Vile Infidel Cartoons of Blasphemy
Ty
Les Cargill
> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146
>
> --Ty
>
>
From "The Family Guy" ( and from memory):
( context : a Christmas pageant that has gone somehow,
horribly, horribly wrong )
Peter: "Lights, please."
Peter: "We all know that Christmas is the time of year when the
ghost of Jesus rises from the dead to feed on the flesh of the
living...."
Guy in crowd: "That's ... terrible. That's blasphemous!"
Other guy in crowd: "Yes, I know. I guess we'll have to develop
a sense of humor."
Guy in crowd: "*Sigh*".
--
Les Cargill
Ty
news:KxtFf.1593$_c....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Ty wrote:
>> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146
> From "The Family Guy" ( and from memory):
> ( context : a Christmas pageant that has gone somehow,
> horribly, horribly wrong )
> Peter: "Lights, please."
> Peter: "We all know that Christmas is the time of year when the
> ghost of Jesus rises from the dead to feed on the flesh of the living...."
> Guy in crowd: "That's ... terrible. That's blasphemous!"
> Other guy in crowd: "Yes, I know. I guess we'll have to develop
> a sense of humor."
> Guy in crowd: "*Sigh*".
Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and the
members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian riots
after Kanye West's blasphemous Rolling Stone cover was reproduced by every
major news outlet?
--Ty
Les Cargill
My comment was on the subject of blasphemy in general . It's a
weak concept.
I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year
old girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her.
The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part
begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be
used by mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior
of any stripe. Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the
Caliphate will rise again, in the sense people meant "the South
will rise again" after the Civil War.
(Well, any religion except Bokononism. I think they
just write calypsos.)
--
Les Cargill
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and
>> the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian
>> riots after Kanye West's blasphemous Rolling Stone cover was reproduced
>> by every major news outlet?
> My comment was on the subject of blasphemy in general . It's a
> weak concept.
Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider
blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider
blasphemous?
> I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old girl
> as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her.
Or stone her. Or gang rape her.
> The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part
> begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by
> mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior
> of any stripe.
Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however
violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally
unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to
rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."?
Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains
explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that Nazism
is "peaceful".
But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent
commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously."
You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis.
But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are
really peaceful."
You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, then
dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous ideology.
Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam?
As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his
followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors. So
these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the commandments of
the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really means a "spiritual
struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where the word meant "make
war on the infidels".
Four factors aggravate this issue --
1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent in
the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed was both
a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes no
"separation of church and state".
2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will be
arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* perfect for
today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as apostates.
3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it
conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant. It has no
ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally intolerant. This
leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians for (for instance)
for demeaning women, while remaining silent about infinitely worse practices
in Islam. It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that,
by any rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious
intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims get a
handwave from liberals.
4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves to
the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful sense
of the word. Muslims are exhorted to slaughter/enslave nonbelievers.
Everywhere we look, it seems that members of the Religion of Peace are
slaughtering innocent people in the name of their religion. And while it is
certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim majority, I see no
evidence of them. All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter
infidels, and all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they*
think that they are in a holy war. Anyhow, this willful blindness to the
reality of Islam has led to the situation we're facing now. And while there
are a few brave liberals who have come to their senses, there seem to be far
more who are willing to give up yet another core liberal value to appease
them. And why not? Liberals have abandoned women's rights, gay rights,
religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human rights
when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value?
> Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again,
> in the sense people meant "the South
> will rise again" after the Civil War.
My grievance is with those who pervert the numerous commands to slaughter
infidels into commands to slaughter infidels. It is also with hypocritical
western lefties who are willing to abandon all those values that they
sanctimoniously lecture us on -- women's rights, democracy, free speech,
secular governance, gay rights, etc. The irony is that these lefties would
be among the first to be murdered under Islamic law. As a Christian, I'd
only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are disproportionately
represented among liberals) would be murdered.
So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this murderous
ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are some of the
same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised?
--Ty
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" <lNOca...@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
> news:W3zFf.11901$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>
>
>>>Yeah, funny how different the reactions are between the Christians and
>>>the members of the Religion of Peace (tm). Or did I miss huge Christian
>>>riots after Kanye West's blasphemous Rolling Stone cover was reproduced
>>>by every major news outlet?
>
>
>>My comment was on the subject of blasphemy in general . It's a
>>weak concept.
>
>
> Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider
> blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider
> blasphemous?
>
>
I didn't say it was. Apparently, Christianity and Islam
are out of phase- Torquemada would have happily put any
blasphemers (or witches) to the torch at the point of
maximum cosmopolitanism within Islam.
There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore .
>>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old girl
>>as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her.
>
>
> Or stone her. Or gang rape her.
>
>
But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature:
http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498
People don't do whiteboard exercises, then act on them in cases
like this. The rationalization comes after the action.
>>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part
>>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by
>>mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior
>>of any stripe.
>
>
> Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however
> violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally
> unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to
> rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."?
>
Nazism is slightly different because it pretended to scientific
inevitibility. But we do have a norm that people are able to
extend their arm so long as it doesn't hit the other guy's nose.
And we're not about to give up pluralism.
> Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains
> explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that Nazism
> is "peaceful".
>
I honestly don't know enough about Nazism to say if
genocide is essential to it. It's a racial
supremacist doctrine, so it may well be essential.
Its practitioners were so incredibly incompetent it's
hard to keep the chicken from the egg.
Western cultures *in general* did so many so-similar things,
that we can safely say that Nazism was much harder at the time
to identify as Bad than you or I can comfortably say. It was
just Very Bad Science. But boy, a lot of people bought it. There
are Nazis still.
> But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent
> commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously."
>
> You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis.
>
I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes.
They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about
stupidity, which is a *much* more reliable explanation.
> But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are
> really peaceful."
>
But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful.
> You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis, then
> dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous ideology.
>
> Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam?
>
Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First,
you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist
tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can
show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a
very good rule.
> As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his
> followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors.
That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified.
Several mullahs and historians have explained that there were
phases to the nascent establishment of Islam - first, it was
largely apolitical. When it met political opposition, Mohammed
then reacted. No doubt power corrupts, too...
As with any religious text, dependent on which phase is under
scrutiny, the same *words* can mean different things. Keeps
the clerics in robes, I suppose.
The moderns of Islam, like the moderns of Christianity,
simply make these things parabolic, or otherwise abstract them.
It was the height of Churchill's hubris to "attack the Turk"
in WWI, in Gallipoli, and some of that hubris was a sort of
Crusades-resonant bluster.
> So
> these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the commandments of
> the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really means a "spiritual
> struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where the word meant "make
> war on the infidels".
>
Unfortunately, it's a very abstract "war". There is, as I see it (
and my understanding is quite incomplete ) a sort of "clear and
present danger" standard. The mainline "jihad" just means
continued espousement of Islamic ideals.
> Four factors aggravate this issue --
>
> 1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent in
> the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed was both
> a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes no
> "separation of church and state".
>
Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard
in many cases, especially WRT to commerce and usury.
I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real
answer. But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle,
and yet here we are.
> 2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
> *perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will be
> arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not* perfect for
> today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as apostates.
>
That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the
apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which
is the root of all apocolysm.
But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who
have no real problem bridging this gap.
> 3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it
> conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant.
Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols.
> It has no
> ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally intolerant. This
> leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians for (for instance)
> for demeaning women, while remaining silent about infinitely worse practices
> in Islam.
All traditions have hypocrites.
> It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that,
> by any rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious
> intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims get a
> handwave from liberals.
>
That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most
Oedipal thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist
thing.
> 4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves to
> the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful sense
> of the word. Muslims are exhorted to slaughter/enslave nonbelievers.
> Everywhere we look, it seems that members of the Religion of Peace are
> slaughtering innocent people in the name of their religion. And while it is
> certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim majority, I see no
> evidence of them.
Try Detroit. Hell, try Beruit, prior to what, 1973?
> All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter
> infidels, and all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they*
> think that they are in a holy war. Anyhow, this willful blindness to the
> reality of Islam has led to the situation we're facing now. And while there
> are a few brave liberals who have come to their senses, there seem to be far
> more who are willing to give up yet another core liberal value to appease
> them. And why not? Liberals have abandoned women's rights, gay rights,
> religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human rights
> when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value?
