSR could have withstood the onslaught if the USA had been as completely non-interventionist as the people had wanted it to be.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 4:55 PM

The US was indeed in a very non-interventionist mood until Pearl Harbor. The American people were disgusted with internecine European wars. In fact, one of the unstated American goals for the post World War II world was to disarm Europe so the Europeans couldn't fight anymore wars amongst themselves.

After Pearl Harbor, the American people reacted with anger that FDR gave the fight against Hitler first priority. Torch got the resources while the Guadalcanal operation had to scrape together whatever was left.

Lend-Lease kept the British alive, but the RAF won Battle of Britain due to a combination of Goerring's stupidity and pre-war equipment.

Lend-Lease's greatest contribution to defeating Hitler may have been keeping the Russians alive - ensuring Hitler's eventual downfall.

Despite the Battle of Britain and El Alamein, the British were no threat to invade Festung Europa even by '43. Germany didn't divert real resources to fortify Europe until the Americans showed up in Britain in force.

Early in the '30s Hitler and Goerring made the fateful decision to focus the Luftwaffe on tactical air power. Hitler's lack of a strategic air force meant he couldn't defeat the RAF (he came close). Nor could he touch Old Joe's steel mills and munitions factories in the Urals or his Lend-Lease ports in Archangel and Murmansk.

In 1943, the Wermacht probably had enough fight left to bring the still-reeling Red Army to a standstill somewhere in the Ukraine and force a cease-fire. The USSR was not going to defeat Hitler definitely or quickly without US assistance. Stalin knew it; that's why he kept pressing FDR for a second front.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 4, 2007 5:46 PM

Again Amy FUCK YOU!!!

Posted by: Muslim Guy at December 4, 2007 5:55 PM

Again Amy FUCK YOU!!!

Posted by: Muslim other guy at December 4, 2007 5:56 PM

Amy Again FUCK YOU!!!!

Posted by: Muzzieguy at December 4, 2007 5:57 PM

Conan - All correct. Your depth of knowledge on the topic far exceeds mine. I'll admit that most of what I know of WWII was learned in the past 5 years. The public school system was useless in educating me in the history of my own nation.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 6:13 PM

"Can you please rewrite your comment? I don't understand it. You are saying that because of Pax Romana, Christianity developed the concept of "Render unto Caesar"?"

You didn't understand it? That's fair, as I have no idea what you said either.

We have Separation of Church & State in this country. When the two clash, LAW wins. State trumps church as it should be. In the Middle East, the church IS the State. There is no secular Law to keep the religious whackos in check. If such were the case in this country, and the Christian religious whackos made the rules, we'd be just as screwed as they are over there in Moslem-Land. Kapeesh?

"Well and that love your neighbor stuff.
Gee where in the New Testament dose it tell it’s believers to kill? You got me on that one."

The Bibble has been used (New and Old Testaments) as an excuse for killing for centuries. It's all in the interpretation.

Posted by: Morbideus at December 4, 2007 7:17 PM

I'm writing some new material and I could use a little audience feedback.

The setup for the joke:

So these five Muslims hijack an airliner and crash it into a building full of people.

The punchline:

Islam is the religion of peace!

Whaddya think? Should I send it into Letterman?

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 4, 2007 7:44 PM

Shockingly (and I know you'll all be shocked) our Muslim friend is deceptive -- portraying himself as three people above. Perhaps he has split personalities! All at the same I.P. address! Pasted in below:

Amy Again FUCK YOU!!!! Muzzieguy 2007.12.04 162.119.64.112

Again Amy FUCK YOU!!! Muslim other guy 2007.12.04 162.119.64.112

Again Amy FUCK YOU!!! Muslim Guy 2007.12.04 162.119.64.112

We Enlightenment broads, we're kinda clever. You can't come at us from a background of primitivism and nonthink and expect to win.

Also, "Fuck you" doesn't count for civilized debate where we Enlightenment broads come from. Clearly, you need to do a good bit of homework in the civilization department. We won't hold our breath.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 8:09 PM

My friend was seriously hurt on a motorcycle because some stupid fuckhead like yourself attacked him because he was muslim. Yup he just called him some racist shit and hit him and drove off. That peice of shit is going to jail for a long time!! I guess he was trying to protect the homeland or some shit, like you are, just a diffrent level of hate.

It's easy to post with that dirty, dirty language of yours, but harder to substantiate these claims, huh? If this is true, where's the link?

You're like a child throwing a tantrum, hammering your tiny fists on the carpet and wailing incoherently.

Either admit you're a liar or give us a link to the story.

We'll assume you're a liar if you can't post any substantiation.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 8:38 PM

To be fair, I Googled for news of this, with the term:

muslim man motorcycle injury

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=muslim+man+motorcycle+injury+&btnG=Search+News

Guess how many entries came up?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 8:41 PM

Hey, Amy, pull a "whois" on the IP. The genius is posting that stuff from work. Kaiser Permanente, it looks like.

Posted by: JohnAnnArbor at December 4, 2007 8:42 PM

HILARIOUS!

Here it is:

IP Address Location IP Address 162.119.64.112 City SAN JOSE State or Region CALIFORNIA Country UNITED STATES ISP KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM.

Guy's a real genius, huh?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 8:56 PM

He just went into incoherent rage. Bizarre. And couldn't let it go; he came back for more.

Posted by: JohnAnnArbor at December 4, 2007 9:09 PM

Maybe he's "Islamic Rage Boy"'s cousin.

Posted by: brian at December 4, 2007 9:32 PM

Rage Boy, Kaiser Permanente.

