I certainly don't get from Josh's article that either Tamerlan or his mother were "just ... awful people".

Apart from a shoplifting charge, I don't see in Josh's account that she was first awful person and then jihdist. Apart from the shoplifting charge it seems she was leading a somewhat common life, and then got radicalized, perhaps by a family friend. Even the shoplifting charge occurred after the radicalization (if I read Josh's article correctly.)

Your obsession with this religion has a religious purity to it— Distrust of other texts; disregard for other motive forces; ritual pleasure in social exclusion; and relentless mongering of apocalypse.

Only it doesn't go anywhere or do anything... It's like Christianity from down in the holler.

Applebaum-

The two bloody Chechen wars caused incredible damage and inspired an equally bloody terrorist movement. Once a largely secular population, some Chechens became radicalized after losing their homes, friends and families. Chechen terrorism includes the violent storming of a Moscow theater, attacks by several female suicide bombers and the bombing of a Moscow airport. Worst of all was the 2004 siege of a primary school in the city of Beslan, a disaster that ended with the deaths of hundreds of parents and children. The nihilism and cruelty of Chechen terrorists, who have often targeted innocent bystanders, seem to have an echo in the horribly random Boston Marathon bombings.

One or both of the brothers might well have been in touch with Chechen separatists, whose Web sites they were reportedly reading. They could even have been in touch with al-Qaeda. But I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Chechen terrorists have in the past been more anti-Russian than pro-Islam. They are not known for being anti-American.

Remnick-

The Tsarnaev family had been battered by history before—by empire and the strife of displacement, by exile and emigration. Asylum in a bright new land proved little comfort. When Anzor fell sick, a few years ago, he resolved to return to the Caucasus; he could not imagine dying in America. He had travelled halfway around the world from the harrowed land of his ancestors, but something had drawn him back. The American dream wasn’t for everyone. What they could not anticipate was the abysmal fate of their sons, lives destroyed in a terror of their own making.

But Amy---- MOOZLIMS!!

Is there any amount of war or social dislocation or primitivism or horror that you'd ever credit as a determinative force? Or is that if someone's ever even heard of Islam, it alone must be the source of misbehavior?

You keep citing the relative timidity of modern Christians as if they were that way by nature... This is not appropriate.

Presumably, then, you're just in the mood to be a'fearda sumthin'.



Telling factoid; these guys were not clued into modernity or liberty.

That "Attacks" graphic is preposterous. Comical.

Maybe I should hire a graphic artist to draw up a sober-looking roundel with some bogus number like 922,324 on it... For all the Christians that have killed people in the last ten years... Drunk driving accidents, whatever. Powerful rhetoric! Convincing!

"That "Attacks" graphic is preposterous. "

How so?

Read the next paragraph.

Seekers... look at the wording to which Amy responded. She won't let it be said that Tamerlane was radicalized by *anything* but Islam, not even "in part."

She knows what she wants to be afraid of, and accepts no substitute.

A nationality in warfare for a century, being chased across international borders repeatedly in childhood, settlement in an intensely competitive and unusual country, abandonment by parents an ocean away, estrangement from siblings, poverty... Nothing can be mentioned but Islam.

How is this less obsessive than anything Robertson or Falwell used to rail about?

Nonresponsive.

No matter what, Moozlims!!

You make your point as nebulously as ever, Crid. I think what you're trying to say is that given so many other factors that could have driven the Tsarnaev brothers to violence, there's no reason to conclude that it was adherence to Islam that pushed them over the edge. Is that about what you're driving at?

Reason is, I can think of about three or four different ways this discussion could go, but I'd rather hear your position first.

It couldn't be clearer.

Nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, right?

Tamerlane \t(a)-merla-ne, tam(er)-lane\ as a boy's name. Name of a 14th-century Mongol warrior descended from Genghis Khan. His name was derived from the Persian "Timur-i lang", meaning "Temur the Lame", by Europeans during the 16th century. His Turkic name is Timur, which means "iron". He conquered huge parts of Asia, from Russia to India, and built a powerful empire. He was described as an intelligent and brave man, and his tale was retold by 16th-century English poet Christopher Marlowe as a romantic tragedy, and also by Edgar Allan Poe in a poem.