>
>
That's fine. It does not, however, address your real question.
>>Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again,
>>in the sense people meant "the South
>>will rise again" after the Civil War.
>
>
> My grievance is with those who pervert the numerous commands to slaughter
> infidels into commands to slaughter infidels. It is also with hypocritical
> western lefties who are willing to abandon all those values that they
> sanctimoniously lecture us on -- women's rights, democracy, free speech,
> secular governance, gay rights, etc. The irony is that these lefties would
> be among the first to be murdered under Islamic law. As a Christian, I'd
> only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are disproportionately
> represented among liberals) would be murdered.
>
It could be that they simply understand that these are, after
all, sovereign nations. And they're saving their breath.
I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of
every Muslim soul. We haven't even seen an implication that
some of your fierier comments even have substance. What we have
seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living
selling their children into becoming walking IEDs.
These are not credible people, and theirs is not an evolutionarily
stable strategy. But they don't live in a nice suburb of Detroit,
and lead productive and successful lives.
You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the
pattern of terrorism.
> So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this murderous
> ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are some of the
> same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised?
>
It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime
ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long
time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior
to Solzhenitsyn.
> --Ty
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider
>> blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider
>> blasphemous?
> I didn't say it was. Apparently, Christianity and Islam
> are out of phase- Torquemada would have happily put any
> blasphemers (or witches) to the torch at the point of
> maximum cosmopolitanism within Islam.
Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition managed to only murder about 4000
people in its 350 years of existence. The members of the Religion of Peace
(tm), in the name of their religion, committed at least 1237 terrorist
attacks in 2005 alone, killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This does not
include genocide commited by Muslims in places like Darfur, where they slew
hundreds of thousands of infidels and displaced millions more.
> There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore .
<shrug>
11 per year vs 7090 per year?
I think that you are struggling to somehow equate Muslim violence with
*anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely violent
these days.
>>>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old
>>>girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her.
>> Or stone her. Or gang rape her.
> But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature:
> http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498
Are you actually suggesting that expulsion from school is in any way
comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for
women in the Religion of Peace)?
>>>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part
>>>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by
>>>mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior
>>>of any stripe.
>> Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however
>> violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally
>> unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to
>> rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."?
> Nazism is slightly different because it pretended to scientific
> inevitibility. But we do have a norm that people are able to
> extend their arm so long as it doesn't hit the other guy's nose.
Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and
Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability.
To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that
any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse
cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism.
>> Seems to me that you might start by noting that Nazi ideology contains
>> explicit commands to commit genocide, which disproves the notion that
>> Nazism is "peaceful".
> I honestly don't know enough about Nazism to say if
> genocide is essential to it. It's a racial
> supremacist doctrine, so it may well be essential.
> Its practitioners were so incredibly incompetent it's
> hard to keep the chicken from the egg.
> Western cultures *in general* did so many so-similar things,
> that we can safely say that Nazism was much harder at the time
> to identify as Bad than you or I can comfortably say. It was
> just Very Bad Science. But boy, a lot of people bought it. There
> are Nazis still.
<shrug>
>> But then I could reply that "well, most ideologies have violent
>> commandments, and most believers don't take them seriously."
>> You then might note the actual behavior of Nazis.
> I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes.
> They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about
> stupidity, which is a *much* more reliable explanation.
>> But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are
>> really peaceful."
> But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful.
Uh...see my point? If you're gonna excuse Islam because you believe that
some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white
supremacy and other vile ideologies. I am pretty sure that most members of
the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful -- are you prepared to defend the KKK against
criticism merely because of that?
You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder why?
>> You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis,
>> then dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous
>> ideology.
>> Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam?
> Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First,
> you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist
> tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can
> show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a
> very good rule.
Your logic fails.
First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea should
be criticized.
Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore
crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against all
kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers, etc.
Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are the
Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands to
slaughter infidels.
Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a generalization.
The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that some KKK members
didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both groups follow
murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain from all
criticism of them as well?
>> As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his
>> followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors.
> That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified.
It is "in context". And I am perplexed at your sudden reticence to question
your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less circumspect if
we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims.
Anyhow, the words of the Prophet are clear. As is the *history* of Islam.
Some examples Islam's "peacefulness" from the Koran and Hadiths:
Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out
of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than
slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until
they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them.
Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Surah 2:216 - Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you;
but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may
happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know
not.
Surah 4:74 - Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this
world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be
he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
Surah 5:33 - Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to
spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the
amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a
disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the
Hereafter...
Hadith 1:25 - Allah's apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He
replied, "To believe in Allah and his Apostle." The questioner then asked,
"What is the next?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause."
Some examples of Islam's celebrated religious tolerance:
Surah 2:65 - And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said
unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! [This is the source of the
numerous tolerant Muslim depictions of Jews and Christians as apes...]
Surah 2:96 And thou wilt find [the Jews are] the greediest of mankind for
life and (greedier) than the idolaters.
Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out
of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than
slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until
they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them.
Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Surah 4:89 - So choose not friends from [the infidels] till they forsake
their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take
them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper
from among them... [So much for being free to choose one's faith]
Surah 5:13 - And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed
them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and
forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to
discover treachery from all save a few of them.
Surah 9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters
wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and
prepare for them each ambush.
Surah 9:29 Fight against [unbelievers] until they pay the tribute readily,
being brought low.
Some examples of Islam's high regard for women:
Surah 4:11 - Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your
children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if
there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance,
and if there be one (only) then the half.
Surah 4:15 - As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to
witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the
allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until)
Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
Surah 4:34 - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of
them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the
support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that
which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish
them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
Surah 4:98 - Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children,
who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.
Surah 24:6 - As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses
except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies,
(swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;
Surah 33:59 - O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of
the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad).
That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah
is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
Surah 64:14 - O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there
are enemies for you, therefor beware of them.
Some examples of the Koran's regard for human rights:
Surah 5:38 - As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It
is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah
is Mighty, Wise.
Surah 5:45 - And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and
the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and
the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. [None of that "love
your enemies" nonsense for Muslims...]
This kind of lurid gibberish goes on and on and on -- and different
translations say the same things.
It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic law
is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia, misogyny,
amputation and capital punishment, etc. In those nations, non-Muslims live
are legally treated as second class citizens. Indeed, every self-identified
Muslim nation lacks all those values that lefties claim to hold dear.
And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent.
> Several mullahs and historians have explained that there were phases to
> the nascent establishment of Islam - first, it was
> largely apolitical. When it met political opposition, Mohammed
> then reacted. No doubt power corrupts, too...
It is relevant to note that Muslims are explicitely told to lie to infidels
when it benefits Muslims.
> As with any religious text, dependent on which phase is under scrutiny,
> the same *words* can mean different things. Keeps
> the clerics in robes, I suppose.
I think that you are over-complicating the issue in an attempt to avoid
criticizing a violent and intolerant faith.
The issue is quite simple --
1. The plain words of the Prophet command Muslims to slaughter infidels,
enslave the survivors, treat women as property, etc.
2. Islamic theology holds that the Prophet and his words are perfect for ALL
TIME.
Thus, those who try to alter the Prophet's words are apostates (and get the
death sentence). In the meantime, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are
gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And lefties
hypocritically say nothing.
>> So these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the
>> commandments of the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really
>> means a "spiritual struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where
>> the word meant "make war on the infidels".
> Unfortunately, it's a very abstract "war". There is, as I see it ( and my
> understanding is quite incomplete ) a sort of "clear and present danger"
> standard. The mainline "jihad" just means
> continued espousement of Islamic ideals.
You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years of
Muslim history. Why?
>> Four factors aggravate this issue --
>> 1. Islam has no conception of secular authority. There is no equivalent
>> in the Koran or Hadiths to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Muhammed
>> was both a secular king and God's Prophet. So Islamic theology recognizes
>> no "separation of church and state".
> Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard
> in many cases,
You are mistaken, but I'd like to know where you got this from?
> especially WRT to commerce and usury.
Irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam is a violent religion that is
incompatible with Western liberal democracy.
> I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real answer.
> But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle,
> and yet here we are.
This is a common mistake made by lefty Islam apologists. The problem is that
the two faith are profoundly different in their conceptions of secular
authority and tolerance.
Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not.
Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told Muslims
to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors.
So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed
Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the Prophet.
