It's alluring because unlike their American counterparts they can't exactly become Englishmen or Frenchies or what have you.

It's possible that your survey of teenagers who slither off to make violent mischief in distant lands might be somewhat over-focused and foreshortened.

You think the guys who do this are the kind who'd be deeply moved by booklarnin'?

'Cause I think it's more likely the want to appear on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sitchuational Zone TV show, in one of those little loops of video that plays endlessly on the monitor while the little guy with the beard and his feckless guest talk about how grim and dangerous the world is. Sometimes those guys wear ties!

And it's weird how it's never 40-year-old housewives. Or thirty-year-old biology majors, working in some medical lab running samples every night in huge batches of test tubes. Or 35-year old partner-track attorneys. Or 60-year-old widows... Y'know, other people who we'd expect to be entranced by the magnificent prose of the Koran. Nope, it's almost always fucked-up teenagers who were unlikely to find a rewarding place in the world anyway, not the one who've had time to consider the rainbow of religious perspectives.

Such a small number of Muslims are horrifically violent, y'know? It's weird how those particular teenagers —like you, Amy— seem almost erotically fixated on the most destructive ones as the most authentic.

Well, golly. As in so many realms of life, these people find each other, don't they? Takes all kinds, I guess!

The Allure of
the Islamic State.

A reminder that Islam is a religion of peace at Blazing Cat Fur (warning: Grisly photos of dead Christians, carefully separated from Muslims for slaughter at university):

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/04/03/are-you-muslim-or-christian-death-to-christians/

The trouble with the word "adulterer" is that it's pretty vague.

Of course, when it comes to stoning, you know the category includes any woman in a triangle.

BUT...does it include married men? I'd be amazed. Also, a century ago or so, the category included any man who seduced another man's wife. (Now, if HE got stoned, that wouldn't be too surprising.)

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/the-alluring-glamour-of-joining-islamic-state-virginia-postrel-1.9779972

Virginia Postrel gets it.

You think the guys who do this are the kind who'd be deeply moved by booklarnin'?

Many of them are well educated, middle and upper middle class people: engineers, doctors, lawyers.

Here's two that don't fit Crid's mold

But it is a Reuter's piece, and the FBI is involved. So I don't know if the FBI informant wound them up even tighter than they were and pointed them in the "right" direction that they may not have traveled on their own.

Or if Reuter's got the story correct, either.

That's what an incompetent media and corrupt policing bring: yeah, maybe the facts are exactly as described. But maybe not, and I'm not inclined to trust the Authorities.

"...it's never 40-year-old housewives..."

Except sometimes it is, do a google search on "Jihad Jane", 40-something woman from small-town Leadville, CO, went all EatPrayLove a few years ago. It's not just the teenagers that buy the fantasy.

Although I disapprove of baiting areas w/food and then waiting to shoot the deer/bear/etc. that show up (hunting? or gathering?), it sure does make putting meat on the table easier.

To me the problem is if they stay at home. Going off to elsewhere is simply self-herding into a kill zone for future kills by someone.

(Always thought that an easy way to stop looting would be to have someone at the back of the store yelling "over here over here".

Just let 'em load themselves up into a trailer "store", close the door, bring another one up, repeat as needed. Next stop Folsom Prison w/Johnny Cash singing the background.)

> Many of them are well educated,
> middle and upper middle class
> people: engineers, doctors, lawyers.

? WTF?

> A reminder that Islam is a
> religion of peace

Amy, you've crossed the line from from PATHETIC to DESPICABLE.

This is like Lookilpitz linking his videos of maimed genitals a few years ago so that he could lash out at the alcoholic father who used to slap him around.

Yes, Beach Dweller in Fringey Pants, there are nasty people in the world. Your selection of the most distant and illiterate as the ones to 'confront' demonstrates chickenshit terror, not righteous discernment.

I think of the steady drip of murders in South Central, a short electric car drive from your home, and how you've never mentioned their terror, despite this seemingly heartfelt concern with photogenic gore and bloodshed.

You blather, foamingly, with training-bra sarcasm, about the "religion of peace" while never identifying those who claim that about Islam. Nor do you cite anyone on the surface of the motherfucking planet who regards "the religion of peace" as certification worth pursuing.

What the fuck are you going to do next? How could possibly raise the stakes?

Aha!

I have it!

Hard core pornography!

No, wait...

Puppy Torture Videos! Really cute ones that last for an hour and make the children cry! Because of our shared emotions about suffering!

THAT'LL convince people that you're a terribly serious person.

Three UK teenagers stopped watching "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and ran off to join ISIS.

From "Keeping Up With the Kardashians"
to "Killing Kafirs With the Kaliphate."

Y'know, there were never really enough college graduates in here anyway. Discussing issues with people was too often like shooting fish in a barrel... But it seemed worth it to get away from the rhetorical presumptions and elision of compassion seen in those who've flattered themselves with degree from Boise State or Boston U.

But we're officially in Stupidville now, and it's embarrassing to be seen here.

LOOK! HERE ARE PHOTOS OF PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN HURT!...

BY MOOZLIMS!!!!!

Thanks Amy. My second choice was "Cutting Up Christians With the Caliphate."

Funny!

Safest Restaurant In The World

Misleading title, I was excited to read a post about what draws kids to this but it was just a discussion about how extremist muslims are violent.

NicoleK gets it. ☑

Apparently Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't.

But what the hell does she know?

Lately, we've been wondering... She's been hanging around with the most sanctimonious types she can find.

Yes, Beach Dweller in Fringey Pants, there are nasty people in the world. Your selection of the most distant and illiterate as the ones to 'confront' demonstrates chickenshit terror, not righteous discernment.

Oh, well, in that case then, you are absolutely right, Crid.

[Crid:] I think of the steady drip of murders in South Central, a short electric car drive from your home, and how you've never mentioned their terror, despite this seemingly heartfelt concern with photogenic gore and bloodshed.

I'm putting this in my quote file, for the next time I need to demonstrate the concept of fatuous moral equivalence.

[Crid:] Lately, we've been wondering... She's been hanging around with the most sanctimonious types she can find.

In the space of several comments: inexplicable royal we; perplexing ad hominem; foolish moral equivalence.

Which pretty much is par for you on this whole thread: denial of survey results; irrelevant assertion; and, insult, insult, insult, insult, insults all the way down.

Well, this is the first time Amy's felt the need to tart up her persuasion with loathsome grotesqueries (as well as baseless self-aggrandizement), though we've always known the world is a hurtful place.

So you think I'm being presumptuous? Ok then. Let me just ask, as I have for nearly five years now (and feel free to speak on her behalf if you know the answer)...

What do you want?...








...But to say Moozlims?

Anything, Jeff? Anything at all? (You never got back to me on the Uyghurs.)

