I still don't suggest what you suggest we actually do about Islam. Forcefully convert a fifth of the world? Start World War III? Perhaps attempt to support moderate Muslims while writing diatribes condemning their entire religion? For my part, the few Muslims I know are not pro-terror, misogynist zealots... at least, I don't think they are. Should I ask?

"I still don't suggest what you suggest"
I still don't KNOW what you suggest. Pardon me.

How about this, lady? We stop allowing them to immigrate here. We prosecute them for crimes instead of letting them cry religious freedom? We laugh in their faces if they demand sharia courts as an alternative to the secular courts and tell them, you want sharia courts, you go where there is no separation of mosque and state.

You can ask them and maybe your friends don't read or follow the Koran any more than most Christians or Jews read or follow the hateful things in the Buybull/Torah, but you really think they're going to say to your face this world rightfully belongs to us, infidel, even if they secretly think so? Beware when they're not afraid to. Perhaps what you should ask them is how come their leaders don't speak out condemning the things done in the name of Islam. People are dying all over the world in the name of Islam, women particularly and they're letting it be said that this is their religion? Think about it. Do you think the majority of rabbis and preists would tacitly ignore if so-called Chrisitians and Jews started following old testament precepts to stone adulterers or if they'd speak up and call it wrong? Before it got to be a regular thing like honor killings, for example, now are?

I'm not surprised that a demographic which would fall for the "Kwanzaa" scheme would go for this. Such a group re-elected felon Marion Berry, apparently because he looked like them, or appealed to their lowest commonalities. Even American Christians ignore the most fundamental absurdities in order to form a community of any kind; there is always a segment of the population which longs to "belong" so much that they throw reason away. Think of it as the group version of the "I couldn't help myself" appeal in personal relationships.

The ignorant have killed the intelligent among us for millennia. I wonder when the next purge is going to happen. Do not think that technology is proof against this. Every generation is the most modern one they know.

"I still don't suggest what you suggest we actually do about Islam. Forcefully convert a fifth of the world? Start World War III? Perhaps attempt to support moderate Muslims while writing diatribes condemning their entire religion? For my part, the few Muslims I know are not pro-terror, misogynist zealots... at least, I don't think they are. Should I ask?"

Yes, you should ask - and everybody you know should ask. This is actually reasonable. It's akin to testing whether a group claiming to be Christian actually teaches about Christ, as opposed to... scamming people with time-shares, or snake-handling.

As for warfare - I could get the Nobel Prize for this - the real way to bust this up is to make it irrelevent, and the way to do that is to open Super Wal-Marts everywhere, with the full Western inventory of goods minus the firearms (you might not know - they sell guns and ammunition where the people are trustworthy) and a checkpoint everybody has to pass through 300 yards away. What? I can get food, a bicycle, clothing, detergent and car stereo in the same store? How does this happen?

WalMart - and to a greater or lesser degree, any good supermarket, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops and the granddaddy L.L. Bean - even stupefies Americans with the violent merchandising battles going on on their shelves. Show these people something they can hold in their hands: proof that plenty comes from working together, not from killing people for not following the work of your sweaty desert madman closely enough!

Rad, you're a freakin' genius! The problem with your plan is that it's too simple, and too easy. And it won't put money in the CIA's pocket. o_O

As for warfare - I could get the Nobel Prize for this - the real way to bust this up is to make it irrelevent
As far as I read, the Arab Emirates are going that way. Question is, can they keep it up if they come under pressure? Also, what about dropping millions of porn tapes and DVDs instead of bombs on the population? Get Britney, Jenna Jameson and the Black Eyed Peas to perform in some concerts, like "Britney does Iraq"?

I'm for globalization as one of the better solutions we have. Imagine if, instead of doing as we did in Iraq, we invested all the money we spent on the war on the kind of solution Rad talks about. How would things in the middle east be different today? And would things be different? Or would Muslim ladies just have better toasters.

Trace the path of globalization, will you, Raddie?

Last I checked, the 9-11 hijackers all grew up in homes with plenty of toasters and other things. And yes, I'm aware that they're not necessarily representative of all the terrorist types out there, but they're not totally unrepresentative, anyway. The Middle East has access to Wal-Mart-type goods. What it largely doesn't have any access to is a real, diverse economic infrastructure. There are oil companies or there are small shops - very little in between, unless you're in Israel, which does everything from improving TV technology to developing new medical devices. In the U.S., we have choices - you may have more choices if you're born into a wealthy family than into a poor one, but you still have choices. Amy can be a freelance writer. I can go work for The Man. Our lives aren't stifling just because we weren't born wealthy...and, on the other hand, they're not boring because we were born into a family with gobs of inherited/gifted wealth.

In the U.S., we mock Paris Hilton. Imagine a country where every person - male and female - under a certain age has more or less the same "responsibilities" as Paris Hilton, but combined with an oppressive regime and legally-imposed misogyny. Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace.

What's the solution? I don't know. I suspect, though, Rad, that your ideas, while well-intentioned, would just lead to the better toasters possibility that Amy mentioned. Somehow, the Middle East has to be gotten out of its current rut. I'm not sure how to do that, but pushing its leaders to stop using Israel as a convenient scapegoat and instead figuring how they could follow Israel's lead to build a real economic infrastructure would be a start. And yes - no sharia law here. If you kill your daughter for dating a boy, be prepared to go to jail for a long, long time.

"Last I checked, the 9-11 hijackers all grew up in homes with plenty of toasters and other things. And yes, I'm aware that they're not necessarily representative of all the terrorist types out there, but they're not totally unrepresentative, anyway. The Middle East has access to Wal-Mart-type goods. What it largely doesn't have any access to is a real, diverse economic infrastructure."

Which is the point. It isn't "access", but obvious, blatant plenty which is the point of my exercise. WalMart is clearly an example of economic diversity. Their buyers terrify vendors all over the world to get stuff to American trailer-park residents. And that stuff is what everybody wants, because plenty is tactile evidence that you are doing well. You don't have to hook up the hash pipe and dream about rewards from Mohammed if you have them at your fingers.

You might know that at one time, "Playboy" was banned in the USSR. What you probably didn't know was that it wasn't because of the girlie pictures. Obviously, Russia has lots of beautiful women; they had picture magazines, too. What they didn't have was the two hundred other glossy pages full of advertisement for things Russians couldn't have.

C'mon. Show 'em what they can't have because of destructive fantasies.

Obama or McCain are going to "fight the last war" some more. Dumb!

Last I checked, the 9-11 hijackers all grew up in homes with plenty of toasters and other things.

Yep, but what didn't they have? The answer is freedom. Islam is a closed society. You're excluded if:
a) you're the wrong sex
b) you're the wrong sect
c) you're the wrong tribe
d) you're the wrong family in the tribe

If you hit the jackpot and fit all of the right categories then you can be very successful. If not, it's too bad for you. It won't matter how smart you are, how creative or how innovative because you'll be stuck in a job equivalent to flipping burgers - if you have a job at all. Most, if not all, of the terrorist organizations were started by people endeavoring to overthrow the existing oppressive government to install a new repressive government that better suits their desires.

The Islamic culture is a prime target for the terror recruiters because the "best and brightest" are stifled and can't reach their anything approximating their full potential. Before the age of instant communications that wasn't a problem (recall that in North Korea the people think theirs is the most prosperous country on the planet) but now the average person can see the rampant poverty and knows that the future holds more of the same. The thugs running the shows, aided and abetted by their leftist allies, have cleverly blamed the Israel and United States for the misery.

The obvious solution is an ideology of freedom and liberty to counter the thugocracies. The obvious problem is that nobody in State Department, Congress or the White House really believe in freedom or liberty. Nobody in Washington is willing to advocate the policies that made the United States exceptional.