Christ never ordered his followers to murder those who convert from
Christianity. The Prophet explicitly commanded that convert from Islam be
murdered (along with the person who converted them).
Surely you'd concede that there's a profound difference in culpability where
one one kills in violation of the tenets of his faith and where one kills in
obedience to the tenets of his faith?
Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists have
violated their ideology and killed?
>> 2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
>> *perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will
>> be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not*
>> perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as
>> apostates.
> That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the
> apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which
> is the root of all apocolysm.
Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today.
> But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who
> have no real problem bridging this gap.
Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of Muslim
thought? I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have
been murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use
their real name in their books.
Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you
really willing to take that step?
>> 3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it
>> conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant.
> Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols.
Weakness, regardless of lineage. When faced with a clearly violent,
misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the
multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites.
>> It has no ability to handle non-Western cultures that are brutally
>> intolerant. This leads to the absurdity of liberals condemning Christians
>> for (for instance) for demeaning women, while remaining silent about
>> infinitely worse practices in Islam.
> All traditions have hypocrites.
How does this excuse lefties who self-righteously lecture Christians for
being intolerant or treating women unequally, then willfully refuse to
lecture Muslims for infinitely worse practices? Why did lefties waste
thousands of pages of newsprint sanctimoniously condemning Christians for
abortion clinic bombers (7 killed in 30 years), while remaining silent about
(or worse, actually defending) Muslims whose co-religionists slaughter
thousands of people each year in the name of Islam? What could possibly
excuse such reprehensible hypocrisy? Why should we take these idiots (or
liars) seriously about *anything*?
>> It has also rendered liberals unable to criticise a culture that, by any
>> rational standard, *needs* to be criticized for its religious
>> intolerance, misogyny, brutality, lack of free speech, etc. So Muslims
>> get a handwave from liberals.
> That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most Oedipal
> thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist
> thing.
So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to apply
their principles evenly?
>> 4. The forces of political correctness have willfully blinded themselves
>> to the *fact* that Islam is not a peaceful religion -- in any meaningful
>> sense of the word. Muslims are exhorted to slaughter/enslave
>> nonbelievers. Everywhere we look, it seems that members of the Religion
>> of Peace are slaughtering innocent people in the name of their religion.
>> And while it is certainly possible that there is some "peaceful" Muslim
>> majority, I see no evidence of them.
> Try Detroit. Hell, try Beruit, prior to what, 1973?
Self-identified Muslims carried out at least 1237 terrorist attacks in 2005,
killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This does not include the RoP's genocidal
slaughter in places like Darfur, where peaceful Muslims slaughtered several
hundred thousand infidels and displaced millions more.
Why are lefties so unconcerned about this carnage?
>> All I see are the plain words of the Prophet to slaughter infidels, and
>> all over the world, Muslims doing just that. Certainly *they* think that
>> they are in a holy war. Anyhow, this willful blindness to the reality of
>> Islam has led to the situation we're facing now. And while there are a
>> few brave liberals who have come to their senses, there seem to be far
>> more who are willing to give up yet another core liberal value to appease
>> them. And why not? Liberals have abandoned women's rights, gay rights,
>> religious tolerance, secular governance, legal due process, and human
>> rights when it comes to Muslims. What's one more core value?
> That's fine. It does not, however, address your real question.
No, but it does make the point that, despite their self-righteous
moralizing, lefties are perfectly willing to abandon all those values that
they lecture others about.
>>>Our greivance is with the sort that thinks the Caliphate will rise again,
>>>in the sense people meant "the South
>>>will rise again" after the Civil War.
>> My grievance is with those who pervert the numerous commands to slaughter
>> infidels into commands to slaughter infidels. It is also with
>> hypocritical western lefties who are willing to abandon all those values
>> that they sanctimoniously lecture us on -- women's rights, democracy,
>> free speech, secular governance, gay rights, etc. The irony is that these
>> lefties would be among the first to be murdered under Islamic law. As a
>> Christian, I'd only become a slave. But atheists and gays (who are
>> disproportionately represented among liberals) would be murdered.
> It could be that they simply understand that these are, after
> all, sovereign nations. And they're saving their breath.
If so then, lefties are even more disgusting and hypocritical than I
thought. Because they certainly don't restrain themselves from criticizing
non-Muslim sovereign nations. Of course, I suspect that cowardice is a big
part of the problem. No danger criticizing Western nations. But you might
get hurt criticizing Muslims.
Fair enough. But if lefties are as cowardly as this, then I wish they'd stop
pretending to be so "courageous".
> I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of
> every Muslim soul.
Well, it would solve the problem. However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real
enthusiastic about "final solutions".
In any case, you present a false dilemma. There are a variety of options
besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim depravity or doing to them what they'd
do to us if given the chance.
We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that they
hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting
hypocrites.
The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a catastophic
clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders (correctly)
interpret this as weakness and are emboldened.
And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more
Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things --
the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and
modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in
history. Not a good equation for the Muslims.
If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash could
be averted.
Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human life --
are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they have so
much sympathy for.
> We haven't even seen an implication that
> some of your fierier comments even have substance.
You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your
desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre
twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how vile.
When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much
persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up. You are
simply being intellectually dishonest. That's your right, of course, but
perhaps you should bear your dishonesty in mind when you smugly assume the
moral and intellectual high ground.
> What we have
> seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living
> selling their children into becoming walking IEDs.
Amazing. Lefties use isolated examples of abortion clinic bombings (7 dead
in 30 years) to condemn Christianity. They get the vapors whenever some
idiot like Pat Robertson says anything remotely intolerant. These are
sufficient in the minds of liberals to conclusively convict Christianity of
intolerance, violence, bigotry, etc.
But for some reason, these very same self-righteous lefties steadfastly
maintain that far more extensive examples of Muslim violence, intolerance,
misogyny, etc., are merely the act of a few fanatics. This despite
Muhammed's numerous commandments to slaughter unbelievers, the many
thousands of infidels murdered by Muslims each year, the hatred spewed from
mosques all over the country, etc.
*This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties???
> You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the
> pattern of terrorism.
A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the Religion
of Peace (tm).
Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups: 3181
from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims in 2005
alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels killed by
Muslims in places like Darfur.
So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% of
people killed in terrorist incidents?
>> So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this
>> murderous ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are
>> some of the same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised?
> It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime
> ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long
> time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior
> to Solzhenitsyn.
Not really. Although I would admit that it would have been easier if liberal
journalists hadn't knowingly covered for the Soviets.
In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties does
not bear even the most cursory scrutiny.
--Ty
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" <lNOca...@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
> news:x7VFf.883$_c...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>
>
>>>Perhaps, but why is it okay to show things that Christians consider
>>>blasphemous but somehow wrong to show things that Muslims consider
>>>blasphemous?
>
>
>>I didn't say it was. Apparently, Christianity and Islam
>>are out of phase- Torquemada would have happily put any
>>blasphemers (or witches) to the torch at the point of
>>maximum cosmopolitanism within Islam.
>
>
> Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition managed to only murder about 4000
> people in its 350 years of existence. The members of the Religion of Peace
> (tm), in the name of their religion, committed at least 1237 terrorist
> attacks in 2005 alone, killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This does not
> include genocide commited by Muslims in places like Darfur, where they slew
> hundreds of thousands of infidels and displaced millions more.
>
>
>>There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore .
>
>
> <shrug>
>
> 11 per year vs 7090 per year?
>
> I think that you are struggling to somehow equate Muslim violence with
> *anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely violent
> these days.
>
>
Not... particularly. It's just human violence that
happens to be Muslim.
I don't buy that the Muslim part is the primary
cause here. This *is* a history group, and we see
the same syndromes with different players, in
repeating patterns.
>>>>I know of at least one case where Christians identified a 15 year old
>>>>girl as a Witch(tm) . SFAIK, they did not barbecue her.
>
>
>>>Or stone her. Or gang rape her.
>
>
>>But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature:
>>http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498
>
>
> Are you actually suggesting that expulsion from school is in any way
> comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for
> women in the Religion of Peace)?
>
>
I am saying that it's a matter of degree. Significant degree, but
our tradition has its own problems as well.
>>>>The argument against Islam in the large is fallacious - part
>>>>begging the question, part false alternative. Any religion can be used by
>>>>mentally unstable people to rationalize bad behavior
>>>>of any stripe.