[Crid:] Well, this is the first time Amy's felt the need to tart up her persuasion with loathsome grotesqueries

What to you is tarting up to me counts as further evidence tossed onto an already impressively large pile of corpses that Islam as stated is a totalitarian ideology that forces the choice between submission or death. Amy's highlighting yet another instance of that fact, proclaimed by Islamists themselves, cannot possibly be despicable, unless you object to pointing out reality as it is.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP, called for banning the Quran just like Mein Kampf is banned, for the same reasons. I'm not in favor of banning books, but in what way does the reasoning for banning Mein Kampf in Europe not also apply to the Quran?

When he did so, the usual cast of suspects accused Wilders of Islamophobia, which is pretty much what you are continuously accusing Amy of.

So you think I'm being presumptuous?

Quite.

Here's one example:

It's possible that your survey of teenagers who slither off to make violent mischief in distant lands might be somewhat over-focused and foreshortened collapses the results of extensive repeated surveys of Islamic attitudes into a caricature, without the least acknowledgement that what the ISISholes are doing, and indeed the conflicts that characterize nearly every part of the world with any substantial Islamic presence, might, just might, have something to do with the prevalence of those uniquely Islamic attitudes in the first place.

A second example: deriding Ms. Ali's views (which perhaps you have not actually read) solely via ad hominem attack.

What do you want?

Some examples:

A robust defense of Rushdie against that fatwa, instead of the quibbling, spineless response that actually occurred.

A robust defense of Ms. Ali against death threats, instead of the quisling response that actually occurred.

The Yale University Press published a book analyzing the Islamic response to the Allah cartoons. I want the book to include the cartoons, instead of the abject cowering that the YUP did to the Religion of Peace.

I want political leaders to stop using the phrase "Religion of Peace" instead of "Religion of Submission".

I want Islamic "moderates", whoever they might be, to square the circle between what the tenets of Islam and civilization.

I want papers like the NYT and WP to print, as part of their news coverage of the recent slaughters in Paris, the cartoons that incited the Islamist murderers.

I want the left to learn how to use the word "islamophobia" correctly.

Since the late 1970s, and particularly in the last decade, this stimulant is working most powerfully in the Islamic world. From Pakistan to Nigeria, and in parts of Europe, too, Islam today is a religion capable of inspiring large numbers of men and women, mostly men, to kill and die on its behalf. So the Islamic revival is a kind of testing moment for the left: can we recognize and resist “the possibility of tyranny?” Some of us are trying to meet the test; many of us are actively failing it. One reason for this failure is the terrible fear of being called “Islamophobic.” Anti-Americanism and a radical version of cultural relativism also play an important part, but these are older pathologies. Here is something new: many leftists are so irrationally afraid of an irrational fear of Islam that they haven’t been able to consider the very good reasons for fearing Islamist zealots—and so they have difficulty explaining what’s going on in the world

Oh, and one other thing. I want you to explain, in detail, what Ms. Ali is getting wrong.

And, while you are at it, why she has to under continuous protection, and from whom.

[Crid:] You never got back to me on the Uyghurs.

Truthfully, I'm not particularly familiar with the Uighurs. What little I do know suggests that Uighur violence is far more due to cack-handed Chinese policies than Islam.

If so, the Uighurs are th exception proving the rule.

Loops City. Over and over. Youse guys just won't take any points.

> Islam as stated is a
> totalitarian ideology that
> forces the choice between
> submission or death.

What's with the italics? As practiced (by the vast and overwhelming majority of Islam's 1.6 billion), that force is a failure, and practitioners neither "submit" nor die.

> cannot possibly be despicable,
> unless you object to pointing
> out reality as it is.

Shitty sentence, because reality as it is.

Now, I could sit you, or better yet one of your children, down in a chair at a cocktail party and show them all sorts of gruesome photos and video from the world of transportation... Blood and gore and decapitations and maiming and screaming, orphaned children, real nightmare stuff. And how could you, arriving to find your child weeping, object to the truth-telling of the cocktail-party asshole? Reality as it is, man... I'm highlighting instances of that fact.

By golly, whether you worked in a transportation industry or not, you might have objections to this emotional highjacking.

You might note first that an obsessive fascination with scenes of such horror tells more about the obsessed than about the horror, that shallow reviews and repeated sharing of tragedy from the lives of distant others in that manner is inherently pornographic, the work of a troubled rhetor at best and of demented self-importance at worst.

If I replied that you didn't know anything about transportation because you didn't share my simplistic fascination with the most brutal outcomes, you'd probably be further offended... No matter how you made your living.

You might then note that these incidents had little to with global trends in safety, or with the larger meaning of transportation in our lives. You'd ask me to consider other perspectives.

And I'd say You just don't know anything about transportation, because I've done the reading and there will be more death, just like the school bus full of children with cracked heads in this glossy photograph....

And you'd ask why exactly I was being such a peckerheaded fuckbot about it, why I couldn't talk about any particular policies to remedy the losses, or discuss other forces in the lives of these transportation victims... Drunk driving, maybe, or desperation for food or other sustenance, or even shitty roads or rails.

And I'd say you just didn't know anything about transportation.

You'd think I was despicable. And you'd be right.


> I'm not in favor of banning
> books, but

Dood, if you have to start a sentence that way...

> the usual cast of suspects
> accused Wilders of Islamophobia,

...His fight is not mine...

> which is pretty much what you
> are continuously accusing Amy of.

I dunno about that. I don't think she can more sensibly appraise the meaning of Islam in the lives of its adherents than she can see the power of Christianity (or maybe Judaism, for that matter) in the lives of those much closer to her. See the blog posts from early Monday: She's always had terrific fun being curtly dismissive about it, as if the excellence of her cosmology was obvious, well-tested, available to her in a flip and casual way that gives special elevation.

Calling it phobia would be grandiose: It's preening. It isn't about religion of philosophy, it's about making social distance from people who don't much want her around anyway, and about whom she chooses to learn very little.

Late at night, will answer the rest later, but:

> What little I do know suggests
> that Uighur violence is far
> more due to cack-handed
> Chinese policies than Islam.

Once again, Jeff, and again admirably, your most casual consideration of the factors at work in their lives surpasses Amy's monomaniacal and rote, shallow studies.

Seriously, I'll do the rest tomorrow, after both dentistry and taxes. The mood will be perfect.

> collapses the results of extensive
> repeated surveys of Islamic
> attitudes into a caricature

Right. I meant to do that.

"Extensive, repeated surveys" makes it sound like you, or J.D Power & Associates of Agoura Hills, California, have delved deeply into myriad Islamic cultures and, using ruthless, granite-dry statistical science, boiled truth down to one handsome variable, as if to a number fit for inclusion in Proctor & Gamble's June 2015 Excel spreadsheet of proposed Daytime spot buys (Game show/Serial) for the Pacific Northwest. Y'know, endbreaks. Just before the news teaser.

I don't think that's the kind of thoughtfulness that's at work in Amy's cites. A recent one was from a Mr. Howard Bloom. When I went to Wikipedia, I learned he was a concert promoter... And the page described him as a "scientific thinker."