Tamerlane has 9 variant forms: Tamarlain, Tamarlayn, Tamberlain, Tamberlaine, Tamberlane, Tamburlaine, Tamburlane, Tamurlaine and Tamurlayn.

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Tamerlane

Man, I wish I had a thousand dollars for every terrorist bomber who was radicalized by that notorious Golden Gloves bunch.

Or a dollar for every terrorist bomber who was radicalized by Islam.

Whichever.

> Nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, right?

Said who? Quite the opposite: Again (AGAIN, Jimp, and please do the reading), it's Amy who's being peremptory: A columnist isn't permitted to say that even "a part" of the radicalization comes from something besides Islam... No matter how tortured and rootless this family might be.

So your inquiry regarding "nothing whatsoever" is more than clumsy. Is anyone saying that's the standard for consideration of these events? Is that really the way this works? Might one then argue in turn that there's no evil outside Islam?

This is wackzoidal. All you guys wanna to is squeal 'Wake up, Sheepul!! Moozlims!' You have this towering, crystalline fear to share... But that's where it stops. You can't see this as relating to any historical events or other social forces. You have no suggestions. There's no particular policy to support, and you're not recommending any behaviors for our personal conduct. You just wanna say 'Moozlims!' real loud-like and be proud for being more scared than others, and sooner besides.

Silliness.

>>>>>Islam isn't hijacked by extremists - it is what sustains them.

This is why felons often convert to Islam. It channels their aggression without asking them to repent for past deeds.

You keep citing the relative timidity of modern Christians as if they were that way by nature....

The Middle Eastern crusades (there were others) got off the ground when Pope Pius received a plea for help because Holy Land pilgrims were being attacked by Muslim bandits on their way to Jerusalem.

The Muslims had recently wrested the Holy Land away from the Eastern Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire. Muslim leaders initially encouraged the bandits to attack non-Muslim pilgrims, but later cracked down on them. Too late.

Pius was facing a Europe riven by war. A few hundred years of Viking raids had given rise to a large warrior class (second sons of nobility, adventurous yeomen, etc.) to defend against the dreaded Norsemen.

With the eventual Christianization of the Vikings, their propensity to raid Europe and wreak widespread havoc was diminished.

That left Pius with a bunch of violence-prone warriors running around Europe with no one but each other to fight. His solution? Send them to the Holy Land to reconquer it for Christendom.

Islam - after a long war in Afghanistan (Russian invasion), Palestinian displacement and radicalization, the Iran-Iraq War, brutal dictators (Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and Iraq to name but a few), revolution and tyranny in Iran, wars in Africa, etc. - faced a similar problem: lots of impoverished, violently radicalized fighters with no one but each other fight and no alternatives for their energies ... unless they could be redirected against the West in a reverse of the Crusades.

The Saudis have been masters of this; they financially support (and redirect the anger of) many militant organizations that actually hate them.

Western zeal to reconquer the Holy Land was eventually ground down by Muslim intransigence in giving it back and willingness to respond in kind.

Muslim zeal to attack the West will have to be ground down as well, whether it is done militarily or economically (or both). The grindstone for that can be centered in the West or in the Middle East.

"A nationality in warfare for a century, being chased across international borders repeatedly in childhood, settlement in an intensely competitive and unusual country, abandonment by parents an ocean away, estrangement from siblings, poverty..."

America is chock full of immigrants & refugees from all over the planet who fit that profile. But you will never turn on your TV and see that Tibetans or Hmong or Dinkas or Nuers have casually placed bombs full of nails behind children watching their daddies race a marathon, or tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, or tried to blow up a plane over Detroit. It's Muslims, Muslims, Muslims. If it wasn't for Muslims we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no need.

"Is there any amount of war or social dislocation or primitivism or horror that you'd ever credit as a determinative force?"

Countless ethnicities are afflicted by primitivism, poverty, and tragedy. All of these ethnicities are having their problems adjusting to American life. None of them - other than Muslims - are dealing with those problems by committing acts of terrorism against the country that generously gave them refuge & opportunity.