>
>
>>>Couldn't one could use the same argument to defend any ideology, however
>>>violent? How would you respond to a statement like this: "Any mentally
>>>unstable person can use Nazism -- a peaceful political theory -- to
>>>rationalize bad behavior like genocide..."?
>
>
>>Nazism is slightly different because it pretended to scientific
>>inevitibility. But we do have a norm that people are able to
>>extend their arm so long as it doesn't hit the other guy's nose.
>
>
> Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and
> Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability.
>
They *can*, but they do not *necessarily*.
> To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that
> any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse
> cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism.
>
I thought I stated that I did not know enough of Naziism's internal
architecture to say one way or the other.
You are saying that "ideas inevitably imply action", and I am
pointing up counterexamples.
<snip>
>>I might note the actual behavior of any number of a**holes.
>>They're a remarkably ideologically diverse lot. That's about
>>stupidity, which is a *much* more reliable explanation.
>
>
>>>But then I might retort that "well, they weren't *real* Nazis, who are
>>>really peaceful."
>
>
>>But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful.
>
>
> Uh...see my point? If you're gonna excuse Islam because you believe that
> some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white
> supremacy and other vile ideologies.
*I* don't have to excuse them - they are , under the present state
of rule of law, perfectly legal ideologies. It is only when
a criminal *act* occurs that , well, we can begin to think
significantly askance of them.
You cannot have an open and pluralist society, except when you
arbitrarily don't choose to. It's either universal or it's
not.
> I am pretty sure that most members of
> the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful -- are you prepared to defend the KKK against
> criticism merely because of that?
>
> You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder why?
>
My motiviation is simply to show that it's not a simple,
black-and-white "truthiness" thing. I don't beleive for
one minute that a "state of war" exists categorically
between all Islamics and all non-Islamics.
And here we have you pulling the ol' false dichotomy: "if'n
ya ain't with us, yer again' us".
Isn't that a hallmark of Fundamentalism?
>
>>>You might argue the murderous Nazis certainly saw themselves as Nazis,
>>>then dismiss my arguments as a desperate attempt to defend a murderous
>>>ideology.
>
>
>>>Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam?
>
>
>>Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First,
>>you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist
>>tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can
>>show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a
>>very good rule.
>
>
> Your logic fails.
>
> First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea should
> be criticized.
>
Of course it doesn't.
> Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore
> crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against all
> kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers, etc.
> Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are the
> Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands to
> slaughter infidels.
>
I don't particularly ignore them. If they're dangerous people,
they're subject to whatever law applies to that.
> Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a generalization.
> The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that some KKK members
> didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both groups follow
> murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain from all
> criticism of them as well?
>
>
>>>As I see it, the problem is that the Prophet explicitely commands his
>>>followers to slaughter or enslave infidels and rule over the survivors.
>
>
>>That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified.
>
>
> It is "in context". And I am perplexed at your sudden reticence to question
> your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less circumspect if
> we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims.
>
Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see
how anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't
*really* understand it.
> Anyhow, the words of the Prophet are clear. As is the *history* of Islam.
> Some examples Islam's "peacefulness" from the Koran and Hadiths:
>
> Surah 2:191 - And slay [infidels] wherever ye find them, and drive them out
> of the places whence they drove you out,
"whence they drove you out". Clearly a counteroffensive situation.
> for persecution is worse than
> slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until
> they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them.
> Such is the reward of disbelievers.
>
> Surah 2:216 - Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you;
> but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may
> happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know
> not.
>
Typical Koranic word salad. Can't make hide nor hair of it.
<snip>
>
> This kind of lurid gibberish goes on and on and on -- and different
> translations say the same things.
>
Right.
> It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic law
> is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia, misogyny,
> amputation and capital punishment, etc. In those nations, non-Muslims live
> are legally treated as second class citizens. Indeed, every self-identified
> Muslim nation lacks all those values that lefties claim to hold dear.
>
> And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent.
>
The Lefties are constrained by the belief in pluralism and
national self-determination.
<snip>
>
> I think that you are over-complicating the issue in an attempt to avoid
> criticizing a violent and intolerant faith.
>
> The issue is quite simple --
>
> 1. The plain words of the Prophet command Muslims to slaughter infidels,
> enslave the survivors, treat women as property, etc.
>
> 2. Islamic theology holds that the Prophet and his words are perfect for ALL
> TIME.
>
> Thus, those who try to alter the Prophet's words are apostates (and get the
> death sentence). In the meantime, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are
> gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And lefties
> hypocritically say nothing.
>
>
Just to be clear, I think that whatever steps are necesary to
gently convince deep Fundamentalists of any stripe that these
things are Wrong are justified to fix this sort of thing. But
that's a very unsatisfying process.
>>>So these purportedly "unstable" people are merely following the
>>>commandments of the Prophet. The absurd argument that "jihad" really
>>>means a "spiritual struggle" ignores 1400 years of Muslim history, where
>>>the word meant "make war on the infidels".
>
>
>>Unfortunately, it's a very abstract "war". There is, as I see it ( and my
>>understanding is quite incomplete ) a sort of "clear and present danger"
>>standard. The mainline "jihad" just means
>>continued espousement of Islamic ideals.
>
>
> You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years of
> Muslim history. Why?
>
Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have
been identified to me as qualified to do so.
<snip>
>>Agreed. But SFAIK, Sharia was not the highest legal standard
>>in many cases,
>
>
> You are mistaken, but I'd like to know where you got this from?
>
>
Mainly "The Prize", the parts dealing with the early
Saudi field explorations. Also, the Ottoman system was
ostensibly Islamic, but had a sort of commonlaw, and was
quite modern in ways.
Read also about the Iberian Islamic "occupation" - it
was quite cosmopolitan. There was the Infidel tax, but
other than that, it wasn't particularly onerous.
Jordan's kind of an interesting mix of things:
http://www.law.emory.edu/IFL/legal/jordan.htm
>>especially WRT to commerce and usury.
>
>
> Irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam is a violent religion that is
> incompatible with Western liberal democracy.
>
Relevant to the prominence of Sharia. "It depends" is the answer.
>
>>I agree - this is a deadly defect in Islam. I don't have a real answer.
>>But, FWIW, Christianity had it's time in the same saddle,
>>and yet here we are.
>
>
> This is a common mistake made by lefty Islam apologists. The problem is that
> the two faith are profoundly different in their conceptions of secular
> authority and tolerance.
>
> Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not.
>
No, I understand that. No mistake here. IMO. Big mistake there.
on the part of Islam.
> Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told Muslims
> to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors.
>
As I stated, that was only in the case pertaining to a war
between early Moslems and people around Medina/Mecca etcetera.
It got extended later, but the interpretation I'd been given
states clearly that this is the case.
> So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed
> Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the Prophet.
>
> Christ never ordered his followers to murder those who convert from
> Christianity. The Prophet explicitly commanded that convert from Islam be
> murdered (along with the person who converted them).
>
> Surely you'd concede that there's a profound difference in culpability where
> one one kills in violation of the tenets of his faith and where one kills in
> obedience to the tenets of his faith?
>
> Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists have
> violated their ideology and killed?
>
I also beleive the Bible states clearly "thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live". You can divine any meaning you want from either
text.
If Islam is so bloody-sword violent, why are the actual recorded
instances of violence relatively rare?
It just doesn't explain anything.
>
>>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
>>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam will
>>>be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not*
>>>perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as
>>>apostates.
>
>
>>That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the
>>apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which
>>is the root of all apocolysm.
>
>
> Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today.
>
It's *hardly* irrelevant. That's the point; Islam is an Apocolyptic
faith. This is exactly why it does what it does.
>
>>But there exist today people who claim to be Islamic who
>>have no real problem bridging this gap.
>
>
> Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of Muslim
> thought?
Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we
see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime,
why does it happen so often?
> I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have
> been murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use
> their real name in their books.
>
> Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you
> really willing to take that step?
>
I won't expiate either of the KKK nor Naziism, nor the more
bloodyminded parts of Islam.
But absent significant stimulus, I won't outright
declare war on 'em either.
Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time,
and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to
even dicuss it's overturn.
>
>>>3. Western liberal multicultural theory has a glaring weakness -- it
>>>conclusively presumes that all non-Western cultures are tolerant.
>
>
>>Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols.
>
>
> Weakness, regardless of lineage. When faced with a clearly violent,
> misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the
> multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites.