As much as I agree with Radwaste, for the amount of money blown on the Iraq war there's another path. For $1 Trillion you could have 100 nuclear power plants plus a massive investment in energy research. With enough cheap energy from other sources, one could tell the Arabs to go drink their oil. Let em sink into barbarism until they wake up and beg to join the modern world.

As it is, we get to pay three times: once for the war, once for trying to fix what we broke, and a third time in the form of the high oil prices caused by the war. And too much of the oil money goes to fundamentalist Islamic regimes.

Of course, it all worked out just fine - GWB's friends and colleagues all made a mint, which was the the real point of it all...

Yep, but what didn't they have? The answer is freedom. Islam is a closed society.

Which is exactly my point. Diversity of products isn't going to change that. Diversity of ideologies might.

For $1 Trillion you could have 100 nuclear power plants plus a massive investment in energy research.

Look, I love nuclear. I think it's great. It's one of the limited number of issues on which I agree with the French. That having been said, building a new nuke plant in the U.S. is a Sissyphean task, which is why decades have passed since the last one was built. There are too many people convinced that a nuclear plant will irradiate! their! babies! You think Dubya is unpopular now? If he had made a bigger push to foist fission on unwilling local populations he would have been tarred and feathered. Americans don't want to live near nuke plants. They don't want to live near refineries. Many of them don't want to live near wind turbines. They want energy to waft soundlessly and painlessly out of the ether to fuel their increasing number of gadgets and their ever-expanding houses. Change that mindset and you might get a true futuristic energy policy in the U.S...EVENTUALLY. But that's going to have to be done at a grassroots level, and right now, grassroots groups seem to be more interested in NIMBYism or in trying to get everyone to live in super-densely populated areas than in a sustainable future.

I'm with you on building nuclear power plants. There's risk in everything, and continuing the way we have been - dependent on Mid-East oil and the primitives that live on top of it - has great risk attached to it.

I disagree (but if it got to be a fistfight, you guys might still win.)

Carbon-based fuel solutions poison the world for, like, I mean, a few hundred or a few thousand years. Nuclear spillage poisons the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. And it affects living organisms at the very core of their being, the codes by which they witlessly convey four billion years of meaning to succeeding generations. (And no matter what that nasty man Radwaste tells you, there is always nuclear spillage.

Now, I love the blue-tufted cliff warbler like nobody's business.... I'm the compassionate friend of all our carbon cousins.

But my first consideration is human beings, and if I get to choose the kind of mess I make for descendants to clean up, I'm going to veer in the simple kind of chemistry. Can't you understand? I'm only thinking of the children...

Your mileage may very, but you'll be expected to be very convincing very quickly.

I hate to spoil the Utopian tone here.

Free-market prosperity exists only where property rights are respected. Property rights are respected only where there is a legal system to which one can appeal as a substitute for resolving disputes with force. Such legal systems only exist as part of a culture. Religion is a huge determiner of culture in most of the world. You're only going to get Walmart-style prosperity where you have a close approximation of Western culture. Where you don't, expect to make war.

Free-markets exist in a space of civilization carved out of the barbarous international order. By 'carve out' I mean the application of organized violence to achieve political ends, i.e. war.

As much as I respect Radwaste, I think he gets wrong the order of causation. Free markets result from civilization; free markets are not a cause of civilization.

It's foolish, in my opinion, to dichotomize war and trade. They always coexist.

Good gravy...

1) I'm not saying Iraqis buying crap at WalMart produces instant civilization. Right now, they'd buy switches there to beat their animal women. You've missed the point: they'll have to notice - that stuff had to come from somewhere. The example some of them will take is that a system exists somewhere that could make them prosperous. As it is, even with oil income, Islamic-majority countries simply suck at distributing wealth through labor. Yes, most of this is because they're still a kleptocracy, reserving profits for relatives first. But does somebody want to go into why there isn't a USSR any more?

2) Crid, just to live up to your billing, I'm... there, hear that? Just for you. Anyway. The emissions of Hanford and SRS are a matter of public record. They are far and away larger than anything the industry is generating today, because the mass of bomb material is larger than fuel stocks, and the generation of bomb material was in the past, with fewer controls. Still, you will be exposed to more radiation in a weekend on the beach than you will get from SRS, even if you work there.

I encourage you all to look up the nuclear fuel disposal cycle. Not to exercise the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, I also encourage you all to look up the environmental costs of mining heavy metals for hybrid and other automobiles. Were you to look at more of my posting history, you'd see that I push conservation as the real mitigating factor in American energy costs.

The example some of them will take is that a system exists somewhere that could make them prosperous. As it is, even with oil income, Islamic-majority countries simply suck at distributing wealth through labor. Yes, most of this is because they're still a kleptocracy, reserving profits for relatives first. But does somebody want to go into why there isn't a USSR any more (Radwaste)?

Consider the difference between the Kurds in Iraq and the Arabs. The Kurds have built a prosperous enclave, carved out a space of civilization, in which American investment money has been put to work in actual financial markets. That hasn't happened in Arab areas of Iraq. Why?

When it comes to the benefits of markets, including Walmart, the Iraqi Arabs know just as much as the Iraqi Kurds "that stuff came from somewhere." Yet, the Arab majority in Iraq cannot provide for itself even with huge infusions of American aid. The Iraqi Arabs know where that aid comes from. They know how it was created: by free-market. Yet, still they cannot manage to do for themselves.

The only thing that can account for the differences between the Kurds and Arabs is their culture. The existence of an Iraqi version of Walmart is subsequent to the existence of a culture that can at least abide it. That culture doesn't exist in Iraq.

The culture of a peoples can change a government. The Glorious Revolution comes immediately to mind. On the other hand, I know of only one way that governments have ever changed a culture: conquest.

Clashes of culture are not settled by trade, but by the sword. And swords are bought with trade. Hence, the two appear together.

A brief glance backward shows that peace is not the normal state of men nor of nations. War is the normal state. IMHO, we cannot educate foreign cultures with trade. We cannot trade our way out of conflict with Near Eastern cultures. So yes, trade. But put the blade to the hone, too.

Guys, they are decadent and materialistic. I have been to Iraq (very recently, not voluntarily), Qatar, Saudi, Dubai, etc. They download our porn and have massive number of stores with consumer goods, with probably the most density of Rolex, Maserati and other 'high-end' stores than NY or Beverly Hills. The Arabs ship in TCNs (Third Country Nationals) by the millions to do all their work (courtesy of our money transfer via oil). Islam is a cult of personality, superiority religion (Read "The Truth about Muhamed"). If they get a nuke, they will use it. BTW, Al Jazeera is a GREAT news source. Most of the senior military leadership watches it daily to see their perspective. Some of them are trying to reform these areas of Islam but they are vastly outnumbered. We have been fighting this war for 1000 years and unfortunately it will last a while longer. Research Wahabbism and the House of Saud.

You just raised the fine issue, "what to do with the royals?"

A Rolex on a prince doesn't keep him from enlisting lower-class people in jihad; Osama was worth hundreds of millions. Merchandise in the hands of common people, made by other common people, will, again because jihad is not what you need when you have plenty. It's the wisdom of Will Rogers: "Give an American five gallons of gasoline and a hamburger and he's happy." Happy people don't wear suicide bombs!

And if the people themselves can ask - demand - why their nation cannot provide these things, it might become less necessary to get our guys killed "applying the sword".

-----

Hey, you know, Cuba is beautiful. It could be the Hawaii of the Atlantic, but Castro made somebody mad by establishing a dictatorship which called itself Communist and making it work despite obviously-illegitimate attacks backed by the CIA. Yet if WalMart and Target, Burger King and Wendy's, Pepsico and Beatrice were fighting it out down there, the actual government would be irrelevent. Hong Kong is proving that today.