And you think two guys in Cambridge Massachusetts were cut off from the modern world because they didn't know that Chinese guy could drive freely across state lines? You've got to be kidding. There are native-born Americans (and TSA employees) who think you need passports to go to Hawaii or New Mexico because those are foreign countries:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/10/tsa_worker_hawa.html

Cridmo, honey, 'member, couple weeks ago, after the Boston shite, I posted:

"This: "...a political collectivism called Islam that seeks to take over the world, and includes the horrors of Sharia law." is what we DON'T want to happen. The more aware of this danger the rest of us are, the less likely it will happen (in our lifetime anyway. Once we're gone, I hold no hope. The liberals are too soft and touchy-feely about shit they refuse to see for what it really is. But I don't want to see my grandchildren subject to the mad ravings and edicts of a murderous pedophile, which is what Mohammed was.). As it stands now, those bastards are ENJOYING watching people panic, and the brave souls of Boston and elsewhere who are saying "FUCK YOU" to them have my whole-hearted support. I'm not panicked by any means, and I don't think Amy is either. We're AWARE. And we wish more people were."

That's all.

> Muslim zeal to attack the West will have to be
> ground down as well, whether it is done
> militarily or economically (or both)

No-no, mister... You've overplayed your hand far too greatly for Amy's comfort. Because MOOZLIMS... And there's really nothing to be done, with no other considerations, not even "in part." History has never seen anything like this before, says Amy. Moozlims; fin, house lights, go home.

> America is chock full of immigrants &
> refugees from all over the planet who fit
> that profile.

Yeah? There are other nationalities pummeled by Russians, taught Russian by Russians, internationally dispersed by Russians, briefly reconstituted under two violently-resisted Russian war campaigns all in the post-Soviet 1990's, then moved to America only to have the family twitch into bitter fragments with zero discernible immigrant communities for support & succor in the face of crippled assimilation?

"Chock full?" Yew sher? 'Cause I'm thinking there are tiny things besides religion that just miiiiiiight be a factor here.

But that's the kind of daring, impetuous, outside-the-box thinking that I bring to these matters, y'know? Perspective City— Elevation: Fabulous, Population: Me. I'm a totes renegade, dood. Fully off-the-plantation, always pushing the envelope. I eat paradigms for breakfast and shit innovation after lunch.

"Chock."

Flynne, with all due respect, this "awareness" never seems to have any consequences besides Moozlims! It doesn't do anything. It comes from nowhere, has no precedents, sees no other forces in play, offers no future, and seems merely equipped to make social distance from those who don't, y'know, feel the power.

Now, ya won't hafta search through too many blog comments here to find evidence that I'm ready to help the West kill Muslims as necessary. I'm confident that we can do so deftly, ruthlessly, and in proportion to the threat they present. We'll win this thing because we have everything in life worth having... Not just modernity's bounty to overwhelm their primitivism, but a second half of the world's genius besides: We got all the Sisters, and they got nuthin' but bitter teenage boys.

Yet Amy badly wants us to believe that Moozlims!...

Well, that can never happen. Sorry, Big Red.

We can't lose, we won't lose, and it's silly to pretend we've never faced anything like this before. This is civilization's continuing project, work that was always going to need to be done.

Ahem—

First: testosterone. Almost all of the people who carry out terrorist attacks are young men. As Georgetown University scholar Bruce Hoffman points out, the average age of the hijackers on September 11, 2001, was 24, while that of Palestinian suicide bombers is 21. Tamerlan was 26, while his brother Dzhohar, now in a Boston hospital, is only 19.

[…]

Second: narrative. This is perhaps the most important and most misunderstood element in the shaping of a terrorist’s thinking. It is often confused with ideology and, in the case of Islam, with religion. But testosterone-driven young men looking for glory are not, by and large, given over to theological exegeses. […] One of the most useful insights in the monograph “Radicalization in the West,” written by the New York City Police Department in 2007, is that when a cluster of young men start talking about jihad at the mosque, that’s not necessarily a warning sign. But when those same men leave the mosque because they don’t want to hear the arguments against them, that’s a real red flag.

Right.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmy.

No evil without Islam. OK then!

That's a wrap! Thanks ever'buddy!

No evil without Islam. OK then! -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 29, 2013 5:05 PM

I'll have to remember how great your vacation was. You come back and go into immediate ignorant asshole mode.

Do you remember the IRA? The Irish Republican Army did bombing attacks in Ireland and England, primarily. They knew that unprovoked attacks on targets would lead to worldwide condemnation. So they tried to limit the attacks to "legitimate targets." That was how peace was finally achieved. The UK was willing to listen because of the targeting.