>
Hardly. They just aren't as quick to discard pluralism.
<snip>
>>That's simple Oedipalism. Really. Liberalism is by far the most Oedipal
>>thing yet. It's the British "blame the King" journalist
>>thing.
>
>
> So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to apply
> their principles evenly?
>
Nope. Just addicted to one principle in particular - our
old friend, pluralism.
<snip>
>>I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of
>>every Muslim soul.
>
>
> Well, it would solve the problem.
No, it wouldn't.
> However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real
> enthusiastic about "final solutions".
>
> In any case, you present a false dilemma.
To an extent.
> There are a variety of options
> besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim depravity or doing to them what they'd
> do to us if given the chance.
>
> We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that they
> hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting
> hypocrites.
>
> The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a catastophic
> clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders (correctly)
> interpret this as weakness and are emboldened.
>
Emboldened to do... what, exactly? I've never seen such impotence
in rage as with Islamic terrorists. Tactically, strategically,
they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh.
> And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more
> Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things --
> the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and
> modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in
> history. Not a good equation for the Muslims.
>
No, not at all. Our weakness, if it is one, is that our
threshold of wrath is quite high. But once set to motion,
we tend to be quite .. thorough.
> If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash could
> be averted.
>
I rather doubt that. The Western pluralist tradition leaves us
with a blind spot. NOthing is perfect.
> Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human life --
> are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they have so
> much sympathy for.
>
>
It is positively Orwellian. I know.
>>We haven't even seen an implication that
>>some of your fierier comments even have substance.
>
>
> You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your
> desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre
> twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how vile.
Actually, that's pretty much true. I don't hold any much great
regard for Islam. But I hold to the tradition of leaving it to
itself. I would almost exactly do that - I would defend people's
right to beleive any perverse thing whatsoever, *until they
act to violate the rights of others*, and then I'd act.
That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or
persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime".
> When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much
> persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up.
For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just
don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving
bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops
on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business.
Now *that* is subject to change in a moment. But all I
can see is what I can see... the evidence that this is some
how a Big War brewing just isn't there. I think that
the real troublemakers are very short on time. A reasonably
well organized L.A. crack dealer gang could probably take 'em
out in a year or so, given free reign.
Look, you had generations of "people" like arafat who made
a living by coaching others to destroy themselves so he could
be some sort of international superstar. That's positively
as evil as it gets. But it's not *new*. I refuse to allow
the terorist tactics to skew my native skepticism about
them. They "ain't all that", as the kidz say.
And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more
careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite.
> You are
> simply being intellectually dishonest. That's your right, of course, but
> perhaps you should bear your dishonesty in mind when you smugly assume the
> moral and intellectual high ground.
>
>
I really *don't* intend to do that. Really. I just understand
what I understand. We can't simply *eradicate* Islam, and
when all the hooha is past, we'll have to deal with it .
>>What we have
>>seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living
>>selling their children into becoming walking IEDs.
>
>
> Amazing. Lefties use isolated examples of abortion clinic bombings (7 dead
> in 30 years) to condemn Christianity. They get the vapors whenever some
> idiot like Pat Robertson says anything remotely intolerant. These are
> sufficient in the minds of liberals to conclusively convict Christianity of
> intolerance, violence, bigotry, etc.
>
> But for some reason, these very same self-righteous lefties steadfastly
> maintain that far more extensive examples of Muslim violence, intolerance,
> misogyny, etc., are merely the act of a few fanatics. This despite
> Muhammed's numerous commandments to slaughter unbelievers, the many
> thousands of infidels murdered by Muslims each year, the hatred spewed from
> mosques all over the country, etc.
>
> *This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties???
>
This is an example of me being critical of the Muslim practice of
blessing a son or two to become a walking bomb. Nobody can
possibly explain that. It's just Wrong.
>
>>You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the
>>pattern of terrorism.
>
>
> A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the Religion
> of Peace (tm).
>
Eh, it was concentrated among the Jacobites, then a dozen other
"sects". It's as old as the Kali-worshipping Thugges.
> Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups: 3181
> from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims in 2005
> alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels killed by
> Muslims in places like Darfur.
>
That's true.
> So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95% of
> people killed in terrorist incidents?
>
Sorry; I wasn't keeping score. Some of that is just ... technology.
Really.
>
>>>So tell us again -- why are liberals *so* intent on defending this
>>>murderous ideology? <smacks hand on forehead> Wait a minute...these are
>>>some of the same folks who defended Stalin and Mao. Why am I surprised?
>
>
>>It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime
>>ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long
>>time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior
>>to Solzhenitsyn.
>
>
> Not really. Although I would admit that it would have been easier if liberal
> journalists hadn't knowingly covered for the Soviets.
>
> In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties does
> not bear even the most cursory scrutiny.
>
It's all about the pluralism. Takes a lot of convincing to get
people to give up on it.
> --Ty
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition managed to only murder about 4000
>> people in its 350 years of existence. The members of the Religion of
>> Peace (tm), in the name of their religion, committed at least 1237
>> terrorist attacks in 2005 alone, killing 7,090 and wounding 12,537. This
>> does not include genocide commited by Muslims in places like Darfur,
>> where they slew hundreds of thousands of infidels and displaced millions
>> more.
>>>There's *far* too much common ground here to ignore .
>> 11 per year vs 7090 per year?
>> I think that you are struggling to somehow equate Muslim violence with
>> *anything* so that you can avoid the fact that Islam seems uniquely
>> violent these days.
> Not... particularly. It's just human violence that
> happens to be Muslim.
So it's mere coincidence that 95% of the death from terrorist attacks are
caused by self-identified Muslim terrorists?
> I don't buy that the Muslim part is the primary
> cause here. This *is* a history group, and we see
> the same syndromes with different players, in
> repeating patterns.
So...when a religion commands its followers to slaughter non-believers, and
those followers do so, you see no reason to consider that the religion is
violent?
>>>But! there was action taken against her, of an Official nature:
>>>http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_4_7/ai_71711498
>> Are you actually suggesting that expulsion from school is in any way
>> comparable to being gang raped or stoned to death (common punishments for
>> women in the Religion of Peace)?
> I am saying that it's a matter of degree. Significant degree, but our
> tradition has its own problems as well.
But surely you'd agree that the matter of degree is critical. Or do you
equate the US with Nazi Germany merely because some Jews in the US have been
attacked because of their religion?
>> Your "slight difference" does not answer my question. Islam (and
>> Christianity for that matter) claims an identical inevitability.
> They *can*, but they do not *necessarily*.
An irrelevant distinction either way.
>> To recap -- you have attempted to avoid criticism of Islam by noting that
>> any ideology can be "used" by bad people. So tell us why the same excuse
>> cannot be used to avoid criticism of Nazism.
> I thought I stated that I did not know enough of Naziism's internal
> architecture to say one way or the other.
So you have never criticised the Nazis? Have you defended them from others
because "many Nazis were peaceful"?
> You are saying that "ideas inevitably imply action", and I am
> pointing up counterexamples.
I am actually questioning your apparent argument that as long as some
members of an ideology are peaceful, then we shouldn't criticize that
ideology. Seems to me that your "logic" would render it impossible to
criticize *any* ideology, however vile. I am also skeptical that you
actually apply this reasoning consistently.
You have thus far been unwilling to explain these problems.
>>>But we can point to a great many Muslims who are quite peaceful.
>> Uh...see my point? If you're gonna excuse Islam because you believe that
>> some Muslims are peaceful, then you shouls also excuse Nazism, white
>> supremacy and other vile ideologies.
> *I* don't have to excuse them - they are , under the present state
> of rule of law, perfectly legal ideologies. It is only when
> a criminal *act* occurs that , well, we can begin to think
> significantly askance of them.
Actually, your statement is incorrect. Many European governments have the
power to criminalize ideologies that they find objectionable. Indeed, the
Nazi party is illegal in much of Western Europe. You'll also note that
Britain just convicted that lunatic Muslim cleric under its hate speech
laws. His crime was preaching hatred of infidels. His defense was that he
was merely reading from the Koran. Unfortunately for him, that's not a
defense under British law.
Now I don't like hate speech laws at all, but at least the Brits are trying
to apply them consistently.
> You cannot have an open and pluralist society, except when you arbitrarily
> don't choose to. It's either universal or it's
> not.