Well, this was an animal new to me! Churning in distracted wonderment, I plumbed my own casual appreciation of academe, government, and international affairs, (and human motherfucking nature,) hoping to imagine which dais of learned investigators might confer such an honorific. Swedes? Belgians? Cedar Rapidians?

After grappling with the matter for two seconds, I realized the poor sap must have written it about himself... For an audience caring even less about booklarnin' than he does. But then (composure having returned in less than five heartbeats), I think I said something snotty about it in a blog comment.

And weeks later, we see that the goofy puffery on Wiki has been excised by someone similarly bemused, 169.235.104.228 (talk) at 20:30, 31 March 2015: Where has he been called a "scientific thinker" exactly? What is a "scientific thinker"? A wannabe scientist? A way to led credibility to his writings? Swear to God that wasn't me. Kinda wish it was!

Spread vastly as Islam is across diversity in geography, economics (mostly poverty), languages, literacy (largely il-), traditions, race, competitive belief, political development and patience with nosy (white!) strangers, it's ludicrous to think consumer-opinion style "surveys" will give meaningful insight about one-point-six-billion people, and how they feel about violence.

Or anything else. These folks are not at the Mall wearing sportswear. They will not be sitting bleary-eyed in front of Jamba Juice™, waiting for the sucrose rush before shuffling off to buy blue jeans, answering your questions in shared if uninterested English as you scratch their replies onto your clipboard.

The caricature is your contribution, not mine, and its "surveys" aren't trustworthy.


Haven't even finished that sentence, but I need a break. More soon! Watch this space!

(I have a new app for Android and Iphone to discreetly alert you when my blog comments are posted... [It can be temporarily switched to silently flash, not beep, during important meetings and funerals.] Let me know if you guys want the download.)

> without the least acknowledgement
> that what the ISISholes are doing,
> and

...this sentence falls apart, but don't stop! I'm still in!

> indeed might, just might, have
> something to do with

Don't kid a kidder: "The least acknowledgment" and "might, might" have nothing to do with your aspirations for this topic. You guys are, in Matt Welch's wonderful phrase, "laser-beaming": You know to the syllable what others are supposed to be thinking about this, and what we're to be saying. (Of Amy: "Golly Willikers, she sher doo know lots 'bout them Moozlims!")

> something to do with the
> prevalence of those
> uniquely Islamic attitudes
> in the first place.

There's no such thing as a "uniquely Islamic attitude." Its evils are only too typical, "prevalent" even, in the human heart... Which, you'll have noted, the modern world handles better than does the primitive world. Olden days, everywhere— Oppress women; check! Maintain illiteracy of populations; check! Encourage resistance to new ideas; check! Maintain social and economic command; check! This is humanity's playbook, not Mohammed's copyright. I've begged you guys to name the unique hazard of Islam, the truly novel wretchedness it brings now to the world: No reply. I've begged for the name of a nation similar in poverty, isolation, and developmental retardation to an Islamic neighbor which doesn't have as much oppression and stupidity: You got nuthin'.

> deriding Ms. Ali's views (which
> perhaps you have not actually
> read) solely via ad hominem attack.

First of all, you're right. I can't make time for her, and it's been an issue since her early days of fame in America.

Second of all, you're wrong, or you ought to be: I don't think I ever derided her, more likely just derided the use of her name as a discussion-ending trope.

Thirdly, after more than twenty years of this, people in blog comments still complain about ad hominem too much. There's a constellation of fun Latin coinages out there, even just for failures of logical argument, but they never get enough love from the blog-comment crowd... Which tends to contentment with a short bookshelf. Google might not have the tool to do this yet, but I bet that when its algorithms identify a comment from one of those guys complaining about ad hominem, there's a cluster of additional hits for "spewing vile" and "spewing vitriol"... These are all cousin cliches.

So, yeah, the thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is that she very quickly turned into this thudlike namedrop. Yeah, her story was poignant and moving and I'm glad to have heard it. But I won't be compelled to get all head-tilty and pouty just because some journalist (or blogger or commenter) somewhere drops her name, which is how life seems to be going for her... She's becoming a piece of utility hardware that way. And it's probably not the least pleasant way to make a living! The namedrops almost always include explicit mentions of her loveliness. Very early on, it seemed to be a celebrity thing, much as "lunch with Taylor" presumably is in Los Angeles music circles today. I remember one particular greeting for her from Hitchens at the podium of an event somewhere, and then she seemed to appear at an endless stream of those events.

I hate sanctimony.

And then she married the British commentator, the guy who I could tell was going to be an annoyance for very long time. I can't remember his name because I try not to think about him too much. Pompous Brits have found it all too easy lately to build careers in America by making weird and smudgey insinuations about our character. I hate that.

Also, I curse the French.

It's late, and this still isn't over. But I'm going to the mat on this one, perhaps you noticed. The thrill is gone, Lucille, but before I leave Beale Street I wanna nail this tune one last time, so I'll be back to finish off the response to your comment on Wednesday. Probably. Thursday at the latest. (Remember to keep your cell phone app running at all times.)

There's no such thing as a "uniquely Islamic attitude."

Categorically false.

Mohamed is gods last prophet is a uniquely Islamic attitude

>Now, I could sit you, or better yet one of your >children, down in a chair at a cocktail party >and show them all sorts of gruesome photos and >video from the world of police shootings... >Blood and gore shootings, orphaned children, >real nightmare stuff. And how could you, >arriving to find your child weeping, object to >the truth-telling of the cocktail-party asshole? >Reality as it is, man... I'm highlighting >instances of that fact.

>By golly, whether you worked in policing or not, >you might have objections to this emotional >highjacking.

>You might note first that an obsessive >fascination with scenes of such horror tells >more about the obsessed than about the horror, >that shallow reviews and repeated sharing of >tragedy from the lives of distant others in that >manner is inherently pornographic, the work of a >troubled rhetor at best and of demented
>self-importance at worst.

>If I replied that you didn't know anything about >policing because you didn't share my simplistic >fascination with the most brutal outcomes, you'd >probably be further offended... No matter how >you made your living.

>You might then note that these incidents had >little to with national trends in policing, or >with the larger meaning of police in our lives. >You'd ask me to consider other perspectives.

>And I'd say You just don't know anything about >policing, because I've done the reading and >there will be more death, just like in >Charleston, Ferguson, New York in this video.

>And you'd ask why exactly I was being such a >peckerheaded fuckbot about it, why I couldn't >talk about any particular policies to remedy the >losses, or discuss other forces in the lives of >these police shooting victims... Lack of >community engagement, respect for the law, or >even obsession with violence.

>And I'd say you just didn't know anything about >policing.

>You'd think I was despicable. And you'd be right"

Works both ways Crid. But you'll sit there in your righteous sanctimony and argue: But But But...this is DIFFERENT! As you gesticulate widely while trying to come up with a reason that the obsession over the obscene is ok when it comes to social justice issues, but how you can excuse it when it comes to critiques on cultures as a whole.