The "moozlims" as you want to call them, target indiscriminately. They won't talk to governments, target anybody, and have a goal of world domination. Let's discuss that with them.

Fuck you Crid.

So I guess you disagree with Amy then... We've seen violence from other religions, and there's nothing all that special about Islam.

It's just not in my heart to admire terrorists by distinctions in their technique.

So I guess you disagree with Amy then... We've seen violence from other religions

Please provide 5 examples from each of the worlds top 5 religions beyond Islam where the attackers have admitted religious motivation, and their greater communtiy has supported them either thru silence, or outright approval, oh and all from this year only

Perhaps if you learned to read, you wouldn't need others to make your arguments for you: you'd find that your points had already been answered... And then maybe you could spend some time helping Jimp.

Specifically, the larger point of my argument is that you imagine world religions to be at the same point of development relative to your personal preferences, as if this were a consumer choice for you... Which is ludicrous.

I've said that dozens of times in here. The inability of readers to take the point makes me wonder if the people on the committee slipped some new letters into the alphabet without warning you. Or something. Do you need flash cards? A puppet show? A cartoon with musical numbers? What exactly needs to be done to make these matters comprehensible?... To make you feel comfortably certain that global history is all about you?

Let us know.

125+ words
10+ sentences
4 paragraphs

All to say "no"

Why not just say no crid? Oh thats right, you couldnt pretend is about you just not wanting to do if if you didnt spin you web of bullshit

Hey, Crid, I went on a Crusade just last week. It was a blast. A little rapine and intaking, hanging out with the Knights Templar, and generally running amok.

The Crusades were a series of wars taking place in Asia Minor and the Levant between 1095 and 1291 (sorce: wikipedia)

oh, wait, I must have mistakenly activated my vortex manipulator.

Snark aside, the difference between Christianity and Islam is that when Christians try to get closer to the model of a Christian (Christ), they learn to love their enemies.

For Muslims, the model Muslim is Mohammed. They are commanded to kill, oppress or harass the infidel, kill the apostate, kill the Jew, kill the gays. This is what Mohammed did, after all.

The problem with Christianity is that there are too few who are Christ-like.

The problem with Islam is that there are too many who are Mohammed-like.

"First: testosterone. Almost all of the people who carry out terrorist attacks are young men"

That's nice, but white supremacy was the prime motive behind the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. It wasn't random young men from Birmingham hopped up on testosterone. When the terrorists are Klansmen, no one denies that the ideology of white supremacy is what drives them, so why do some people try so desperately to deny that the ideology of Islamic supremacy is what drives Muslim terrorists?

"There are other nationalities pummeled by Russians, taught Russian by Russians, internationally dispersed by Russians...?"

First, Russians aren't the only ones acting savagely towards ethnic minorities. Second, the Tsarnaevs didn't bomb Russians, they bombed the country that gave them refuge from the Russians. Third, they went back to Russia (to Dagestan) for 6 months last year to fortify their fanaticism. Fourth, the Chechen community in the US is tiny (not more than 1000 altogether), but Chechens who aren't enthralled by Islamic fanaticism have managed to settle down and get by in spite of everything - the Tsarnaevs had extended family in America, like their uncle Ruslan, who succeeded and could have shown them the way. And fifth, the evidence shows that it was the Tsarnaev's growing Islamic fanaticism that drove them apart from their family & community and set their lives on a downward spiral:

"The upheaval in the household was driven, at least in part, by a growing interest in religion by both Tamerlan and his mother. Once known as a quiet teenager who aspired to be a boxer, Tamerlan Tsarnaev delved deeply into religion in recent years..."

Turn to Religion Split Suspects' Home:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235304578437131250259170.html

> spin you web of bullshit

You never comprehend, but your feelings are always hurt... That's what you want people to know.

> oh, wait, I must have mistakenly activated
> my vortex manipulator.

Apparently, you're making a reference to a Star Trek-style TV show. Not a problem! April 30, 2013 1:37 AM applies to you, too— Your snark defeats itself.

Your joke is the insight that Christians aren't especially nice. The Crusades happened during a particular period in the development of the cultures in which the religion was practiced.