Well, I am a free speech absolutist, so I'd agree with you.
But I strongly disagree with your apparent contention that free speech
requires that we refrain from criticising any ideology. The philosophical
theory of free speech assumes frank and blunt criticism of ideas. For some
reason, you seem to want to eschew that...at least in the case of Islam.
>> I am pretty sure that most members of the Ku Klux Klan are peaceful --
>> are you prepared to defend the KKK against criticism merely because of
>> that?
>> You seem to be taking great pains to avoid criticizing Islam. I wonder
>> why?
> My motiviation is simply to show that it's not a simple, black-and-white
> "truthiness" thing. I don't beleive for
> one minute that a "state of war" exists categorically
> between all Islamics and all non-Islamics.
<shrug>
So what? A "state of war" didn't categorically exist between all Fascists
and the Allies in WWII. Is that mere fact sufficient to preclude any
criticism of Fascism?
> And here we have you pulling the ol' false dichotomy: "if'n
> ya ain't with us, yer again' us".
So would you condemn a black person for considering the KKK to be "again'
him", merely because some KKK members don't kill blacks? Hmmn?
> Isn't that a hallmark of Fundamentalism?
Ask the Muslims. *They* are the ones whose religion commands them to murder
or enslave everyone who isn't a Muslim. And yes, I tend to consider as my
enemies those members of ideologies that want to kill me.
And I'm not impressed with folks who attempt to somehow persuade me that I
am wrong to believe what my enemies say about their own intentions.
>>>>Uh, how would this be any different in the case of Islam?
>>>Because there is a distinction between ideas and actions. First,
>>>you can't kill an idea. Second, we are bound by the pluralist
>>>tradition to leave crackpots to their ideas. Third, we can
>>>show counterexamples to the rule, therefore... it's not a
>>>very good rule.
>> Your logic fails.
>> First, the mortality of an idea is irrelevant as to whether the idea
>> should be criticized.
> Of course it doesn't.
So we agree that your first point is invalid.
>> Second, I see no great "pluralist" tradition that requires us to ignore
>> crackpots. Certainly not among lefties, who sanctimoniously rail against
>> all kinds of "crackpots" -- racists, elitists, homophobes, warmongers,
>> etc. Seems to me that the only kind of "crackpots" you want to ignore are
>> the Muslim ones who are gleefully trying to obey their Prophet's commands
>> to slaughter infidels.
> I don't particularly ignore them. If they're dangerous people,
> they're subject to whatever law applies to that.
So we agree that your second point is invalid as well.
>> Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a
>> generalization. The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that
>> some KKK members didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both
>> groups follow murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain
>> from all criticism of them as well?
No answer?
This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims with
an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every other vile
ideology in human history. I think you should address this point.
>>>That has to be taken *in context*, and I'm really not qualified.
>> It is "in context". And I am perplexed at your sudden reticence to
>> question your own qualifications. I suspect that you would be far less
>> circumspect if we were discussing Christians or any group except Muslims.
> Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see how
> anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't
> *really* understand it.
Oh, I think you understand it. I think you just don't like what it says.
>> It is also rather telling that EVERY nation that has implemented Islamic
>> law is characterized by extreme religious intolerance, homophobia,
>> misogyny, amputation and capital punishment, etc. In those nations,
>> non-Muslims live are legally treated as second class citizens. Indeed,
>> every self-identified Muslim nation lacks all those values that lefties
>> claim to hold dear.
>> And yet for some reason, lefties remain silent.
> The Lefties are constrained by the belief in pluralism and
> national self-determination.
Even if true -- which I dispute -- I still don't see that mitigates their
hypocrisy.
>> Thus, those who try to alter the Prophet's words are apostates (and get
>> the death sentence). In the meantime, members of the Religion of Peace
>> (tm) are gleefully slaughtering infidels, enslaving women, etc. And
>> lefties hypocritically say nothing.
> Just to be clear, I think that whatever steps are necesary to
> gently convince deep Fundamentalists of any stripe that these
> things are Wrong are justified to fix this sort of thing. But that's a
> very unsatisfying process.
Well, when you find a way to "gently" convice Muslim suicide bombers to
change their ways, let me know.
>> You are willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400 years
>> of Muslim history. Why?
> Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have
> been identified to me as qualified to do so.
You are *still* willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400
years of Muslim history. Why?
>> This is a common mistake made by lefty Islam apologists. The problem is
>> that the two faith are profoundly different in their conceptions of
>> secular authority and tolerance.
>> Christ *explicitly* approved of secular authority. The Prophet did not.
> No, I understand that. No mistake here. IMO. Big mistake there.
> on the part of Islam.
So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to
suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they
going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up beheaded
in Muslim nations for being apostates.
>> Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told
>> Muslims to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors.
> As I stated, that was only in the case pertaining to a war
> between early Moslems and people around Medina/Mecca etcetera.
Your point is irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam and Christianity are
similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become civilized
like the Christians did.
>> So when Christians have killed in the name of religion, they disobeyed
>> Christ. Muslims who kill in the name of their faith are obeying the
>> Prophet.
>> Christ never ordered his followers to murder those who convert from
>> Christianity. The Prophet explicitly commanded that convert from Islam be
>> murdered (along with the person who converted them).
>> Surely you'd concede that there's a profound difference in culpability
>> where one one kills in violation of the tenets of his faith and where one
>> kills in obedience to the tenets of his faith?
>> Or would you equate Nazism and pacifism merely because a few pacifists
>> have violated their ideology and killed?
> I also beleive the Bible states clearly "thou shalt not suffer a
> witch to live". You can divine any meaning you want from either
> text.
Christ made no such statement. And Christ's words ("love your enemy", "turn
the other cheek", "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you") take
precedence over the Old Testament. That's why the New Testament is
"New"...it replaced the old covenants.
There is nothing comparable in Islam.
So again, the analogy of the two religions fails.
> If Islam is so bloody-sword violent, why are the actual recorded
> instances of violence relatively rare?
<blink>
Did you actually type that?
Islam was spread by *military* conquest. The only significant exception is
Indonesia, and that's only because the Muslim armies couldn't get there. And
all over the world today, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are
slaughtering many thousands of infidels in the name of Allah. Indeed, the
source of Muslim rage these days is that their military conquests were
finally halted and turned back by the infidels.
If you are going to defend Islam, I suggest you familiarize yourself with
its (bloody) history. You'll be surprised, I expect.
>>>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
>>>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam
>>>>will be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not*
>>>>perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as
>>>>apostates.
>>>That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the
>>>apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which
>>>is the root of all apocolysm.
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today.
> It's *hardly* irrelevant. That's the point; Islam is an Apocolyptic
> faith. This is exactly why it does what it does.
I don't *care* why it does what it does. It is a threat to my civilization
and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the same way, I don't
care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK believe what they do.
If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand there
trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real impressed
with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while agonizong
over *why* the dog wants to bite me.
>> Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of
>> Muslim thought?
> Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we
> see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime,
> why does it happen so often?
Actually, Muslims are told to infiltrate infidel countries so that they can
lay the groundwork for conquest, so it isn't a crime.
I think Muslims come to the infidel West for the same reason most third
world folks come to the West -- things are *far* better in the land of the
infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile to
Western civilization.
>> I'd note that a number of so-called "moderate Muslim" authors have been
>> murdered as apostates, live under a death sentence or are afraid to use
>> their real name in their books.
>> Again, your reasoning would also exculpate Nazism and the KKK. Are you
>> really willing to take that step?
> I won't expiate either of the KKK nor Naziism, nor the more
> bloodyminded parts of Islam.
Ah, so now it's only "part" of Islam that's bloodyminded. Progress, of a
sort.
> But absent significant stimulus, I won't outright
> declare war on 'em either.
You don't have to. They've declared war on you. At this point, the issue is
whether you will decide to acknowledge this fact.
> Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time,
> and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to
> even dicuss it's overturn.
You are impaled on the same multicultural delimma that has so many lefties
confounded.
A categorical committment to "pluralism" or "tolerance" sounds good on
paper. But it leaves one question unanswered -- does a categorical
committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of
intolerance?
Myself, I am committed to Western Civilization, for the simple reason that
it has resulted in far greater happiness, health and prosperity than any
competing civilization. Part of that is a committment to free speech,
religious tolerance, etc. But only to the extent that these values do not
seriously jeopardize Western Civilization. So while I am content allowing
Muslims to practice their faith here, I will not allow misguided notions of
religious tolerance to blind me to the dangers of their faith. Same with the
Nazis...they have a legal right to exist in the US, but I have an
affirmative obligation to criticize their murderous ideology.