See, the problem with your analogy (I'll help you out here) is that accidents in transportation are random, but the actions within Islam are not. You can blame a myriad of reasons for your school bus going off a cliff. but when a Muslim blows himself/herself up, there's really only one reason for that (hint, it's not shitty roads).

(Some fall into bad habits, others never had the candlepower anyway.)

Pontificate all you want. Operating from the assumption that you do, in fact, have the candlepower, it's a far worse thing to waste it

[Crid:] What's with the italics?

Because as stated the Quran and Hadith constitute hate speech that, under a different cover, but no less virulent for it, has been banned in most of Europe.

Beyond that, polls of Muslims indicate a substantial portion of your 1.6B believe practice needs to get a lot closer to stated.

Now, I could sit you, or better yet one of your children, down in a chair at a cocktail party and show them all sorts of gruesome photos and video from the world of transportation …

You could, and I would note you provide yet another example of shallow, blinkered, moral relativism. And a complete inability to explain why the Germanwings crash stayed in the news so much longer than AirAsia. I wouldn't think you despicable, I'd think you a fool for equating causes that happen to have the same effect.

Dood, if you have to start a sentence that way...

Dood, your ignorance of Europe is not my problem.

Calling it phobia would be grandiose: It's preening.

Which is pretty much what I thought when you suggested you were making actual points. Fine, dismiss what Amy says about Islam, or the examples she uses. After all, what could she, or I, for that matter possibly know?

Yet when Ms. Ali makes essentially the same argument (OK, there is a cause-effect problem here; I have been reiterating Ms. Ali's arguments) you dismiss it with a picture perfect ad hominem.

Which pretty much characterizes everything you have said so far: fact free, insults all the way down, and pervasive disregard of even those whose authority dwarfs yours.

[Crid:] "Extensive, repeated surveys" makes it sound like you, or J.D Power & Associates of Agoura Hills, California, have delved deeply into myriad Islamic cultures …

Newsflash: Crid determines Muslims do not have opinions. Or at least when their opinions are inconvenient.

There's no such thing as a "uniquely Islamic [opinion]." Its evils are only too typical, "prevalent" even, in the human heart... Which, you'll have noted, the modern world handles better than does the primitive world.

"Opinion" in brackets to reword "uniquely Islamic attitudes". My bad word choice.

Reworded, everything else stands. The questions in those opinion polls would have completely different results if asked of any other culture. That makes Islamic opinion, in those regards, unique. That isn't humanity's playbook anymore, it is Islam's alone. Other than a racist explanation (which would be stupid, but I've seen it tried), then something else must be going on.

I've begged you guys to name the unique hazard of Islam, the truly novel wretchedness it brings now to the world: No reply. I've begged for the name of a nation similar in poverty, isolation, and developmental retardation to an Islamic neighbor which doesn't have as much oppression and stupidity: You got nuthin'.

Strawman much?

I'm pretty certain Amy has never suggested that poverty, isolation, oppression and stupidity are unique to Islam. I know I haven't.

But there's rather more to it than that, isn't there? Most of South America is impoverished and isolated; yet somehow we don't worry overmuch about them trying to blow up airliners or subways, or to slaughter cartoonists, blow up embassies, or engage in mass riots because someone caricatured Christ. Much of China is poor and isolated; same thing. India, too.

On second thought, maybe "attitude" was the right word. Islam is the one remaining collectivist totalitarian ideology left.

First of all, you're right. I can't make time for her, and it's been an issue since her early days of fame in America.

Second of all, you're wrong, or you ought to be: I don't think I ever derided her, more likely just derided the use of her name as a discussion-ending trope.

Your inability, or unwillingness, to make time for Ms. Ali is your problem, not ours. You have repeatedly dismissed criticism of Islam as being ignorant, shallow, or ill-informed. Fine, it might be. But I rather suspect that Ms. Ali would find you, on the subject of Islam, ignorant, shallow, and ill informed.

Thirdly, after more than twenty years of this, people in blog comments still complain about ad hominem too much.

Hmmm. I wonder why? Attacking the person instead of the argument (e.g., both Ms. Ali and Howard Bloom, above) is ad hominem. So, yeah, the thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is that she very quickly turned into this thudlike namedrop is another example. So far as I can remember you haven't once addressed anything she has actually said or written. Instead, you use the fact that people cite her to disregard her. You are playing the people, not the ball. That is ad hominem, through and through.

Yep, nothing to see here, move along.

> move along.

Jeff, your sarcasm is childish. Not dynamic and expository; merely naive and presumptuous. If it sincerely betokens your appraisal of my position, there's zero point to these exchanges, and I'm correct to regard this as the last worthwhile comment stack on the blog. (Writing it out for myself was mostly point anyway, and a dozen years of this shit is plenty. I got 200 meg of ASCII files to fondle in sentimental old age.)

I still haven't finished with your last batch of comments and will do so, but as in almost every topic that's ever been discussed here, it's important to ask readers to understand that the Lord God in Heaven doesn't actually love or admire them very much... and He almost certainly hasn't bothered to equip their twitching littlegirl hearts with Big Moral Truth as the their first impulse... BMT is going to require stretching a bit, and doing some motherfucking reading about boring things, and recognizing that powerful, gratifying emotions for oneself most often have no impact whatsoever on their own virtue or on the lives and thinking of others. BMT has a price.

Flatter yourself with sarcasm. Flatter yourself any fucking way you want. Do you sincerely, sincerely believe anyone in the fetid mountainside mosques of Java gives a flying fuck?

Other things to do tonight!... Will wrap this up at the end of the week!





Remember!— Your CridComment™ cellphone app will reliably sound an alert as soon as a comment is posted ONLY on the Android version; For Iphone, you must be sure to launch the app itself, through the icon, at least one time after each cold start or power-cycle of phone itself. Sorry, but my social media programmers tell me this can't be helped, it's a problem with the platform design.

Jeff, your sarcasm is childish. Not dynamic and expository; merely naive and presumptuous. If it sincerely betokens your appraisal of my position, there's zero point to these exchanges,

Well now, if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black I dont know what is

> inexplicable royal we

Editorial, not royal; My people are here with me, in this moment and in this place. I can feel their presence moving alongside, always, as they silently accept my brilliance into their hearts.

> in my quote file, for the next
> time I need to demonstrate the
> concept of fatuous moral
> equivalence.

Again, it's a violent planet. Can you recall any other context of bloodshed, closer to her life or farther, for which she's needed to jolt readers with depictions of other people's suffering, people who can no longer object to and resist their deployment as objects of argument? Is it technique you admire in the rhetoric of those who believe what you believe?

It's a good week to ask: On Wednesday night, I saw CNN run the footage of Walter Scott losing his life over and over and over, literally a dozen times in one hour. It wasn't about honoring the life of Walter Scott, or expressing righteous concern for race relations... They were shamelessly penetrating one of the most sacred moments in human existence, the moment of one's death, to titillate their idiot audience and make a few bucks. Is that what this blog is about as well? Its author? Its readers? (So it would appear.)