Yet if WalMart and Target, Burger King and Wendy's, Pepsico and Beatrice were fighting it out down there, the actual government would be irrelevent. Hong Kong is proving that today. (Radwaaste)

Actually it doesn't, Rad. I've lived in Hong Kong. You are perfectly correct about the dominance of its commercial culture. How did it get that way?

Hong Kong was occupied by the British during the First Opium War. At the Treaty of Nanking, the British gained possession of Hong Kong in perpetuity. During the long occupation, the British firmly established British cultural and educational practices. The successful commercial culture in Hong Kong was established by the sword, not by building Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises.

Your own example of Hong Kong shows that, by-and-large, government can change culture only by the use of force. Trade floats to the surface and spreads out in the wake of culture.

How are we going to peacefully change the culture of Iraq without conquering it? I'm all for changing the culture of Iraq. The British example shows that conquest must be followed by forceful measures to change the national culture. The US are pussies, and can't muster the national will to do that.

But, Jeff, wasn't Hong Kong returned to China (Communist rule) back in 1997? Have there been any kind of changes in their infrastructure since then?

And of course, China is booming. How is that happening, and why? What sword is forcing the Euro on people?

Hey all,

I stumbled on this site randomly and it intrigued me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you copied and pasted directly from this site: Black Apologetics Ministry , which you can hardly call an expertly source on Islam. I just wanted to ask you all if you think that the analysis of the sources was correct.

You made the comments that "Mohammed referred to blacks as "raisin-heads" (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256)"

Going to the actual source:
Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1, no. 662 says:

The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."

and
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."

Sure, he used the word raisin but I don't know what you think, but I get the completely opposite message than what the author claims.

I couldn't find a place to look up (Sahih Moslem vol. 9, pgs. 46-47). If anyone has a link to this, please let me know. I'm curious what he has to say.

I see a lot of opinions and not a lot of fact checking. I don't really have the time to do more fact checking, but from one amateur journalist to another, always keep in mind: sources sources sources... Hopefully, I'll stumble onto this site again. Cheers.

Check Jihadwatch and other places. I found numerous references to this when I was looking it up. I don't know about you, but I don't think it would be too polite to refer to my black friends as raisin-headed.

I'm sorry you don't like the bad news about how blacks got conned, or are murdered by Arab Muslims, or any of that. I notice you don't address any of that, Rashid. Instead you make cracks about how I'm an "amateur journalist." I dig up the crap just fine, thanks.

Wow. My boyfriend has a great sense of humor but if I ever talked to him and called him a raisin head I'd get a nice fuck you and goodbye forever, deservedly so.

From wiki:
"Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage"

How is that man even admirable?

Exactly. On all of the above.

wasn't Hong Kong returned to China (Communist rule) back in 1997? Have there been any kind of changes in their infrastructure since then? (Flynne)

Hi, Flynne. China created Special Administrative Regions (SARs) under the "One Government, Two Laws" slogan. Both Hong Kong and Macao are SARs. They left in place English law for the lower courts, effectively maintaining the existing commercial institutions and customs.

Mao's decision not to invade Hong Kong was remarkably foresighted. He knew the British would build a prosperous society there. He willingly negotiated a handover date that would pass long after his own death. He hoped to import the prosperity of British commercial institutions. The SARs are designed to export Hong Kong commercial culture throughout the entire Pearl Delta region. This is the cultural engine behind the explosive growth of Shanghai.

I was present before and after the handover. I noticed only two changes. The police changed uniforms. And my acquiescences in the Ghurka border guards took lucrative retirement pensions and started prosperous businesses in the Soho district.

Right, I told one of them about this thread. His exasperated response went along the lines of this:
1) He came to this country, in part, to escape zealots, and he's thankful you couldn't stop him.
2) He's working 60 hours a week as a physician, in part to a) save lives and b) eventually put his daughters through college. Even if he wanted to, he hasn't the time to pray five times a day nor the money to support terrorism.
3) In this country, he's quite capable of choosing which parts of the Koran not to follow. But then, someone who harbours "secret beliefs" WOULD say that, wouldn't he? Maybe I should follow him around in my car.

I doubt the guy would admit to you that he wants to convert and/or kill the infidels. I'm no fan of the belief, without evidence, in god, by Jews, Christians, or anybody. But, Muslims are the only religion in which large numbers of the sheeple want to convert, kill, or tax and humiliate (dhimmitude) those who don't believe in their primitive bullshit.

In a report last year, 12 percent of Canadian Muslims thought it was okay to behead the prime minister and blow up the Canadian parliament. That's 84,000 Muslims who think that way.

Perhaps you should fire up the car, lady?

That's your advice? I become a vigilante?

I mean, I hope those 12 percent are under surveillance, but no, I'm not stalking people.

"I hope those 12 percent are under surveillance"

So it's OK if you don't have to do it? That's exactly why we have such an amazing array of stupid laws - the law must remain impersonal. Are you relying on the wizards at the Transportation Security Administration?

Knowing your neighbors doesn't involve "stalking" them - but it's useful to remember that Atta & Co. walked onto the plane calmly. Not only may a first offender not be prevented from breaking the law in the USA, he or she can and will move in any way they wish.

There is a price to pay for being a member of any society: you are always forced to interact with it, regardless of your personal wish to be left alone. Yes, that is subject to some negotiation in the level of interaction, but it remains that if a government agency is empowered to place others under the surveillance you hope for, it is empowered to watch you. This automatically assumes your guilt, as well as sets up the mechanism for suppressing your opinion as to the lawful course of government. I think you can see that your involvement is preferable.

Great, Rad.

I'm a person who looks and speaks up, often when nobody else does.

As for relying on the authorities, if I did, my Rambler would still be a stolen car (I got it back myself), and Leo Laine, who did a hit-and-run on my Insight at Whole Foods, never would have been tracked down, caught, or prosecuted for it. He did glare at me a lot in court.

(rolls eyes)
Had I a real reason to suspect him, I would do what I could. Stalk your own Muslim acquaintances. (What DO you refer to "firing up my car" as?) As far as the 12 percent goes, it seems people have been monitored for less than advocating the beheading of the prime minister.

Well, if atheists wanted to blow up The White House and advocated the murder of the president, would you yawn and suggest there's no reason to worry?

Placing words in my mouth? If 12% of atheists said "Murder the president" (and I'm not talking about a group of snotty art-punks playing with the term "Patriot Act") it would sound like reasonable justification for the investigation of the aforementioned 12%. I don't know the circumstances of the study you cite.

Uh, I can no more "place words in (your) mouth" than I can insert sense into your head.

I guess you only pay attention to news of interfaith dinners and such.

Here:

http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/muslim-violence-tolerated-by-some/

What you don't know (or would rather not know) could hurt you.

I used to think of Muslims like I thought of astrology buffs and Christians and Jews -- people who believe, sans evidence, in some silly stuff. Then 9-11 happened, blocks from my old NYC apartment, and I started reading. Islam is an evil religion, used to manipulate the most primitive people on the planet into doing evil to others who don't share their primitive beliefs. And like Marion, who comments here, I don't make a habit of tossing around the term "evil."

Religion of Peace? Anything but.

You think I don't know about violence and Islam? I just reject your seeming assertion that they're all like that.

I never made that "seeming assertion," which would be irrational of me, and I work hard to think and behave rationally.

But, when 84,000 Canadians who are Muslim want the prime minister dead and Parliament blown up in the name of their religion, that's a bit different than the few fucked up Christians who blow up abortion clinics. It's a sign their religion is evil, and promotes evil in societies Muslims have emigrated to. You come to this country, you'd better buy into the idea that we don't run the place on Sharia law. If you don't like it, and you don't like people "insulting Mohammed," stay in Saudi Arabia, where women have the rights of dogs, and men are prosecuted for flirting.