> they learn to love their enemies.

Says you. You apparently take them at their word as they describe their motives. I do not. I remember reading of the Crusades, when those darling little passages counted for dick.

Religious texts are by definition unimprovable... And so is human nature. In both contexts, the bad stuff is still in there, ready to respond just as it did last time. No, "the difference between Christianity and Islam" is that 21st-century Christians have learned that if they try to make a land grab, the rest of us will put a pistol to their temple and ask them to recite some Scripture... And if we don't hear some suitably milquetoast prattle about humility and the importance of keeping one's hands to oneself, we will blow their motherfucking skullcaps wide open.

(Sweaty thumbs flipping pages— "Uh, yeah, it says something like that right here, lemme see, 'love your enemies,' sure, I was looking at that over the weekend, just need a sec....")

I know of no corner of Christianity where this awareness doesn't reach. When some little church house out on the prairie forgets for a couple days, they're quickly reminded.

Christians aren't nice because they want to be; they're nice because modernity's left them no option. It's human nature for them to regard this docility as a product of their own pompous hearts, rather than a gift from their surrounding culture. (Liberals make that same mistake with most American blessings.)




The larger mistake is that you think Like, we're all on the same page here, Man. I think you make this mistake because you're rich white Americans raised in the postwar period (excepting Martin, one of America's Canadian housepets, yet no less presumptuous in his perspective). You read about these religions, and they're listed side-by-side in today's modern sources of information. You want to choose between them as you choose between modern consumer products, using the consumer skills you've spent your lives developing. You think the world's religions share that modern understanding of each other, and want to compete for your adoration as do Samsung and Apple, or as do Toyota and Renault. When one guy offers a sun roof, you expect the next guy to put in some in-dash navigation to juice up the attractiveness of his product. (And in fact, Christian experiences in America are nearly that well-tamed; Some hold services in convenient basketball arenas.)

But Islam came to us in the 7th century, and the cultures that sustained it are by cause and effect still hampered in slow development. We're not on the same page. And they don't care.

The fact that you guys imagine holding Islam in one hand and Christianity in the other — as if to choose — means nothing to them.

It doesn't mean much to me, either. You've lost sight of the project.

> Russians aren't the only ones acting
> savagely towards ethnic minorities.

Can you tell us who said they were? Can you tell us who said "Russians are the only ones acting savagely towards ethnic minorities"?

> why do some people try so desperately
> to deny that the ideology of Islamic
> supremacy is what drives Muslim
> terrorists?

Because some people are so pathetically eager to pretend to simplistically identify a villainous force that they'll ignore stampeding buffalo to complain about buzzing fruitflies.

These guys' lives were completely fucked up. After nearly a century of Soviet oppression of their culture, Russia did everything it could to violently and specifically fracture their the first two decades of their own lives and shatter their families. It worked. I mean this is just so fucking obvious.. But you can't even read these words I'm typing. HA HAH MARTIN YOU LOOK FAT IN THOSE PANTS! Could you name a religion or similarly-detached ethnicity that wouldn't produce monsters when similarly tortured? HAH YOU EAT SHITTY FOOD HA HA YOU'RE UGLY Of course not... It doesn't matter. YOUR MAMA WEARS ARMY BOOTS. HAR!!!

You can't read the words because it doesn't fit your narrative. You and Amy are stuck on that and you won't let go. All you want to say is MOOZLIMS.

Saying MOOZLIMS explains very little of the world, and very little about human nature, and very little about these events. It certain does nothing to address the distinct hazards Islam presents.

Presumably the reason you're so fixated on saying MOOZLIMS is that you think some people will admire you for clever insight. After all, Islam is a religion for underdeveloped people around the world, and people who've at least heard of Islam will be doing nasty things, so you'll always be able to pretend you saw it coming.

I won't be impressed. It doesn't rain much in Los Angeles, either... But it is going to rain.

(Whoops! Apologies to Dave B... Didditagin.)

Christianity, of course, does not have hands free of blood from killing other people. And I don't agree with Amy's apparent belief that all Muslims would slaughter or subude all non-Muslims if they could.

However, there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam or, specifically, the two "holy" figures in these religions. Aside from a temper tantrum in the Temple, Jesus was non-violent and, I believe, preached non-violence. In contrast, Muhammad was a warrior (at least in his earlier years); he was not opposed to violence.