> Some examples:

No no no, don't start painting by numbers. You're not being offered an open-ended term of office in the Ministry of What Others Should Think About.

> A robust defense of Rushdie
> against that fatwa

Nearly thirty years ago, but we'll get right on it. ('Sides - Failures of that magnitude should be considered as reflections of human nature, not mere deficiencies in debate.)

> A robust defense of Ms. Ali
> against death threats

"Threats" themselves are harder (than assaults) to defend against, unless you really wanna take command of individual lives. Through government. As does, say, the NSA. (But then, you're the pro-TSA guy, right? Perhaps I should withdraw the point.)

> I want the book to include
> the cartoons

Me too, and I also want a new pony.

Do we get the sense that some people are using all the trouble in the world to fuel daydreams of their own magisterial command?

> I want political leaders to
> stop using the phrase "Religion
> of Peace" instead of "Religion
> of Submission".

I've never heard a political leader use that phrase. Never. (Not sure I've ever heard anyone use it sincerely, and I've certainly never known anyone who was readily persuaded to believe it.) This is part of Amy's silly cleverness: Influential others are telling lies to the little people! And *I* will courageously rescue these Sheeple!. It's hokey. See the LA Times comment she cites in the post ("Why must everyone dance around...." So who's 'everyone'? 'Dancing'?) That's the kind of illiterate audience to whom she wants to pander.

(Besides, talk about political leadership is the problem. We want public service from those assholes, at all times. Never leadership. We'll lead ourselves, and if these parasites can do just enough to be useful, we'll keep them around. We shouldn't let them become convinced that we trust them, or that we'll follow them... Ever.)

> I want Islamic "moderates",
> whoever they might be, to
> square the circle

OK. We'll tell them that. 'Time to square, motherfuckers!'

But, Jeff, they might ask what efforts you've made to "square" in your own life, especially as a function of your presence as a nebulous stereotype in an inchoate, internationally-isolated, rhetorically-cornpone mob on the other side of the planet. Capiche? You first, Pilgrim.

> I want papers like the NYT
> and WP to print

Yeah, the press sucks. That doesn't mean you have some higher responsibility to countermand their 'Lies!' on behalf of the little people... Working your own way through this press-sucking lifetime should be challenge enough for you. And I promise, there are people smarter than you who think they owe it to their own egos to take command of YOUR news headlines (and your reading of them), and you wouldn't be happy if they did.

> I want the left to learn
> how to use the word
> "islamophobia" correctly.

Your fantasies are becoming somewhat granular. And that's if they're not daydreams of ubiquitous, niggling and deeply personal authority.


Woekay! I think we're about done here! Nothing left but the cleanup.

"By numbers" should have been something about pointillism.

Even the best commenters can make tiny, tiny mistakes.

I want political leaders to stop using the phrase "Religion of Peace" - someone smarter than crid

I know, that 90% of the planet and doesnt narrow it down but I wasnt gong to search for the name, I'm lazy like that

I've never heard a political leader use that phrase. Never.

Woekay! I think we're about done here! Nothing left but the cleanup.

Indeed,

youtube.com/watch?v=QCNRs-Q8bnM

youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZoroJdVnA

I COULD dig up more, but lets be honest shall we?

We could tie you to a chair and have politicians say the phrase that pays right to your face.

You'd still claim it never happened.

Your . . ability? . . . to deny facts and reality rivals that of murder/suicide cult leaders.

[Crid:] Again, it's a violent planet. Can you recall any other context of bloodshed, closer to her life or farther, for which she's needed to jolt readers with depictions of other people's suffering, people who can no longer object to and resist their deployment as objects of argument? Is it technique you admire in the rhetoric of those who believe what you believe?

Offhand, I can't think of any other totalitarian ideology out there that is filling the tumbrels the way Islam has been for the last twenty years. If there is, and it has escaped Amy's notice, then by all means enlighten us.

Otherwise, this comment, just like the exercise in moral relativism above, is comparing soup to nuts.

You are still a kid, so you probably don't remember the ugly unshaven head of monolithic, hegemonic, communism. Back in the day readers were continually jolted with communism's predations. Why should we treat Islam any differently?

[CNN was] shamelessly penetrating one of the most sacred moments in human existence, the moment of one's death, to titillate their idiot audience and make a few bucks. Is that what this blog is about as well? Its author? Its readers?

Your use of "sacred" is purely pejorative, meaningless, and selective.

I well remember a couple co-workers' deaths being endlessly repeated: flaming plane wrecks caught on video are compelling. Is that any different? Ayrton Senna's fatal crash got a lot of airplay, if memory serves.

As for Brown's death, maybe it is merely to titillate the audience. Or maybe, just maybe, it is the incandescent example of actual police brutality instead of the trumped up cases of the past year. If so, it is worth repeating for that reason alone.

Just like Islamist predations and presumptions are worth repeating.

But then, you're the pro-TSA guy, right?

Wrong. I'm the anti getting planes blown out of the sky guy. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I've never heard a political leader use that phrase [religion of peace]. Never.

Then you need to get out more.

A lot more.

Yeah, Lookeepiddle did that too... I said I hadn't heard anyone say it, and he replied as if to say 'People have said it!' Like you did, right there.

It's a non-sequitur. *I* didn't hear it. Also, I don't think the fact that someone said it somewhere makes it particularly persuasive to anyone inclined to consider the matter... So again, I assume that you're worrying on behalf of the little people, which, as noted above, is not good-person behavior. This is mostly about taking command of the public mind for you, right? You don't want the public to do anything in particular, you just want its attention. And to make social distance from it. ("Sheeple!") Yonder:

> I can't think of any other
> totalitarian ideology out there
> that is filling the tumbrels
> the way Islam has been

I don't think "ideology" describes forces of this magnitude. And that's just as well, because I don't think this vast sector of humanity is looking for our Ebert-style reviews of their ideology. You guys wanna pretend that Islam is a choice in all those lives, a determinative one, Thumbs up/Thumbs down, kinda like Crest vs. Colgate, only with worse cavities.

> you probably don't remember the
> ugly unshaven head of monolithic,
> hegemonic, communism

Why bother to remember? How can we miss it when it won't leave?

> Your use of "sacred" is purely
> pejorative, meaningless, and
> selective.

That's ten syllables! Twelve with "purely." I think this means I nailed it, and ever'buddy knows it, and you should respond with grace instead of resentment. Also, I bet you wouldn't want the passing of people you loved telecast that way.

> Just like Islamist predations
> and presumptions are worth
> repeating.

Go sick with that. Let this be your best & blinkered judgment on human nature in one-point-six billion people. And tease others about not getting out enough.

Garry Trudeau and Crid, twins separated at birth.

How do you figure? Is it a similarity you can describe without sarcasm?

This is getting weird.

So crid, I take it you refused to watch the youtube videos so you can continue to claim that you, personally, have never heard that phrase even though you now have knowledge that politicians do indeed say it?