I just don't know, Amy, where your condemnation of the religion ends. At the koran itself? At people who try, despite the threat of barbaric death, to somehow shape the religion into something tolerant? At people who recognize such efforts? At its very last member?

I'm well aware that a larger portion of Islam is fucked up, thank you very much. My doctor friend is, too.

Well, for starters, if you're Muslim and you aren't speaking out against the violence, I think you're morally bankrupt.

Where are all those people trying to nicey-nicey up a religion that commands its members to convert, kill, or humiliate and tax (dhimmitude) all us infidels?

Jews and Christians believe in some silliness, but as the courageous Wafa Sultan pointed out, Jews don't go around blowing up German restaurants.

And how sick that Wafa Sultan is in danger because she opines that Islam is...go figure...violent, backward, and barbaric.

Christopher Hitchens pointed out to me how Sam Harris (not his real name) has his letters to the editor notated "the Internet" instead of "Columbus, OH," or whatever, as everybody else's in a particular magazine's letters to the editors page will do. Ya think he's afraid of the Jews?

"Well, for starters, if you're Muslim and you aren't speaking out against the violence, I think you're morally bankrupt."

I think I'll take that as congratulations to those who do.

http://www.mpvusa.org/news/
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/abdullah_alaskar.html
http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Dec2001/Dec19/PRT19-32Article.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/03/Opinion/Muslims_speak_out_aga.shtml
http://www.pmuna.org/archives/2005/07/pmu_statement_o_2.php
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.m-a-t.org/

> I think I'll take that
> as congratulations

Why?

Why are you so eager to make peace with these people? I want as much conflict as we can possibly harvest, the sooner the better.

So let's review the links:

1. Mr. Khaki is a fine young man, but he's Canadian. If he was a practicing immigration attorney in, say, Syria, I'd be very impressed indeed.

2. Al-askar says:

> there is no mention, let alone
> urging, in the Quran for individual
> Muslims to start or actively
> participate in military action or
> in any physical violence against an
> enemy of Islam, actual or alleged,
> without a clear declaration from
> the highest, relevant political
> authority first.

Here in the States, we don't get violent because our President wants us to. We get violent because it's the right thing to do, and we expect the President to deliver the goods. (Many contemporary thinkers are confused about this; such people are called "Democrats." Note for instance how Hillary was all pissy this weekend because of how Barrack's people are describing her support for our invasion.)

3. The photo of Edina Lekovic may be six years old, but I find her fashion sense inappropriate for Orange County. There comes a point where the ironies of religious faith and secular excellence can't squat together in awkward mutual patience.

4. The St. Petersburg Times piece ends with this:

> Now comes the hard part -
> matching their words with actions
> to rid the mosques and communities
> of Islamic extremists who have
> hijacked their religion.

Well, OK, but the meter is running. Islam is seeming more and more like a hillbilly affectation. Being clear-headed about religious tolerance in cities like Toronto and Tampa isn't all that laudable, is it?

5. The PMU looks like a handsome collective of conscientious taxpayers. (Why quibble?)

6. Ditto the Islam for Today people...

7. ...and Soharwardy. What's not to like?

What's not to like is that Islam has in its tenets core values of irresponsibility, fealty and misogyny, burdens of human nature that are particularly damaging in undeveloped nations.

In a brilliant book, Winchester suggests that a volcanic eruption over a hundred years ago nourished the expansion of Islam in developing world, particularly in Indonesia, which is presently the fourth most populous nation on the planet.

Precisely two hours ago, there was a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in Indonesia.

Thanks again for doing the heavy lifting, Crid.

I noticed that most of the statements condemning terrorism in the above links were from September of 2001. The paucity of quotes from before and after is telling.

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

"Why are you so eager to make peace with these people? I want as much conflict as we can possibly harvest, the sooner the better."

Are you going to fight it yourself?

http://www.freemuslims.org/

I find it admirable that some actually try - the fundamentalists threaten them with death while those who'd rather "harvest conflict" pretend they don't exist.

Or they mock them, or condemn them on not actually Muslim (one area where they seem to agree with fundanuts)

Or they complain that the Muslims don't speak out often enough - my favorite. What is enough?

Enough is when the rest of the civilized world sees a major effort by those Muslims actually speaking out against and condemning those actions of the extremists. En masse if need be, loudly and convincingly. Too bad if they feel they're risking their necks. This country came into being, and was protected by, people risking their necks. And still is.

See any Muslims speaking out? Besides the handful -- Wafa Sultan, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, and three or four others?

Again, if atheists were killing people in the name of rational thought, I'd be real busy marching, speaking, and otherwise acting against them.

I find it terribly immoral that Muslims take the bounty of this country and sit around with their lips zipped at their fellow nutters who seek to destroy it. And the same goes for other western countries.

When I was in France, I was shocked that an American emigrant had collected unemployment there for two years. Very disrespectful. Just on an economic level, not as an issue of life, liberty and survival. On that level, I see the behavior of Muslims in this country as odious -- for their silence.

"Too bad if they feel they're risking their necks"

And my point was that the dismissive attitude towards them is counter-productive. There is an effort. Turn your head and look.

And my point was that the dismissive attitude towards them is counter-productive. There is an effort. Turn your head and look.

I'm not being dismissive. I'm truly serious. Where are they? Why haven't I heard of them doing this in the community where I live? Or in any others near here, like, oh, I don't know, New York City?

Look, I'm agnostic - the main difference between us (seems to be) that I'm pretty certain people can bury their head in the "God delusion" and still act like decent humans, even if that God is named Allah. I also can't foresee atheism (or antitheism) usurping religion, as much as I'd like it to.

Moderates in Islam are certainly in the minority, I'll grant you that much. However, if atheists were killing people, and you bothered acting upon your conscience, and people continued condemning your "silence" - I don't know how to finish the sentence.

Flynne, I just showed you. Call it what you want, I feel it's "dismissive".

However, if atheists were killing people, and you bothered acting upon your conscience, and people continued condemning your "silence" - I don't know how to finish the sentence.

If I acted upon my conscience, other people would know about it. Lots of them. I'd make sure they knew about it. And I'd ask others to speak out as well. There would be no "silence" to "condemn".

I don't know! Where do you live? Do you seek them out?

http://progmuslim.meetup.com/

Maybe you could start there?

Fine, Flynne, don't even bother clicking.

> Are you going to fight
> it yourself?

Sure, aren't you?

Also, here's a favorite moment from 2007. Go to two minutes.

http://urltea.com/2a1e

Thanks for that, Crid.

Lady, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter where I live. What matters is that there is not enough of them speaking out so that it gets noticed by regular schmucks like me.

Great stuff. Watch the whole thing.

I wonder how many Jews consider how barbaric it is that a guy heard voices -- supposedly God -- and almost offed his kid because of it. When I was growing up Jewish, this was produced as evidence of character. Religion is fucking idiotic, but the real danger these days, again, is from Islam.

God said to Abraham, kill me your son.
Abe said, man you must be puttin' me on.
God said, no
Abe said, what?
God said, you can do what you want, abe, but
Next time you see me comin' you better run.
Abe said, where you want this killin' done?
God said, out on Highway 61.

Crid, tell me you live in a warzone to be advocating a more contentious world.

And Flynne, when you said you were "truly serious" about wondering "where they are", apparently you were being rhetorical - you already had your answer.

Amy, I know religion is idiotic. I literally hear about acts of violent Islam every day. I just get the sense you see examples of activist Muslims and say "well, besides that".

Can you see where that would be forehead-slappingly frustrating?

I didn't need to seek them out. I still hear speeches from moderate Muslims. We live in different worlds, Flynne.

I just get the sense you see examples of activist Muslims and say "well, besides that".