>>>Weakness? It's inherited from the Mongols.
>> Weakness, regardless of lineage. When faced with a clearly violent,
>> misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant non-Western culture, the
>> multicultural folks say nothing. Hypocrites.
> Hardly. They just aren't as quick to discard pluralism.
Hypocrites. Their purported "committment to pluralism" hasn't stopped them
from bitterly condemning other ideologies. Just Islam...and Communism.
>> So lefties are simpletons who are too stupid and morally bankrupt to
>> apply their principles evenly?
> Nope. Just addicted to one principle in particular - our
> old friend, pluralism.
Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective.
They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or Communism.
Hypocrites. Or idiots.
>>>I do know that the answer is not a simple *eradication* of
>>>every Muslim soul.
>> Well, it would solve the problem.
> No, it wouldn't.
Yes it would. No Muslims, no Muslim threat. But as I said, I'm not a big fan
of genocide -- unlike the Muslims.
>> However, unlike Muslims, I'm not real enthusiastic about "final
>> solutions".
>> In any case, you present a false dilemma.
> To an extent.
>> There are a variety of options besides quietly acquiescing to Muslim
>> depravity or doing to them what they'd do to us if given the chance.
>> We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that
>> they hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting
>> hypocrites.
No answer?
>> The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a
>> catastophic clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders
>> (correctly) interpret this as weakness and are emboldened.
> Emboldened to do... what, exactly?
Demand (and get) capitulation on core Western rights -- women's rights, free
speech, religious tolerance, etc.
> I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists.
> Tactically, strategically,
> they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh.
Hence the tragedy of liberal capitulation. Lefties are appeasing and
surrendering to the most incompetent ideology in history.
>> And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more
>> Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things --
>> the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and
>> modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in
>> history. Not a good equation for the Muslims.
> No, not at all. Our weakness, if it is one, is that our
> threshold of wrath is quite high. But once set to motion,
> we tend to be quite .. thorough.
Yes, the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and
Tokyo could enlighten the Muslims...if they'd listen. So could the Chinese,
who lost millions of troops in Korea. Or the Vietnamese...whose "victory"
was purchased at the cost of over a million dead (vs. about 50,000 US dead).
The list goes on and on...
>> If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash
>> could be averted.
> I rather doubt that. The Western pluralist tradition leaves us
> with a blind spot. NOthing is perfect.
Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I think
you are rationalizing hypocrisy.
>> Instead, the lefties -- who claim to be *so* concerned about human
>> life -- are going to help cause the annihilation of the very people they
>> have so much sympathy for.
> It is positively Orwellian. I know.
>>>We haven't even seen an implication that
>>>some of your fierier comments even have substance.
>> You have willfully -- and disengenuously -- ignored the evidence. In your
>> desperation to avoid criticizing Muslims, you have resorted to bizarre
>> twists of logic that would exculpate *every* ideology, no matter how
>> vile.
> Actually, that's pretty much true. I don't hold any much great
> regard for Islam. But I hold to the tradition of leaving it to itself. I
> would almost exactly do that - I would defend people's
> right to beleive any perverse thing whatsoever, *until they
> act to violate the rights of others*, and then I'd act.
Well, I tend to believe folks when they say they intend to kill me or my
family. And I act accordingly.
> That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or
> persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime".
Then we agree. Understand... Muslims are free to believe whatever they want.
However, this should not blind us to the fact that we are at war with a
religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually necessary to
identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him.
>> When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much
>> persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up.
> For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just
> don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving
> bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops
> on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business.
Oh I agree that the threat to the US is minimal. I am not so sure about the
threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the order
of the day. I am particularly troubled by the willingness of many lefties to
capitulate on free speech. They seem blissfully unaware that free speech is
the key right...once they lose that, the game is over.
However, the willingness of lefties to hypocritically ignore what Islam is
makes things infinitely more dangerous. Eventually, some Muslim terrorist
will get a nuke. When Paris goes up in a fireball, my predicted war between
Islam and the West will become obvious to all.
> And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more
> careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite.
My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless
reserves of patience and good cheer. :-)
>>>What we have
>>>seen is a bunche of propaganda from people who make a living
>>>selling their children into becoming walking IEDs.
>> Amazing. Lefties use isolated examples of abortion clinic bombings (7
>> dead in 30 years) to condemn Christianity. They get the vapors whenever
>> some idiot like Pat Robertson says anything remotely intolerant. These
>> are sufficient in the minds of liberals to conclusively convict
>> Christianity of intolerance, violence, bigotry, etc.
>> But for some reason, these very same self-righteous lefties steadfastly
>> maintain that far more extensive examples of Muslim violence,
>> intolerance, misogyny, etc., are merely the act of a few fanatics. This
>> despite Muhammed's numerous commandments to slaughter unbelievers, the
>> many thousands of infidels murdered by Muslims each year, the hatred
>> spewed from mosques all over the country, etc.
>> *This* is an example of the superior intelligence of lefties???
> This is an example of me being critical of the Muslim practice of
> blessing a son or two to become a walking bomb. Nobody can
> possibly explain that. It's just Wrong.
Agreed. But there's far more Wrong -- or at least dangerous -- about Islam
than that.
>>>You are talking about a pattern which transcends ideology - the
>>>pattern of terrorism.
>> A "pattern" that is curiously concentrated among the members of the
>> Religion of Peace (tm).
> Eh, it was concentrated among the Jacobites, then a dozen other "sects".
> It's as old as the Kali-worshipping Thugges.
>> Death toll in Northern Ireland, from terrorist attacks by all groups:
>> 3181 from 1969-1996. Less than half the 7090 infidels murdered by Muslims
>> in 2005 alone. And that excludes the hundreds of thousands of infidels
>> killed by Muslims in places like Darfur.
> That's true.
>> So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95%
>> of people killed in terrorist incidents?
> Sorry; I wasn't keeping score. Some of that is just ... technology.
> Really.
95%?
>>>It could hardly be, because that was almost a human lifetime
>>>ago. To be fair, Stalin was propagandized as an ally for a long
>>>time. You *really* had to dig to get that story, prior
>>>to Solzhenitsyn.
>> Not really. Although I would admit that it would have been easier if
>> liberal journalists hadn't knowingly covered for the Soviets.
>> In any case, the assumed moral and intellectual superiority of lefties
>> does not bear even the most cursory scrutiny.
> It's all about the pluralism. Takes a lot of convincing to get people to
> give up on it.
Except that these people have proven perfectly willing to give it up in
other contexts -- they seem to worry little about offending Christians or
Jews for instance.
I dunno...sounds like hypocrisy to me.
--Ty
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" <lNOca...@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
> news:4OdGf.4429$_c....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
>>>Third, the presence of counterexamples does not invalidate a
>>>generalization. The fact that some Nazis did not barbecue Jews and that
>>>some KKK members didn't lynch blacks does not alter the fact that both
>>>groups follow murderous and vile ideologies. Or are you going to refrain
>>>from all criticism of them as well?
>
>
> No answer?
>
> This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims with
> an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every other vile
> ideology in human history. I think you should address this point.
>
>
Fine.
I don't know *how* we got this far astray, but I wasn't saying
that Islam should be immune to criticism.
I just don't think we can do much else.
I am also saying that I dont' think Islam is *inherently* Evil(tm),
since there appear to be not-evil interpretations of it.
<snip>
>>Not at all; I just find the Koran utterly perplexing. I dont' see how
>>anybody "follows" it. The caveat is just that; I don't
>>*really* understand it.
>
>
> Oh, I think you understand it. I think you just don't like what it says.
>
>
I think it's largely word salad. Might be a translation thing;
dunno.
<snip>
<snip>
>>Because the words are *indirectly interpreted* by people who have
>>been identified to me as qualified to do so.
>
>
> You are *still* willfully ignoring the plain words of the Prophet and 1400
> years of Muslim history. Why?
>
>
Because not all the history is that bloody.
I have seen things in which people who are supposed to know these
things claim that those words do not have those literal meanings.
<snip>
>
> So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to
> suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they
> going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up beheaded
> in Muslim nations for being apostates.