Like I said your ability to ignore reality is monumental.

You're a troubled little guy, not worth engaging: As with Amy, your "grisly" links have demonstrated your corrupt intention... Hush now.

I know, how dare someone show you the reality of the positions you support, amiright?

Y'know, I'd thought the problem in here was just that you were "jamming," selecting someone to take the cartoon position in the cartoon argument of your daydreams... It was pretty obvious you weren't responding to my comments.

But going back through the thread, the problem isn't merely that you're non-responsive to ME... You apparently experience your entire understanding of the topic through adolescent innuendo and sarcasm (in lieu of fully adult ironies)...

Three UK teenagers stopped watching "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and ran off to join ISIS.

A reminder that Islam is a religion of peace

two that don't fit Crid's mold

Oh, well, in that case then

what Ms. Ali is getting wrong

Yep, nothing to see here, move along.

Then you need to get out more.

Separated at birth

Not one of you can compose a flatly declarative sentence about what's actually happening with Muslims on this planet, or what should happen, or how America and the West should proceed... You'll never so much as mention a principle of Western modernity that deserves defense or expansion, one which could make the lives of others better. Uyghurs and Indonesians and Nigerians are people, and you can't be bothered with those. You just want to invoke stuff: You want to presume Ayaan Hirsi Ali & I have disagreement, without saying in a sentence what it might be... You can't handle even that risk.

"Ideology"? AYFKM?

But going back through the thread, the problem isn't merely that you're non-responsive to ME... You apparently experience your entire understanding of the topic through adolescent innuendo and sarcasm (in lieu of fully adult ironies)...

Another oblivious pot and kettle moment brought to you by a petulant crid

Conan is a therapist. He'll help if you ask.

[Crid:] It's a non-sequitur. *I* didn't hear [politicians say Islam is the Religion of Peace™]. Also, I don't think the fact that someone said it somewhere makes it particularly persuasive to anyone inclined to consider the matter...

What to you was a non-sequitor sounded to the rest of us like goggled ignorance.

I brought up communism because the parallel with Islam is obvious. Both are universalist totalitarian ideologies. Do you remember any political leader, even Jimmy Carter, calling communism the proletariat of peace? Any Western leader call Marx a prophet?

I sure don't, Islam and Mohammed aren't, either. So the question is why do our political leaders kowtow to Islam in ways that they never would have done with communism, despite being faced with the same underlying problem? After all, it isn't as if this willful blindness is cost free.

You seem to be placing Islam in a separate realm of existence that makes ostracizing its aims and predations off limits. You wouldn't have done the same for communism, so why Islam?

I don't think "ideology" describes forces of this magnitude

Of all the defining characteristics of an ideology, magnitude is not one of them. Communism, in every regard but one, is indistinguishable from religion: communism's godhead isn't supernatural, although this amounts to a distinction without difference.

(more later)

You need to do some rethinking:

I asked Maher if, based on the center’s research, he could draw a typical jihadist profile. “The average British fighter is male, in his early 20s and of South Asian ethnic origin,” he began. “He usually has some university education and some association with activist groups. Over and over again, we have seen that radicalization is not necessarily driven by social deprivation or poverty.” He paused for a moment, and then went on. “Other than those who go for humanitarian reasons, some of the foreign fighters are students of martyrdom; they want to die as soon as possible and go directly to paradise.

> You seem to be

Quote me. Stop sharing feelings and seemingness and impressions and interpersonal voodoo... Gimme cites.

> You seem to be placing
> Islam in a separate
> realm of existence

Why would anyone bother? Consideration of its present "realms of existence" is something Amy won't tolerate... We can't talk about history or geography or economics or politics or communications or anything else. (She won't even answer questions about Islamic sects, which 'seems' importantly realm-ish to me.)

I think you're secretly starting to understand how that's all fucked up.

> that makes ostracizing
> its aims and predations
> off limits.

You can ostracize whatever you want, but I think detaching the conversation from its natural paths won't pay off for you. Nothing's off limits for me; I'm the guy begging Amy to tell us what she fucking well thinks needs to happen. For this I'm accused of "not knowing anything about Islam."

It took me literally years to figure this out: When she says that, she means that she doesn't know anything about Islam. She's read some Koran, but that means as little for this topic as Bible reading will teach you of the history of the Vatican. Or of the Baptist church. Or of other derivative enterprises, like the Moonies or Scientology.

Oh no, we'll be told, because you see, the Koran is different in that it specifies.... And then we get it. She doesn't want to do the challenging reading about diverse topics, not any more than a hillbilly preacher wants to read Darwin. It's a laziness thing.

You're all too horny for so much of human character to fit under a tidy banner, whence it can literally be read from a book. You wanna turn one-point-six-billion people into a paperwork problem, one which you just happen to have already solved in your own lives... By reading better things... Or what-have-you. ("Science-based!")

So we get "its aims and predations"… As if either featured uniformly in the lives of the one-point-six-billion.

> So the question is why do
> our political leaders kowtow
> to Islam in ways that they
> never would have done with
> communism, despite being faced
> with the same underlying
> problem?

First of all, I'm sincerely grateful for an actual question. Not kidding.

Shorter view, Obama will bow for anybody. He's an unprincipled and unworldly buffoon, and his supporting electorate has ludicrous chickenshit fantasies about the nature of humility. Their own lives have suffering, which they prefer to blame on policy, specifically the policies of American culture (which is racist or sexist or whatever). So they want to pretend that the rest of the world is full of nice men (and women!) who just haven't been shown enough puppy love.

But longer view, no, like, yeah, I hear you... Boosh (and every administration therefore) did some of that too. We can be plenty ashamed of our conduct in the Middle East, and of our selection of friends there.

(Hey, Free Practice One for the Bahrain Grand Prix starts in about four hours!)

Re: Hasan, some wag once said everyone in the Army understood that the officers eventually punished for not containing this troubled guy would have had their careers stalled for discrimination had they done so before the shootings. But as is so often the topic here, I think political correctness is a bad thing. Don't you agree?

> You wouldn't have done the
> same for communism, so why
> Islam?

Marx was an asshole, as are his pathetically naive enthusiasts, but it's the cultural fealty to strongman leadership that made/makes Russian character so dangerous.

> Of all the defining
> characteristics of an
> ideology, magnitude is not
> one of them.

Yeah? When do things stop being "defining"? Islam and the weakness of the cultures most disposed to it are forces with both direction and magnitude, i.e., vectors. The direction is essentially backward, we'd agree. But the magnitude is extremely dynamic.

There's a common text in Islam, apparently dividing it no less ironically than do the sacred charters for every other religion. Some places in the Muslim world are actually doing OK, and you could probably live as comfortably there as anywhere. 1.5 billion have no concern for ISIS at all.

Amy's habit, and perhaps your own, of presuming ISIS to be the purest exemplar of a book you don't like is not helpful. It doesn't instruct or inform.