Um, no. I think the problem is that the examples that are seen are very very few and far between. More "activist Muslims" speaking out, and speaking loudly, in more public venues against the atrocities of the extremists would have more weight and give credence to the sincerity of their "activism". We're not seeing that. They're not holding rallies condeming honor killings. They're not holding rallies condemning kidnappings and beheadings. They're not holding rallies against suicide bombings. Silence may not be acquiesence, but if they're not speaking out against these atrocities, in a way that gets other peoples' attention, how will anyone know they're against them??

"We need inoculation, not spread of a less deadly plague"

Clever, but practical? Again, this is where I don't think we'll see eye to eye, less one of us has a crystal ball.

I didn't need to seek them out. I still hear speeches from moderate Muslims. We live in different worlds, Flynne.

Really? I'm in Southern New England, USA. 75 miles from New York. I don't need to seek them out either, nor am I hearing of local and/or statewide speeches from moderate Muslims in this neck of the woods.

For that matter, Flynne, how many people do you see protesting violent Islam in this country? People hold discussions about the issue - there's not alot to protest here. Were there a visible, powerful and public fundamentalist presence here, perhaps there would be a visible, powerful and public anti-islamist presence. I don't see anyone up in arms in that manner.

Or a visible, powerful, public anti-Muslim presence would bring about a visible moderate presence (as well as a visible fundamentalist presence). As it is, people argue on the sidelines.

I think most of us feel a great sense of emptiness/loneliness. We try to avoid it, run away from it, we try to find security, permanency, away from this anguish. But it is always there, eluding us, and not to be resolved easily or superficially. This is not to be brushed aside as being bourgeois, or stupid, or merely for those who are not active socially, religiously. Most of us are aware of this emptiness and we try to run away from it. In running away, we establish certain securities, and then those securities become all important to us because they are the means of escape from our particular loneliness or emptiness. Escape may be through a Master (guru), it may be thinking yourself very important, it may be giving all your love to your family or social/philanthropic activity. Any form of escape from this inward emptiness becomes all important and we cling to it desperately. Those who are religiously minded cling to their belief in God, which covers up their emptiness and so their belief, their dogma, becomes essential and for these they are willing to fight and destroy each other.

All escapes are on the same level, there are no superior or inferior escapes, there are no spiritual escapes apart from the mundane. If we recognize that the mind is constantly escaping from the problem of emptiness, then we are capable of looking at emptiness without condemning it or being afraid of it. As long as we are escaping from a fact we can never look at it directly.

> tell me you live in a
> warzone to be advocating
> a more contentious world.

I can advocate a more contentious world from anywhere I want. My last visit to the WTC was the summer before the attacks. When the shit went down that morning, almost everything heroic that happened was done by workaday Americans, not soldiers in uniform. Do you think this "contention" was chosen by me? Sure, if the army wants a fat little old guy who loves sake almost as much as cholesterol meds, then yeah, sign me up.

> Can you see where that
> would be forehead-
> slappingly frustrating?

Can you see that when the wretchedness in those nations continues apace, enough is not being done? Listen, the only reason so many Christians can live in this country without it turning into a nightmare is that the faith has been fragmented into dozens of petty, impotent sects. That has to happen to Islam now. Prager covered this recently, and noted that people who ask "Can't we all just get along?" are usually being deceptive.

We need clearer divisions between us now, not murkier ones. I want the modern Muslims who know their lives cannot be directed by some Imam somewhere to be able to say why in very clear terms. There's a church two blocks from my home, but the Baptists inside don't worry me. I have zero fear that they want their lives directed by some priest or deacon in Sacramento.

My favorite word of the last ten years is "boundaries". I'm proud of mine, and I like to share them with others near and far. Everybody has a role to play, and if you enjoy some greater clarity after these exchanges, then it's nice to have had a brief moment off of what you call the "sidelines".

"Do you think this 'contention' was chosen by me?"

When you call for "harvesting as much conflict as possible", it would seem at least partially so. Perhaps you could clarify that statement - I took it as a call for more war.

Likewise, the army doesn't want a pill-popping, underweight lesbian like me.

And I do hope they come out of the woodwork - so far, however, the ENTIRE debate concerning terror and Islam has been on the sidelines - by which I mean, the internet, the college clubs, the prayer groups, the occasional vigils, and these nasty little exchanges. I don't see ANYONE marching in the streets to protest the crap that happens in other countries.

I see Muslims killing Muslims there, and Americans blaming them for their "silence".

"I want the modern Muslims who know their lives cannot be directed by some Imam somewhere to be able to say why in very clear terms."

I don't know you, Crid. I don't know what about you would cause a Muslim to care what you think. I doubt your call for clearer boundaries will be heeded until it's echoed at the level you want to see the protests of modern Muslims occur. As it is, the government is trying (and failing, for criminally negligent reasons it seems) to destroy "the enemy", and most people seem to idly accept that the Muslims down the street aren't planning anything, and those who do take it out on the "sidelines" (what do you call it?) and protesting terrorist acts must seem pretty redundant.

> by which I mean, the
> internet, the college
> clubs, the prayer groups,
> the occasional vigils,
> and these nasty little
> exchanges.

What on Earth are you trying to convey? Who do you think should be permitted to make comments, or even hold an opinion? Who did you have in mind to distribute that authorization? (Golly, Lady, I bet you have someone in mind.)

And what does that sentence have to do with the next one:

> I don't see ANYONE marching
> in the streets to protest
> the crap that happens in
> other countries.

I don't know what that means at all. Partly because I live near the Federal building on Wilshire, and we see that happen all the time. But also, I don't know what good you imagine comes from marching in the streets, or who you think should be out marching whose behalf.

> I don't know what about
> you would cause a Muslim
> to care what you think.

I'll let him find his own reasons. There will be no doubt in his mind.

> the "sidelines" (what do
> you call it?)

Civilization. Let's not fuck it up.

"Who did you have in mind to distribute that authorization?"

Where did you get the idea that I feel someone needs to authorize free speech? I'm just saying where I see it happening.

"I'll let him find his own reasons. There will be no doubt in his mind."

Let me know when you do.

"we see that happen all the time"

There you go, different legs of the elephant.

"Civilization. Let's not fuck it up."

Glib, and off my point. What I call "the Sidelines" is apparently not enough for Flynne.

"I don't know what good you imagine comes from marching in the streets, or who you think should be out marching whose behalf."

Apparently it would dispell Flynne's image of Muslims as passive co-conspirators (or am I projecting things onto him/her?) and/or convince other Muslims that they should reject violent Islam ((S)he did call for something loud and convincing)

"Forehead-slappingly"... oh, nicely done. I can see a fine mist of sweat popping off the skull...

Wow, is this uglier than The WalMart Stuff For Everybody Peace Plan, or what?

Mock my words, rad. Mock my words...

My point is, and has been, that Muslims to be "loud and convincing", than you should probably be loud and convincing too - apparently they're not "convinced" that rallys are necessary. Words seem to be enough. If Flynne's experience is enough for him to draw judgement, should mine also be? I don't "see" rallys (by anyone, Muslim or not) against Islamic atrocities (point me to a few, Crid). I'm not sure what that would prove in a country which (I assume) overwhelmingly despises such acts. I see rallys against the war, for the war, I see speeches (from non-muslims AND muslims) condemning terror, I see vigils held for victims.

a rather brief search yielded these:
http://www.smith.edu/newsoffice/releases/00-051.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-05/2005-05-13-voa38.cfm?CFID=265002858&CFTOKEN=43375569
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=54272&d=10&m=11&y=2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4707853.stm
http://www.amvoice-two.amuslimvoice.org/html/body_vigil_calls_for_.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2023003.ece
http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/journalism/emunews/2005/news25.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2226017.stm
http://cbs5.com/local/muslim.linda.yee.2.445892.html

> Mock my words, rad.
> Mock my words...