Let's just hope he's a security guard, not on the medical staff.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 4, 2007 9:53 PM

OK - all of the WWII talk is completely irrelevant, because this is not WWII.

And I have never met a group of people more self-absorbed as to think that 1 billion Muslims do nothing but think of them and their destruction all day. I can barely get 150 friends on Facebook, but y'all think that 1 billion folks don't have lives enough that all they do is think about you.

Wow.

Someone explain this to me: if Islam is so "monolithic", why are Sunnis and Shias slaughtering each other over here?

If Islam is so lockstep, it should be a piece of cake to overwhelm America and the American Army right now...I mean, it would be almost 1 billion people versus about 3 million...not even a chance! Muslims could get 5 million people (.5% of their Borg drones) and overwhelm the entire nation of Iraq, base by base.

Why don't they?

and btw, brian, I note that Conan stepped all over you on WWII knowledge. Perhaps it's time to admit you were wrong?

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 4, 2007 11:44 PM

> if Islam is so "monolithic",
> why are Sunnis and Shias
> slaughtering each other

What does one have to do with the other? What they all have in common is that they're assholes. See the clip in the first comment.

Posted by: Crid at December 5, 2007 12:26 AM

What they all have in common is that they're assholes.

Said so well in so few words.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 5, 2007 1:33 AM

Ayn - I can't see where Conan and I had any major disagreements on WWII.

So, to go along with your insipid lack of knowledge about history and current events, you apparently have a lack of basic reading comprehension as well.

I'm done wasting my time with you. I have better things to do than bang my head against a wall.

Posted by: brian at December 5, 2007 3:58 AM

Yikes!:

in·sip·id (ĭn-sĭp'ĭd) adj.

1. Lacking flavor or zest; not tasty

brian - before you go spouting off the "big words you heard on TV", maybe you should actually know what they fucking mean.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 5, 2007 8:38 AM

in·sip·id –adjective

1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality.
2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup.

My, my, we can be choosy now, can't we? I believe brian used the word in the correct context when referencing the first meaning of the word. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at December 5, 2007 10:20 AM

I'm not a particularly religious person. Nor am I vehemently anti-religious. From this agnostic perch I have watched the debate on religion for a few years.

Critics then to condemn a religion, citing all the evils done in the name of that religion (wars, segregation, slavery, intolerance, etc.). They neglect to mention any good done in the name of that religion (hospitals, universities, charities, abolition of slavery, etc.). Religion is a double-edged sword. Like all dangerous weapons, people need to be careful how they wield it.

Brian - I agree. We didn't have a major disagreement. We had a civilized discussion with two different points of view - something that is all-too-rare in today's politically-charged environment.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 5, 2007 12:24 PM

Ayn_Randian: “If Islam is so lockstep, it should be a piece of cake to overwhelm America and the American Army right now...I mean, it would be almost 1 billion people versus about 3 million...not even a chance! Muslims could get 5 million people (.5% of their Borg drones) and overwhelm the entire nation of Iraq, base by base. Why don't they?”

Perhaps if there wasn’t such a high correlation between the religion of Islam and intellectually, scientifically, and culturally backward societies, they might be able to field the army of strawmen you postulate. Is it coincidence that Western Civilization (largely Judeo-Christian) came up with the printing press, steam engines, steam ships, trains, planes, automobiles, mechanized agriculture, mass production, electricity, vacuum tubes, transistors, satellites, walks on the Moon, telephones, televisions, radio, computers, antibiotics, birth control, women’s rights, representative democracy, and a few other trifles, while the Islamic world came up with what, anything over the past 500 years or so? It’s not very likely such dysfunctional societies are going to be able to put together a force to threaten us militarily.

So if this was 1907, you’d be right, who cares if a billion Muslims are being taught to hate us? When they could get organized enough to arm millions of troops and build enough steamships to sail them over here, then we could pay attention. Unfortunately, in 2007 they don’t need to be so organized. They can use all the force-multipliers invented by the hated infidels. A few Islamic religious fanatics can spread their deranged beliefs using television, radio, communications satellites, and Internet, and incite their followers to blow up pizza parlors, set off bombs in commuter trains and subways, detonate car bombs at nightclubs, murder hostage schoolchildren, or even fly hijacked airliners into office buildings. Clearly they have the will to kill us retail, and openly state their desire to get the means to kill us unbelievers wholesale. They don’t need a million troops, just enough volunteers to smuggle a nuke into an American city (put it inside a bale of marijuana, like they say) or spread a bio-engineered virus into a major airport. They don’t need to be a monolithic force, even a small fraction of those billion Muslims could kill an awful lot of us before we went medieval on them.

The above is the long way of saying that when somebody says they want to kill you, don’t ignore them.

Posted by: Chuck at December 5, 2007 2:01 PM

Meghan, do you know what "dhimmitude" means? Look it up for yourself because you wouldn't believe me if I told you. Just understand that it is still a part of mainline Islamic thought (both Shia and Sunni)

Go to a Muslim Forum and communicate with them. Ask them about freedom of speech, equality for women and religious minorities etc and see if you feel the same way. Don't listen to a bunch of "kaffir", go get your info straight from the horses mouth.

Posted by: winston at December 6, 2007 11:11 AM

Here, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude

Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as:

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race. [8]

Fun, huh?!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 6, 2007 11:19 AM

"But what do you need a financial advisor for? Twenty years ago you had the highest Gross National Product in the world, now you're tied with Albania. Your second largest export is secondhand goods, closely followed by dates which you're losing five cents a pound on... You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so on behalf of my firm I accept your offer." -Bryan Woodman, from the movie Syriana

Posted by: George at December 9, 2007 6:18 AM

Leave a comment