So any Christian who is violent is acting counter to what Jesus would have done, what Jesus would have taught. Not so with a Muslim and Muhammad.

Your joke is the insight that Christians aren't especially nice. The Crusades happened during a particular period in the development of the cultures in which the religion was practiced.

Yes, they did. And then stopped several hundred years ago. So Islam has been around for about 700 years. Isn't it about time to get a grasp of non-violence? Or should we give them a another 200 years?

No, "the difference between Christianity and Islam" is that 21st-century Christians have learned that if they try to make a land grab, the rest of us will put a pistol to their temple and ask them to recite some Scripture... And if we don't hear some suitably milquetoast prattle about humility and the importance of keeping one's hands to oneself, we will blow their motherfucking skullcaps wide open.

And why do you object to that lesson for Muslims?

But Islam came to us in the 7th century, and the cultures that sustained it are by cause and effect still hampered in slow development. We're not on the same page. And they don't care.

Then kill them until they get the lesson.

Could you name a religion or similarly-detached ethnicity that wouldn't produce monsters when similarly tortured?

Please name the other Chechnyans that emigrated and went on to do a terrorist attack.

Saying MOOZLIMS explains very little of the world, and very little about human nature, and very little about these events. It certain does nothing to address the distinct hazards Islam presents.

Very true. Now what the fuck is your solution. You keep defending the motherfuckers. How would you fix it? So what, we hang around for another couple hundred years until they come around?

> any Christian who is violent is acting
> counter to what Jesus would have done,
> what Jesus would have taught.

Again, I think you're too eager to credit (the very real) Christian virtues to what Christians describe as their source... And they might be fibbing, and they might be flat wrong. I've no doubt that if Christianity had as few constraints today as in earlier millenia, they'd be every bit as violent and oppressive. All the shitty stuff is still in their book, just as in the Koran.

Props to your argument, though... My disagreement is merely sincere. For personal reasons not appropriate to discuss, I'm glad to have been raised in a Christian home, one that demanded Christian study, observance and (minor) recitation of Christian principles in my earliest years. I'm even gladder to have broken away from it as childhood was winding down, but I agree that Christian virtues and humility — while practiced intermittently and on checkerboards by Christians themselves — are a part of the modern West's decency. Christians should likewise credit modernity itself far more often than they do.

So, JD, I see your point clearly and disagree without enmity. However...

More practically, it doesn't matter— No one's asking. Christianity and Islam aren't in a beauty pageant, with one offering perkier tits and the other dancing on prettier gams. Their competition happens in other contexts, and neither they, nor anyone else, is looking to hear my criticism of their relative merits. I don't want to choose, and they don't want me to, either. They're not even listening for suggestions.

My task — our task, my friend — is to keep *all* of them out of the way.

> And then stopped several hundred years ago.

They didn't "stop." They were stopped.

> Islam has been around for about 700 years.
> Isn't it about time to get a grasp of
> non-violence?

Aha! You recognize the supremacy of modernity's standards as well.

Thing is, Jimpers, I think you don't read me so good, and then you get all pissed and butthurt over nothing in particular. But I don't love you enough to hold your hand while you go back and re-read and figure out what I meant. You'll have to do that on your own.

> And why do you object to that lesson for
> Muslims?

I made permanent enemies on this blog (and elsewhere, believe me) by supporting the Bush wars. I'm proud of those enemies! No fucker on the surface of Amy's Spinning Disk Drives has been as bellicose & belligerant about Islam as I have. If you can't see that, even in my comments today, then you (AGAIN) need to do more reading.

> Then kill them until they get the lesson.

As necessary, dispassionately and without remorse... Not to teach people things, but to eradicate intractable threats.

Meanwhile, we shouldn't identify Islam as the source of every reprehensible human behavior. These boys were plenty fucked up, wherever they went to church.

> Please name the other Chechnyans that emigrated
> and went on to do a terrorist attack.

More than you'd think, I'm certain. Nobody cares enough about Chechnya to keep track. It's a shithole country dominated by a shithole wannabe-superpower.