You make it so easy.

> Where did you get the idea

Here:

> people argue on the sidelines.

Darlin', we're all players.

> different legs of the elephant.

Woman, be clear. Do you want people to talk about how things ought to go in other cultures, or don't you?

> off my point.

Couldn't have been a better shot. You have indistinct thinking about who has an interest in this project.

"Sidelines" - on the internet. On college campuses. Interviews on NPR. (where I live, it's an unfortunate choice between NPR, right-wing talk radio and music)

This contrasts with Flynne's idea of where they SHOULD be acting-

"speaking loudly, in more public venues against the atrocities of the extremists"

-which, as I've just shown you, actually happens.

which, for the record, for your information, is where I want them to speak, as well as on the aforementioned "sidelines".

I want them to turn more Muslims into anti-Islamist Muslims - or atheists, or ANYTHING but violent radicalism of any stripe.

Are you clear, now?

And I want the media to pay attention. And I want people to stop assuming that because they haven't seen it, it doesn't happen, and if it does happen, it's somehow insignificant.

And I'd rather see the wind taken out of Islam's "war with the west" than a holy war, if that's what you meant (I'm not sure if you've even clarified this - please clarify) by "harvesting as much conflict as possible". Frankly, I find the idea frightening and especially obnoxious if those who advocate it are not on the front lines.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/massive-muslim-protest-in-bahrain.html

http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=1589

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=1867783&nav=51s7N7pt

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article03.shtml

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/26/20000-muslims-demonstrate-against-terror.htm

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/terror/archives/cat_general.html

http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/02/11/religion-of-peace-update-young-muslims-rally-against-terrorists/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayonline.com%2Farticles%2F237093.asp&frame=true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7138641.stm

> Are you clear, now?

No. What makes the internet, the campus, and NPR "sidelines"? If these venues are sidelines, where's the playing field? And why is this taking so long for you to make clear?

> as I've just shown you,
> actually happens.

Flynne will speak for herself, but I presume that when she says more, she means more. You can Google anything you want and return many cute links, but none of that means that comfort is being projected into the American soul.

> I want them to turn more
> Muslims into anti-Islamist
> Muslims - or atheists, or
> ANYTHING but violent
> radicalism of any stripe.

All golden, but I think "violent radicalism" doesn't apply to the way many Muslims feel about their faith. They'd say they're not radicals, they'd say the rest of us are fucked up. You should have been here last year, we had this guy named Joe who cleared a lot of this up.

> I want the media to
> pay attention.

You can try taking control of media if you want, but...

> I want people to stop
> assuming that because they
> haven't seen it, it
> doesn't happen

...if Flynne (or Amy or I or any other person) hasn't been reassured, then we're probably not going to relax because a lawyer in Toronto tells us to, or because CNN starts a new weekly series. We're sure not going to be comforted by the BBC.

> obnoxious if those who
> advocate it are not on
> the front lines.

Goddammit, where are these fucking front lines of yours? You have all this imaginary geography were these never-specified people should be doing this imaginary stuff.

I like partisanship! I like it when people are really clear about their differences. Hitchens often quotes an Israeli friend who will say of current events, "There are encouraging signs of polarization...."

The Prager link above covered some of this, but here's another bucketload: People in this country talk too much about unity, togetherness, and teamwork. Go read Postrel. A huge swath of the American public has taken Disney themes of top-down family sweetness and cuddling as the model for society, and it's killing us. Progress requires much more than leadership and law: It requires play, risk and feedback (which is sometimes painful) on an individual basis. We are not all the same. Any system that doesn't permit these things is doomed.

I can't remember which pundit or reporter made this clear... But it's been noted that in American politics, a politician will tell the truth when you're alone with him, but will sell outrageous bullshit while out in public. In the much of the Middle East it's the other way around. If the future of our planet is going to be worth living in, people will be living closer to the standards and practices of American culture than any other. So if our attachment to liberty is going to be a problem for some people, we should just go ahead and get the conflict underway. Because we're not going to change our minds, and we're not going to lose.

I'm starting to think that if you find me obnoxious, I'm on the right track.

"Goddammit, where are these fucking front lines of yours?"

Listen, if you're talking about starting a war with Islam (please clarify this, for the third time - are you talking about war? You did mention the army, and I'm still not sure) then you tell me where the "frontlines" are. In Denmark? In Turkey? Indonesia? Iran? Toronto?

"They'd say they're not radicals, they'd say the rest of us are fucked up. "

Got the Joe link?

"You can Google anything you want and return many cute links"

I'm just suggesting that there isn't this "silence" Amy speaks of when she insinuates that Muslims are complicit - or however she'd put it. More? How many links do you want? (note to self: Toronto Lawyers don't count. CNN doesn't count. The BBC doesn't count.)

Flynne, for her part, has to have actually seen it with her own two eyes first. It also has to be "loud".

I'm not working for you comfort - the world isn't comfortable. Like I said, it's all about the "silence".

"What makes the internet, the campus, and NPR "sidelines"? If these venues are sidelines, where's the playing field? And why is this taking so long for you to make clear?"

Crid, go back and read - it was an argument between Flynne and I before you focused on one word and proclaimed it to be nonsense.

Don't you think it's time we went home? Maybe you could do some homework - find some moderate Muslims and have a polite chat. Or impolite - just know that no one has the obligation to talk to you. Single-handedly foment a schism within the mosques of America.

No, I don't really know why there aren't more Muslims speaking out - in one way or another - against terror. Do you? Or do you have speculation, insinuation, and accusation? Or could it be that you don't see them, the media doesn't bother with them, etc.? Accosting people on the street with "Why aren't you condemning terror?" will certainly not be productive.

Lady, lady, lady. I wasn't arguing with you. I don't want to argue with anyone.

Let me prospose a scenario:

There have been several "honor" killings that have been in the media. There have also been some racial "incedences", for lack of a better word, in the state where I live. A noose found under a black police woman's car, which some speculate she herself put there, after a Halloween lawn display's owner was disparaged for having what was perceived as a hanging black man in the display, and shortly thereafter a rally was held in protest, and there was a big hue and cry about it all. Even the Feds got in on it (the noose under the car, not the lawn display). I have not seen even ONE OTHER MUSLIM speak out publicly against the many "honor" killings that have been going on, and that bothers me. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I also know, that while I'm not a saint, I do believe in what is right, and speaking up against these honor killings is the right thing for other muslims, as well as anyone with a proper SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, to do. There have been very vocal protests against the war, yes, and for the war, yes, and there are all kinds of political rallies all the time that get all kinds of great press. I just haven't seen any that protest "honor" killings, in the media or otherwise. Have there been any and I missed them? Or have there not been any because, well, I don't know why! "Honor" killings, ANY kind of killing, is wrong, and people need to be vocal about it. Should I myself organize a rally against "honor" killings, even if I'm not a muslim? Would that make me a target? Do you even understand what I'm trying to say here? Hiding behind the reasoning that "it's part of their religion" doesn't make it right, in this, the 21st century, and especially not if it's happening right here, in this country. I understand that it happens in other countries too, but that still doesn't make it right, and sweeping it under the rug doesn't make it so either. A lot of the articles that Amy has posted here have brought out a lot of inconsistencies in what Islam preaches and what it really practices.

I accidentally posted this on the wrong entry yesterday. Reposting it here, where it should be...

From the "Linda Yee" link above (the last one):

Muslims say they continue to suffer from the backlash of Sept. 11. They pray the hate could someday ease.

Praying isn't doing a fucking thing about it, now is it?

See that thing below your nose? It's a mouth, and Muslims have them, too, and they're often used for speaking out against wrongs by people who actually care.