Damn, I am good at blog comments.

[Crid:] Three UK teenagers stopped watching "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and ran off to join ISIS.

Read the link above, and get back to me on this.

Not one of you can compose a flatly declarative sentence about what's actually happening with Muslims on this planet …

I'd have thought it obvious enough, but it seem not.

The West's overwhelming cultural and material power contradict Islamic ideology, and Western culture represents an existential threat to doctrinaire Muslims (of which there are a great many more than you assume).

"Ideology"? AYFKM?

Your inability to fathom the overlap between theology and ideology is not my problem.

Quote me. Stop sharing feelings and seemingness and impressions and interpersonal voodoo... Gimme cites

Ordinarily, I do, but your point, to the extent you have one, has become so obscure that I'm not sure any number of cites would add any clarity, but it would use up a great deal of time.

We can't talk about history or geography or economics or politics or communications or anything else [including sects].

Except we did. All of it. And along the way I've provided evidence that your presumptions about jihadists are wrong. Moreover, so what? Islam and communism, as phenomena, are strikingly similar in ways that don't have much to do with history, geography, economics, politics, or sects.

I'm the guy begging Amy to tell us what she fucking well thinks needs to happen. For this I'm accused of "not knowing anything about Islam."

Put yourself in, oh, say, 1975. With respect to communism, what would you think, at the time, needed to happen? I'll bet you wouldn't have known. And I'll also bet you would have known enough about communism to clearly identify why it was such a murderous ideology, and provide examples.

I don't know what to do about Islamism. I don't think the solutions Ms. Ali offers in her latest book are realistic. But I'm quite certain that doesn't invalidate anything else she says about Islam, or why.

Shorter view, Obama will bow for anybody.

In case it wasn't perfectly clear, I'm not talking only, or even primarily, about Obama. It is just as true about Bush, and practically every other Western political leader. Even Thatcher failed.

But as is so often the topic here, I think political correctness is a bad thing. Don't you agree?

No. I don't think this is just political correctness. It's worse. For reasons that continually baffle me, we give Islam a pass for beliefs and actions that we would reject out of hand if it came from anywhere else.

Communism and Islam are both universalist, utopian, totalitarian ideologies. Yet the West doesn't criticize Islam the way it did Communism. Why is that?

Marx was an asshole, as are his pathetically naive enthusiasts, but it's the cultural fealty to strongman leadership that made/makes Russian character so dangerous.

That would be helpful if communism had occurred only in Russia. It didn't. You have no explanation for China, Korea, the communist parties in Europe, or sociology departments worldwide.

Yeah? When do things stop being "defining"? Islam and the weakness of the cultures most disposed to it are forces with both direction and magnitude, i.e., vectors. The direction is essentially backward, we'd agree. But the magnitude is extremely dynamic.

I don't know when they stop being defining, but "magnitude" doesn't belong. And you give the game away here. Islam has 1.6B believers ranging, primarily, from West Africa to Indonesia. Everywhere Muslims have sufficient numbers, it is a problem for everyone else. Europe isn't backward, yet Islam is a problem here, too. (As even the NYT is beginning to take on board.)

There's a common text in Islam, apparently dividing it no less ironically than do the sacred charters for every other religion.

The Sunni-Shia divide has nothing to do with the Quran. You knew that, right?

Amy's habit, and perhaps your own, of presuming ISIS to be the purest exemplar of a book you don't like is not helpful. It doesn't instruct or inform.

Is Amy wrong? ISIS might be the most extreme version of Islamism, but the rest aren't very far behind. If you have a beef with their understanding of their own religion, then take it up with them. (Or Ms. Ali, for that matter.)

(Hey, Free Practice One for the Bahrain Grand Prix starts in about four hours!)

Looks like the fourth race in a row I'm going to miss.

I'll have to watch Spa to make up for it. In person.

Eau Rouge, $450.

Hmmm ...

Goddammit!

> I'd have thought it obvious enough,
> but it seem not.

YesYesYes, you tortured dears, the whole topic is just so beneath you... It's a burden to have to set down your clinky, delicate China teacups and withdraw your extended pinkies and sit up and say what's on your mind. (Or is this why Amy doesn't ever talk about anything in detail? She's doesn't actually know. No matter... Ask the boy to bring some more crumpets, won't you? So kind.)

No, Jeff, what's actually happening to one-point-six-billion Muslim IS IS NOT INDICATED in Amy's postings, in your comments about them, or these continuing sarcastic linkings:

> Read the link above, and get back
> to me on this.

No. Fuck that. None of these idiot articles from you comments ever summon anything but more pomposity. ("Maybe, just maybe...")

> The West's overwhelming cultural and
> material power contradict Islamic
> ideology,

"Contradict"? I'm cool with that.

> and Western culture represents
> an existential threat to
> doctrinaire Muslims

Naw, just to their doctrine.

> (of which there are a great
> many more than you assume)

You reached into the back of your pants and pulled that out of your asshole. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that it's true. I have no reason to think you know how many "doctrinaire Muslims" I think there are, except that you wanna be all screechy-girl about it and I don't. You think the topic is my thoughts, and not those people. The word "doctrinaire" is evidence again of your fondness for a wordy, obfuscatory approach to this: It implies a learnedness not apparent in practice of the faith.

> I'm not sure any number of cites
> would add any clarity,

Bullshit dodge, coming...

> but it would use up a great
> deal of time.

...Thousands of words too late to be sincere.

> Except we did. All of it.

NONE OF IT. Not Uyghurs, not Indonesians, not Iranians, not the geography, none.

> And along the way I've provided
> evidence that your presumptions
> about jihadists are wrong.

FFS, I don't give a fuck about Jihad. When did I even use the word "Jihad"?

JEFF, THIS MOMENT IS WHY I THINK THIS IS ALL A CARTOON FOR YOU. It's play-acting, and the game is 'international affairs,' and you need to assign someone the role of "insufficiently terrified American." Can't imagine how I earned the gig.

> Moreover, so what?

Either you've answered the point or you haven't. You haven't.

> Islam and communism, as phenomena,

(But what if we don't consider them "as phenomena"? What then, Jeff?)

> are strikingly similar in
> ways that don't have much
> to do with history, geography,
> economics, politics, or sects.

Goofy. Islam and the AFC West are "strikingly similar in ways that don't have much to do with history, geography, economics, politics, or sects."

> we give Islam a pass
> for beliefs

Speak for yourself.

> You have no explanation for
> China, Korea, the communist
> parties in Europe, or
> sociology departments
> worldwide.

If you want me run down the whole of human history for you, I'll do it, but our topic today Islam, not communism. (Short version: In each case, the context is administrative authority, not Marxist economic insight.)

> But I'm quite certain that
> doesn't invalidate anything
> else she says about Islam,
> or why.

No one said anything DID, Jeff. You're fighting the rhetorical enemies in your daydreams, not the ones in real life.

> Everywhere Muslims have
> sufficient numbers, it is
> a problem for everyone else.