I mean, nobody cares. Amy, above, couldn't find a WSJ article about other Chechnyans... She had to go with something about Bosnians, despite the profound dissimilarities. All she cares about is MOOZLIMS, so she couldn't see the difference.

> Now what the fuck is your solution.

Don't curse in front of the girls! You should be ashamed of yourself.

For you, Jimperboy, the solutions are—

[A] Read things more carefully before getting pissy.

[B] Watch this video: If you're going to be a peckerhead, you should spend an hour and a half in an easy chair, learning how to do it well. You can't even skip the introduction, because the software won't let you. Sorry.

[C] Recognize that fundamentalist religion is essentially a companion problem to issues of development and connectedness; No matter what Amy says, it's not a magical wand that identifies these larger problems of global integration. It's the canary in the coal mine, not the poison gas itself.

Certainly- It's not a pretty bird, and it's got a lousy song... But this works in our favor.

Aha! You recognize the supremacy of modernity's standards as well.

So then why not shoot them in the head?

[A] Read things more carefully before getting pissy.

You have spewed your shit repeatedly throughout Amy's blog that "Moozlims aren't bad." Can you build a canned reply like I have posted here[1] that explains your concept? Or even refer us to why we shouldn't kill them?

[B] Watch this video: If you're going to be a peckerhead, you should spend an hour and a half in an easy chair, learning how to do it well. You can't even skip the introduction, because the software won't let you. Sorry.

I saw this Barnett's video several times since you posted it. Why hasn't it caught on? Maybe because his grip on reality is tenuous at best?

[C] Recognize that fundamentalist religion is essentially a companion problem to issues of development and connectedness; No matter what Amy says, it's not a magical wand that identifies these larger problems of global integration. It's the canary in the coal mine, not the poison gas itself.

We are still giving The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt $450,000,000 in financial aid even as the West Bank is still launching attacks on Israel.

I'm tired of the fucking carrot. It isn't working.

If you think you can point to other shit, and still not post a solution -- please do. But I'm going to ask you every time "What is your solution to the Moozlims problem?"

You still haven't provided one.

[1] -- www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/29/boston_as_an_ex.html#comments

> You have spewed your shit repeatedly throughout
> Amy's blog that "Moozlims aren't bad."

Quotation marks but no citation.

> We are still giving The Muslim Brotherhood
> in Egypt $450,000,000 in financial aid

They're poor.

> his grip on reality is tenuous at best?

How specifically?

Hey Crid - the whole difficult issue with Chechnya, the reasons for their separatist attitudes, their inability to get along with the rest of Russia, their displacement, exile, and emigration, are all because they're Muslims. The mindset, the history, the whole enchilada - all because of their religion. The parts we can blame on them and the parts we can't. To pretend that Islam is somehow irrelevant to the Tsarnaevs or to Chechnya is sheer ignorance.

Read some history.

For once.

Thing is, Jimpers, I think you don't read me so good,

No one does crid, cause while your arguments are about as subtle as a methhead raping a pinball machine, you go out of your way to couch your arguments enough crap that you can always go back and say 'Thats not what I REALLY said'

> their inability to get along with the rest
> of Russia

That's exceedingly weird wording.

Wiki—

The Chechens converted to Sunni Islam, mainly to gain support from the Ottoman Empire against Russian encroachment.

It's like saying 'The reasons also American Southerns moved to the North in the Underground Railroad was to avoid being slaves.'

Perhaps for you as well, no matter what, this is all about the Moozlims. That's the only "difficult issue" you can imagine.

Besides —

> To pretend that Islam is somehow irrelevant to
> the Tsarnaevs or to Chechnya is sheer ignorance.

I never "pretended" anything of the kind, else you'd have quoted a passage. Or would it matter?

This is like Amy's resistance to "in part." You just will not let it be said that there was anything more to these men's lives than Islam. You'll make up shit in quotation marks to maintain a polished seen on the insanity:

> You have spewed your shit repeatedly throughout
> Amy's blog that "Moozlims aren't bad."

Where?

This is hokey.

Quotation marks but no citation.

Amy's spam software would just choke if I did the research.

They're poor.

So is 46% percent of the U.S. Give th3 $460B to them. Fuck Egypt.

How specifically?

Because his concept is letting them blow up the rest of the world for the next 200 years.