As for any boohooing about the feelings of the Muslims for being singled out for concern: Note that nobody is worrying that the Wiccans will be donning bomb vests and carrying suitcase nukes into New York City. I believe that's because Wiccans are highly unlikely to hijack planes and fly them into buildings filled with 3,000 people in the name of their religion.

"I just haven't seen any that protest "honor" killings, in the media or otherwise. Have there been any and I missed them?"

Yes, you've missed them. Does that answer your question?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/329

http://www.nohonor.org/

http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2007-08-13-voa3.cfm

http://www.karokari.com/aboutus.html

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/iraqi-kurds-protest-against-honor.html

http://www.kwrw.org/about.html

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-07/08/article02.shtml

http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/honourkilling2.html

http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/

Amy, I've done my heavy lifting. Do some of your own - or avert your eyes and repeat your hate mantra. I don't really care anymore.

> for the third time

Lady, you can't take a point and you can't make one...

If there's going to be a conflict, I want to get on with it. Some of it will be violent, some of it will be economic and some will be rhetorical. 9/11 made it clear that we won't get to choose which kind we'll have a part of, but we'll need to have selected a team in any case.

> Got the Joe link?

These pages circa 12/06 - 10/07.

> More? How many links
> do you want?

We don't want individual links. (More than one of us has noted that many of yours are several years old.) We want convincing expressions from the entire faith that it knows it can't and shouldn't dominate the flow of human affairs.

And Lady, Lady, Lady, hear this: It's not up to us to specify what our threshold of persuasion is. We don't have to tell you when we've had enough. We don't even have to know for ourselves. Again, when Flynee said "more", she didn't me three more or six more, she meant 'convince me'.

> note to self: Toronto
> Lawyers don't count

You shouldn't try to be facetious; you're not a clear enough writer to pull it off.

A gay, westernerized lawyer from Canada (Canada!) is not much evidence of the humility we demand. The westernized muslims you're citing aren't the source of our problem. But they have something in common with the hillbilly types who are the problem: Their lives are built around a passion for the same authoritarian text.

> Flynne, for her part, has
> to have actually seen it
> with her own two eyes

For this and many reasons (including her lyrical memory and taste in cocktail dresses), we adore her. She's all about the real world.

> you focused on one word
> and proclaimed it
> to be nonsense.

Correctly, too- Nobody put that word in your mouth. But you shouldn't lowball... many of your words seem silly.

> do you have speculation,
> insinuation, and
> accusation?

Yep, and each will find traction. You're hectoring the wrong people, lady.

Fuck, Crid. It can be exhausting nitpicking with you, even ignoring your petty insults.

As far as westernised Muslims go - that was directed at Amy and her remarks on "Moral Bankruptcy". I can find more examples if you want, but you don't, so I won't. I don't admire Flynne's judgment of the outside world if it's based on what hasn't happened in her "neck of the woods". As for you, can you really expect the ENTIRE faith to convince you, particularly when a significant portion of that faith is hell-bent in the other direction?

Tell me when your speculations on why more Muslims don't protest, rally, condemn, etc. gain traction.

And I'm not going through ten months of comments looking for a guy named Joe.

> you really expect the ENTIRE
> faith to convince you

The Christians did it

Crid... I want Islam to change, too, just like the Christians did, because I doubt either will go away. We probably agree on more than you think. More should be happening among Muslims (although I have my doubts as to whether those who don't speak out are doing it out of moral bankruptcy or... I don't know, maybe they have lives to live) It ires me to see the efforts of some regarded as "silence", however... or worse, "cute".

Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists...everybody is afraid of getting blown up by Muslims. I think that's what is diffrent with Muslims than any other religion. England, France, India, Israel, Indonesia, Sudan, Kenya, U.S. All these places are so diffrent from each other...and yet they share a common theme.

Spain, Pakistan, Afghanistan (my Greco-Buddhist loving heart broke when they blew up the Giant Buddhas), Bangladesh, Denmark....

I don't admire Flynne's judgment of the outside world if it's based on what hasn't happened in her "neck of the woods".

I'm not looking for your admiration, and I'm not judging the outside world by what happens or what doesn't in "[my] neck of the woods", but by what I've seen here, there and everyfreakinwhere on damn near every media source that's available to me. Islam is pernicious at the least, and detrimental to western civilization as we know it (and that's not a judgement, that's fact). Your links are enlightening (and yes, I have read them) but not very comforting or promising, as far as putting a stop to the madness. Maybe it will happen in time,but not without (more) serious conflict first. And it will be on the part of the extremists, mostly. I'll join the fight to protect me and mine, and this country, if called on to do so. I suspect most people I know feel the same way. We're not about to give up our way of life without a fight. YMMV

"enlightening".... Fine, I'll make my peace with that.

> We probably agree on more

Absolutely, absolutely. I've been hounding Amy almost daily for four years, and we're essentially political twins... Some call this sniping, or trivial gasbaggery, or nitpicking. But it's really just a supernaturally refined attention to detail. I have the power. Would you like another demonstration? Behold, earthling:

I think it's kinda weird to imagine that the political and religious allegiances of black people deserve special consideration. Maybe in some transcomic view of things, dark-skinned people really are particularly foolish for believing in Islam, and more stupid than anybody else. (Remember, Osama's pet name for black Americans was "slaves"). But it would make me uneasy to say so out loud like Amy did here. Still, y'know, it's a judgment call, and it wouldn't mean much if I was wrong or she were.

Generally, her concern about global Islam seems really close to the bull's eye. And specifically, for all the reasons listed above, I think your critique of her (and Flynne and whomever) was misplaced.

One last swing at the pinata: The opinion of those essentially westernized figures you linked probably doesn't mean much to people in the places where Islam has its worst effects. A proudly gay immigration lawyer in Canada has already cast his lot with modernity. But his Koran still has all those ugly ideas in it... As Hitchens notes, like the rats underfoot in Oran. There's no reason not to ask him to make triple-extra-special-licious declarations of his devotion to secular supremacy. Or he could just let go of the faith, and that would be that, right?

Christians here are used to living with that self-inflicted insanity. They've been making those declarations for so long that nobody even hears them anymore. Having been raised in a Christian home, I recognize that this extra layer of wacky rhetoric can be a burden to young minds as well... But on the other hand, it's always holding the door open for people who want out. There's more to life than God.

I love hounds. (Adorable ears, and the human kind keep me from getting lazy.)

If you know you're visiting the country with the largest Muslim populution in Europe then it's odd as to why you visit it so many times over.


You might or might not enjoy this story from BCC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7265021.stm

> it's odd as to why
> you visit

Too snarky by half. She likes France because it's about as western as a western society can be without being on the beach of California. She likes it for the same reason all those Muslim's like it: Because it's not a primitive shithole.

This happens a lot nowadays. People are so sarcastic they forget they're being sarcastic, and then get confused about what they really mean. It's like when the political Bush or Kennedy families are called a "dynasties", as if those bastards never had to face election.

If you know you're visiting the country with the largest Muslim populution in Europe then it's odd as to why you visit it so many times over.

The Muslims aren't yet rioting in the areas I go to. I like France. The Muslims in France are like a big ugly boil on a beautiful girl's neck. If you look at her from the right side, you don't have to see it, and chances are, it's not going to pop and get all over you while you're in her presence.

"Because it's not a primitive shithole." Yup. Not yet, anyway.

And thanks, too, Crid, for pointing out the silliness about the use of "dynasties" by the Chicken Littles. Very annoying.

Oh, and note that I don't have a problem living in a country that probably has the largest Christian population in the world. Why not? Because Christians don't seek to blow me up or behead me because I don't believe.

I find it very upsetting to see an increasing number of Backwards (Muslim women in the big black tents with the eyeholes) in Paris, but they haven't yet taken the place over.