Same with Christians, and Moonies, and....

> The Sunni-Shia divide has
> nothing to do with the Quran

Tell it to the Muslims... I mean, that's just a spectacularly weird thing to say. It's like saying Martin Luther's problem wasn't with Christianity.

> If you have a beef with
> their understanding of
> their own religion, then
> take it up with them.

Amy won't let us.

> Is Amy wrong?

Yes.

How inconveeenient.

Again again yet again.... An eyrolling SARCASTIC LINK instead of a principle. You want others to fill in the blanks because you haven't done so yourself.

Jeff, Courtney TOLD you not to tell Cody that Hailey liked Jaden until after Dylan had a chance to talk to Olivia at band practice!

Madison is going to be so pissed at you....

Really, I'd love to spend some more time showing you the manifest errors of your ways, but I have to leave soon for a few trips round the 'ring.

Yes, that 'ring.

Jeff, everybody at the 'Schleife is gay... You'd understand that if you'd really been paying attention to the issues.

(Everbuddy except Sabine, who is beautiful and a better driver than you and who likes the MANLIEST MEN SHE CAN FIND, if you know what I mean, and I think you do! Sabine is heterosexual, I'm sure of it.)

Also, that whole "human rights" thing?

Don't worry about it. Bernie has everything under control, so we can just go ahead an get on with the business of enjoying being white guys.

[Crid:] Again again yet again.... An eyrolling SARCASTIC LINK instead of a principle.

Either in this thread or the previous one, and I'm not about to hunt for it, so memory will just have to do, you asserted that Islamism is the product of poverty, illiteracy and isolation.

It's not. Certainly not exclusively, probably not even mostly.

You earned the sarcasm all on your own.

> Is Amy wrong?

Yes.

Start with the simple stuff: what, specifically, has she stated about Islam that isn't true?

> The Sunni-Shia divide has > nothing to do with the Quran

Tell it to the Muslims... I mean, that's just a spectacularly weird thing to say.

Ignorance on parade.

Nothing to do with the Quran:

... By the time of his death in 632, Mohammed had consolidated power in Arabia. His followers subsequently built an empire that would stretch from Central Asia to Spain less than a century after his death. But a debate over succession split the community, with some arguing that leadership should be awarded to qualified individuals and others insisting that the only legitimate ruler must come through Mohammed’s bloodline.

A group of prominent early followers of Islam elected Abu Bakr, a companion of Mohammed, to be the first caliph, or leader of the Islamic community, over the objections of those who favored Ali ibn Abi Talib, Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law. The opposing camps in the succession debate eventually evolved into Islam’s two main sects. Shias, a term that stems from shi’atu Ali, Arabic for “partisans of Ali,” believe that Ali and his descendants are part of a divine order. Sunnis, meaning followers of the sunna, or “way” in Arabic, of Mohammed, are opposed to political succession based on Mohammed’s bloodline.

If you want me run down the whole of human history for you, I'll do it, but our topic today Islam, not communism

Only if you wish to ignore the readily apparent: that both communism and Islam are instances of the same thing: universalist, utopian, revolutionary ideologies. Although perhaps "religions" is a better term. Commumism is a materialistic religion, Islam transcendental. Communism has revealed texts, cult of personality, a priesthood, directives for life and politics, and promises utopia. Just like Islam, except for the whole martyrdom thing.

Sure, you can avoid thinking of them that way. It makes it easy for you, becuase then you can simply avoid considering why we should treat Islam any differently than we did communism.

No, Jeff, what's actually happening to one-point-six-billion Muslim IS IS NOT INDICATED in Amy's postings, in your comments about them, or these continuing sarcastic linkings

You sure haven't indicated what's happening. The links I have provided do, but you are incapable of addressing anything they say.

A 'ring report coming later today, via the F1 backchannel.

> I'm not about to hunt for it,
> so memory will just have to do

If I didn't say it, why would I care?

> Nothing to do with the Quran

Yet, weirdly, the Hindus and Scientologists are not involved in the Sunni/Shit conflict.

> what, specifically, has she
> stated about Islam that isn't true?

Well, specifically, that she knows a lot about it. How many laps of this do we need to do? If you didn't read any of the dozens of comments heretofore, why would you read this one?

> Sure, you can avoid thinking
> of them that way.

Golly, thanks!

> you can simply avoid considering
> why we should treat Islam any
> differently than we did communism

Don't get too weird with that. Everything we hated about communism is still cooking in most of the countries where it was said to be practiced. (Cuba's approaching a transition, but you'll have noticed that they're going to be total peckerheads about it.)

> You sure haven't indicated
> what's happening.

Yeah I did, you just didn't like it because the flattery of audience's emotions wasn't the goal of my rhetoric, and Americans hate that.





Jesus, what's it like to be so wrong?

I mean, this inability to offer a cite…

> I'm not about to hunt
> for it

…is the precisely, precisely the problem described earlier. You're going to have the fight you want to have, whether or not anyone offers it to you.

I hate when people to that. It's DULL.




Truth is, Carousel is the only part of the old 'ring I'd ever recognize.

[Jeff:] Either in this thread or the previous one, and I'm not about to hunt for it, so memory will just have to do, you asserted that Islamism is the product of poverty, illiteracy and isolation.

[Crid:]I mean, this inability to offer a cite…

> I'm not about to hunt
> for it

…is the precisely, precisely the problem described earlier. You're going to have the fight you want to have, whether or not anyone offers it to you

[Crid 2/20/2015:] they're nasty because they're primitive and ignorant, and the book has no challengers for their belief.

[Crid, 2/16/2015:] Apparently some of you expected the impoverished, primitive, geographically and economically isolated people of the world to start acting like southside Community College graduates on the very day they first heard about frozen entrees and Miley Cyrus.

... is precisely the problem I described earlier. You are going to go with insults and avoid every point put to you in favor of empty assertions, passive voice, ad hominems, and vacuous moral relativism.

I hate when people do that. It's INTERNET.

> [Crid 2/20/2015:]

Great! You are reading, after all. So why can't you respond to the point with something more than vague, teen-sarcastic, mumbled, can't-show-my-tits posturing?

Presumably because it would then be too obvious that your commentary goes nowhere. In the practical world, you don't want anything. You're not going to ask for Islam to go away: It won't, and everyone knows it. And the vast majority of the rest of your fellows on the globe, including Muslims and non-Muslims, don't especially want it to.

My voice is anything but passive, and your characterization is ludicrous. I'm the one who's described the particulars of Muslim life, asked you to do so, linked thoughtful sources on the future of those lives, and reflected on the influence which Western secular thinking might have in countermanding Islam's oppressive effects. In response, all you and Amy have offered is the teen eye-rolling ("Nothing to do with the Quran").

Are we through here? I don't care-- Go ahead and pursue this lunacy in all contexts, not just this one. Finance, international affairs, family composition, whatever.



I'll always have fond memories of the years when Amy's blog offered no hospitality to Sheeple!-artists.