No, "the difference between Christianity and Islam" is that 21st-century Christians have learned that if they try to make a land grab, the rest of us will put a pistol to their temple and ask them to recite some Scripture... And if we don't hear some suitably milquetoast prattle about humility and the importance of keeping one's hands to oneself, we will blow their motherfucking skullcaps wide open. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 30, 2013 12:59 PM

Why not teach 21st-century Moozlims that if they try to make a land grab, the rest of us will put a pistol to their temple and ask them to recite some Scripture... And if we don't hear some suitably milquetoast prattle about humility and the importance of keeping one's hands to oneself, we will blow their motherfucking skullcaps wide open.

Why give them a pass?

First, we note that you can't actually fault Barnett's reasoning, or identify the principles which show "tenuous grip on reality."

> Amy's spam software would just choke if
> I did the research.

Her servers are robust and well-tended. It's more likely that a moment's reflection reminded you that I'd never said anything of the kind even once, let alone "spew[ing] shit repeatedly all over Amy's blog"... It just never happened. So why would you say it did? I have a theory! You want —

> Fuck Egypt.

— Simplicity. You don't want to hear about social forces, or financial things, or cultural integration, or any of that other stuff. You, and Amy, want to say Moozlims and be done with it... And if anyone tries to talk about Islam with a larger context ("in part,") you want to accuse them of "giving a pass."

(And "spewing." "Repeatedly." You're that afraid of becoming distracted.)

Well, Pilgrim, good luck with that. There is a larger context, just as with Christianity and every other system of belief.

I mean, look at this fucker:

> To pretend that Islam is somehow irrelevant
> to the Tsarnaevs or to Chechnya is sheer
> ignorance.

This is comical. You cannot acknowledge what's being said in context: All you'll allow yourself to hear is "Islam is somehow irrelevant."

No!, you reply! Islam alone is relevant! Nothing else can be considered!

Like schoolchildren trying to stay mad at your little sisters for tearing your comic books. Don't confuse me! I'm still pissed off!

And I mean seriously, Jimp, reread the God-damn webpage. You're all so horny to keep it simple that even THINKING about complications makes you lash out.

> Why not teach 21st-century Moozlims that
> if they try to make a land grab

WHO *THE FUCK* DO YOU THINK I WAS TALKING ABOUT?

You clowns confuse yourselves. You do this to yourselves... Lookilpiddly spazzes into childish terror about 'spinning webs of bullshit' because HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. Then come his psychotic accusations, his absolute certainties... But he never nails any of them down.

It's like those scenes from Dark City. Lickelpidgytits, Jimpers and now Grey Ghost are metaphysically, sub-atomically convinced that they understand what's being said... Until you ask for details.

Commenter Tressider used to do this all the time. I'd make a point, and she'd dream up some distasteful rewording of what I'd said, a corrupting fabrication... And for the rest of her life, she'd sincerely believe that her fabrication was what I'd actually said. Citations wouldn't matter. PRINTED TEXT meant nothing.

You're living in a dream world, a closed loop. Your behavior is fully auto-erotic. Why come here and bother others with it? What does this have to do with testing reality, or even exchange of opinion?

                           Murdoch:


              When was the last time you remember
              doing something during the day?

We do understand how to read crid. Its you who dont understand how to write clearly, at least thats how you make it seem.

Personally I'm of the opinion that you go out of your way to pepper your rants with double and triple negatives just to fuck with people if they dont agree with you half assed analysis.

One person not being able to "understand" you could be a problem on that persons end. More than a dozen unable to understand only you while they quite clearly understanding everyone else, thats a problem on your end

> double and triple negatives just to fuck
> with people

Riiiiiiight. You need a planet so simple that you can't be wrong about stuff... No ironies, no subtleties, no recollection, no calculation. Because all the hurt in your heart is from out there... And God loves you so adoringly that he'd never dream of expecting humble effort, right? Sure.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker who went bad and he certainly blew up lots of people in Viet Nam and Laos.

Your interjection is factual, but also unprecedented. It's been forty years since Nixon left office, and our nation 20% again older than when he did. But in all the decades since —to my knowledge— no one has ever, ever suggested that Nixon's warmaking lethality had its roots in his religious heritage.

And "went bad" may be precisely where the conversation should go.

Seekers, there is more to life than religion, even for the devout.