It's bad enough that Islam robs probably 20 hours from my life a year in airport waiting time and the ensuing idiocy. I'm not going to stop going to France until the Primitives make it too dangerous -- which may happen in the next couple of decades. I do, however, think twice about buying an apartment there, which has always been a goal.

A pity that these people who believe in this vile religion infringe in so many ways on so many people.

I love hounds. (Adorable ears, and the human kind keep me from getting lazy.)

Crid has adorable ears?? Lemme see! o_O

The hadith was addressing the subject of racism. "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief." [Bukhari]

These facts are mostly about white Christians and Christian behavior overall in the history books written by Christian authors:

Who killed thousands of aboriginal people in North America and Australia in order to occupy their lands and properties?
Who killed millions of Central and South Americans for their natural resources?
Who gave us the history of the Trail of Tears?
Who killed millions of human beings in World War I?
Who killed 6 million Jews during World War II?
Who killed 2 million Polish Christians in World War II?
Who killed 6 million Chinese during the invasion of China?
Who killed 2 million Cambodian during the civil war?
Who killed more than 2 million Filipinos during invasion of Philippines?
Who killed more than half million Tibetans during the last 6 decades?
Who dropped nuclear bombs (weapons of mass destruction) on Japan and killed thousands of people in Hiroshima, and later on Nagasaki just for the heck of it?

Who killed more than 2 million Vietnamese (women and children) during the Vietnam War with weapons of mass destruction?
Who dropped chemical, biological bombs and bombs of napalm fire (weapons of mass destruction) on Vietnam who has never been a threat to America?
Who killed more than 2 million African Christians in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Burundi and Congo within the last two decades?
Who made more than 9.5 million human beings refugees in Africa?
Who is killing and confiscating lands from White farmers in Zimbabwe?
Who invented the nuclear, biological and chemical bombs (weapons of mass destruction)?
Who sells the most sophisticated bombs and the best killing machines (the best weapons of mass destruction) to the world?
Who killed thousands of blacks in America and did not consider them as human beings (on paper anyway) until 1960's and still subjected them to Jim Crow laws?
Who are the White Supremacists that continue even today to be the foundation of the beliefs held by the Trent Lotts and Barbara Bush’s in American society?
Who did not consider women as persons until the 1940's and still use most of them today as meat on a hanger?
Who has an epidemic problem with child molestation in their clergy?
Who has an epidemic problem with drugs?
Who has an epidemic problem with STD's?
Who has an epidemic problem of pedophilia?
Who has an epidemic problem with divorce and domestic violence?
Who has over a million abortions per year, including partial birth abortions?

If white Christians were to be profiled for their past and present behavior they would all be in prison and hunted down by every civilization known to man. They would dominate every profile derived from people that commit evil acts. What about the recent killings of millions of Muslims and people of other religions in Bosnia, Kossovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Russian Federation, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, India, etc. These places Muslims are being killed and criticized for retaliating against aggression. How can you be a terrorist when you are retaliating against someone occupying you country?

Can you please prove that the most of the above holocaust and genocide of human race were not caused by the people who claimed to be Christians? Non-Muslims also created the other genocide? Did you know that one of the most lethal murderers in the history of the world, Adolph Hitler, was a Catholic? Did you know that the Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda that murdered 2 million of each other were Catholics? Do you know any history, do you read at all?

So...other people have done horrible things so Muslim horribleness is okay?

I'm not a Christian. I grew up Jewish, and like any modern rational person, have no religion now. I'm no fan of any god-believing religion, but of all of them, Islam is the worst, and endangers all of us in a way Christianity doesn't.

I'm on deadline, so I can't go through all the stuff you posted aove, but here's one:

Who has an epidemic problem of pedophilia?

Muslims. Mohammed married and fucked a child, Aisha.

The Taliban fuck young boys like they're drinking water.

And in Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death, but if you'd like to avoid dying, just have a sex change operation, and try not to kill yourself afterward.

Hi there, Peace in the middle east and greeting from my father in faith Rastafari, King of Kings Lord of Lords.
Yes I

You have three things CONFUSED. BLACKS, RELIGION AND AMERICA. I have read your articles and I understand your point, Youre writting however doesnt define the experience in fullness, for the careful or sensitive muslim reader, nothing is learned when the information given is sometimes not even properly quoted, cited or validated, some you validate some outrageous ones you dont. THIS IS EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC FOR A WRITER.

I've read you say with an exasperated tone "Islam and their religious views that threaten to kill, enslave and on and on for their religion, yet the Religion of America and of the Jesuits, Roman Empires in Turkey, Spain, and even Germany has done the same thing to black people. No doubt this has left black and thier descendants in a state of confusion, aggressiveness, rebelliousness. The original name of blacks who had their own language, educational systems and identities, is Abyssinians,(germans, caucasians, anglosaxons)we now call ourselves Ethiopians,"LAND OF BURNT FACES" (Ring a Bell?) But here is the Kicker, when Muslims were going through Jihad and facing famous persecution of their faith it was the free black christian nation of the burnt faces that used its Untouched world power to grant asylum. It is written in ETHIOPIAN-OR BLACK HISTORY, that Ethiopia land of the black faces was pardoned by the Prophet of Islam Muhammed to free of Jihad (ArmeggeddonYou can find this in Ethiopian History, (Tadias Magazine is a great place to find out Ethiopian History its moderated by Ethiopian Youth by the way)This historical vow by the way was a symbol of thanks to the Burnt faces Kingdom for the grace and power of the King,that must be honored by all faithful and educated muslims. But our Lord is merciful and education is liberation for all dark minds.,You have the word God es in your title meaning you honour truth and RIGHT there fore let all that is not of Truth and Rights, be caught up in the fire that is carried in the lamb's lamp. to the seat of the throne OF OUR ETERNAL and Merciful Heaven, from which we receive our daily bread and in which our faith is constantly restored as a sign of the covenant between us and God.

before you roast me for never telling you just how confused you really are, let me go ahead and get that finished.

Your connections to Islam and Black Islam dont make it clear to your readers the important differences, your research on black Islam reflects heresy, not cool not cool at all, thats problematic as hell. Black Islam was indeed a liberation movement founded on black sons and daughters gaining spiritual independence and spiritual identity in their spiritual time of struggle. This is why Fard was free in his religion to liberate hiself with a spiritual rebirth that took ontu himself a himslef. Jesus christ was Arab(yet painted white) and the original man was African, I can see his sppiritual liberation there. Furthermore almost all churches and holy fathers of the world put the body of their God (church) before society and society's woes you tithe first to your elohiem and then to society-didnt you know that?Your depression quote is a joke and an insult to intelligent people.

Muhammed wasnt Abyssnian-Ethiopian, no he was probably a blend of Asian, however as a result of the aggrement between the King of the Abbyssianians and Muhammed Abbysinians are free to serve the religion if it fits their conscience.

WhatEVER the reason for these Arab Muslims assaulting free and royal black sons ans daughters who honur the sacred teachings of their light Muhammed is Demonic, however these practices do not reflect the teachings of the Prophet just like the slave trade is not of the Christ, in whose name it was carried out. Instead of singling out Muslim women to throw your mis-GUIDED hate to, throw out petty arguments of hair cloths, and black culture, and use the God in you , if its there, to deal with gods children respectfully. Infact it is a beautiful sign that black muslim woman pardoned from armeggedon as a result of her faith, resembles the beautiful queens like the Christian Madonna who, being a head saint of Ethiopia looks over them.

Really? "As devastation in Japan stuns even experienced disaster workers, an Aussie firefighter has been attacked by a dog"

Clinton created the 3 trillion funds in dept with no your mistaken and plant wasnt looking at to any sort of children without any republicans didn't once brainwashed any person. You usually are 100% WRONG.