>
>
You got me. Christianity transformed many times over. Perhaps
that's what's afoot now in Islam.
>>>Christ ordered Christians to forgive their enemies. The Prophet told
>>>Muslims to slaughter infidels and enslave the survivors.
>
>
>>As I stated, that was only in the case pertaining to a war
>>between early Moslems and people around Medina/Mecca etcetera.
>
>
> Your point is irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam and Christianity are
> similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become civilized
> like the Christians did.
>
>
They'll either be civilized or they'll be irrlevant.
Christianity simply occupied the space of a previously
established empire. So?
> The only significant exception is
> Indonesia, and that's only because the Muslim armies couldn't get there. And
> all over the world today, members of the Religion of Peace (tm) are
> slaughtering many thousands of infidels in the name of Allah. Indeed, the
> source of Muslim rage these days is that their military conquests were
> finally halted and turned back by the infidels.
>
> If you are going to defend Islam, I suggest you familiarize yourself with
> its (bloody) history. You'll be surprised, I expect.
>
I am familiar with it. The actual war you refer to
wasn't too much of the span of 1400 years.
It's not the *breadth* of blood, but the sharp
*depth* of it. Of course, in 1400 years, there's
a great many variations on the Islamic theme.
Saladin in particular appears to have been vicious in battle,
but relatively humane in peace, either indefeat
or in victory. That's hard to dislike *too* intensely. Of
course, he was propagandized as Richard I's mighty enemy,
so...
>
>>>>>2. Islamic theology considers the words and deeds of the Prophet to be
>>>>>*perfect for all time*. And anyone who attempts to "modernize" Islam
>>>>>will be arguing (in effect) that the Prophet's words and deeds are *not*
>>>>>perfect for today. Those folks are usually executed in Muslim nations as
>>>>>apostates.
>
>
>>>>That's true of all religious traditions which inherited the
>>>>apocalyptic Persian stories of (I think) Zoroastrianism, which
>>>>is the root of all apocolysm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. We are discussing Islam today.
>
>
>>It's *hardly* irrelevant. That's the point; Islam is an Apocolyptic
>>faith. This is exactly why it does what it does.
>
>
> I don't *care* why it does what it does. It is a threat to my civilization
> and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the same way, I don't
> care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK believe what they do.
>
It is most decidedly *not* a significant threat. Not even Egypt at
its most organized stood up for more than Six Days. It's been
downhil from there. And "why" matters a lot.
> If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand there
> trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real impressed
> with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while agonizong
> over *why* the dog wants to bite me.
>
>
Well, you've vastly overestimated the rabidity of this
particular dog. It's most likely been chewing frogs.
>>>Such as? And how can you assume that they represent the mainstream of
>>>Muslim thought?
>
>
>>Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we
>>see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime,
>>why does it happen so often?
>
>
> Actually, Muslims are told to infiltrate infidel countries so that they can
> lay the groundwork for conquest, so it isn't a crime.
>
> I think Muslims come to the infidel West for the same reason most third
> world folks come to the West -- things are *far* better in the land of the
> infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile to
> Western civilization.
>
>
Right. And the harshness of the texts is blunted by prosperity.
That's the general pattern.
<snip>
>
>
> You don't have to. They've declared war on you. At this point, the issue is
> whether you will decide to acknowledge this fact.
>
>
How nice for them. I'm utterly unimpressed. I know how terror
works. It is the use of the media as a force multiplier, and
I don't hold this particular "enemy" in all that high an
esteem. The tiniest bit of organized opposition, and a rabble
falls apart.
>>Moslems have lived in polyglot societies for a long time,
>>and I hold the principle of pluralism far too dear to
>>even dicuss it's overturn.
>
>
> You are impaled on the same multicultural delimma that has so many lefties
> confounded.
>
> A categorical committment to "pluralism" or "tolerance" sounds good on
> paper. But it leaves one question unanswered -- does a categorical
> committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of
> intolerance?
>
I agree - it's a headache-generator, but I think we've done
reaosnably well with it.
No, we must not be tolerant of intolerance. But it
is a challlenge.
> Myself, I am committed to Western Civilization, for the simple reason that
> it has resulted in far greater happiness, health and prosperity than any
> competing civilization. Part of that is a committment to free speech,
> religious tolerance, etc. But only to the extent that these values do not
> seriously jeopardize Western Civilization.
If I may, the most serious threat is overestimation of the threat,
with a resulting overreaction. I am more afraid of Us, than of
Them.
> So while I am content allowing
> Muslims to practice their faith here, I will not allow misguided notions of
> religious tolerance to blind me to the dangers of their faith. Same with the
> Nazis...they have a legal right to exist in the US, but I have an
> affirmative obligation to criticize their murderous ideology.
>
>
I think Leon Uris did a fine job of it. And that was before
the current levels of radicalization.
<snip>
> Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective.
> They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or Communism.
>
> Hypocrites. Or idiots.
>
>
Most people are not up to understanding the limits
of tolerance, I think. Some days, I'm not
either.
Again, I don't think Communism was well understood for a *long*
time. Plus, lotta people in the U.S simply bought in to it.
Naifs. They were naieve.
<snip>
>>>We could start with lefties holding Muslims to the same standard that
>>>they hold Christians to. Or at least admitting that they are disgusting
>>>hypocrites.
>
>
> No answer?
>
>
I don't think it is hypocrisy *per se*. It's just lack of skill.
Nobody taught 'em how to deal with the idea that
tolerance-of-intolerance might not be all that wonderful. It's
subtle.
>>>The irony is that lefty cowardice and appeasement are making a
>>>catastophic clash between the West and Islam more likely. Muslim leaders
>>>(correctly) interpret this as weakness and are emboldened.
>
>
>>Emboldened to do... what, exactly?
>
>
> Demand (and get) capitulation on core Western rights -- women's rights, free
> speech, religious tolerance, etc.
>
>
Uh, sovereignty?
>>I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists.
>>Tactically, strategically,
>>they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh.
>
>
> Hence the tragedy of liberal capitulation. Lefties are appeasing and
> surrendering to the most incompetent ideology in history.
>
>
I don't think that can be overemphasized. Some people undoubtedly
mutter "but they're so *committed*...." to themselves.
>>>And when that clash comes, some Westerners will die. But many, many more
>>>Muslims will die. Because history conclusively demonstrates two things --
>>>the West is extraordinarily effective at slaughtering non-Westerners, and
>>>modern Muslims (particularly Arabs) are among the most inept soldiers in
>>>history. Not a good equation for the Muslims.
>
>
>>No, not at all. Our weakness, if it is one, is that our
>>threshold of wrath is quite high. But once set to motion,
>>we tend to be quite .. thorough.
>
>
> Yes, the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and
> Tokyo could enlighten the Muslims...if they'd listen. So could the Chinese,
> who lost millions of troops in Korea. Or the Vietnamese...whose "victory"
> was purchased at the cost of over a million dead (vs. about 50,000 US dead).
> The list goes on and on...
>
>
"You wouldn't like me if I got angry" - The Incredible Hulk ( which
I think was specifically designed with that in mind ).
I don't wanna come off as JINGOISTIC! here, but there's a pattern.
Once the funding starts...
>>>If lefties would simply abandon their hypocrisy, then maybe the clash
>>>could be averted.
>
>
>>I rather doubt that. The Western pluralist tradition leaves us
>>with a blind spot. NOthing is perfect.
>
>
> Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I think
> you are rationalizing hypocrisy.
>
>
I recognize it as something more like illiteracy. There but for
the grace of $DEITY go I, you know? And I am probably a hypocrite
more than I should be. T'aint easy.
<snip>
>
>
> Well, I tend to believe folks when they say they intend to kill me or my
> family. And I act accordingly.
>
>
It's bluster. It's crafted for media consumption. Yup, I'm cynical
about it.
>>That's largely not negotiable. I will never support prosecution or
>>persection of anybody for "thoughtcrime".
>
>
> Then we agree. Understand... Muslims are free to believe whatever they want.
> However, this should not blind us to the fact that we are at war with a
> religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually necessary to
> identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him.
>
>
It would appear that if we just keep making Semtex, they'll
take care of the defeat part for us.
That was tasteless. Shame on me. I just hate human sacrifice.
>>>When confronted with this, you evade and equivocate. So I'm not much
>>>persuaded by your insinuation that I am merely making things up.
>
>
>>For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just
>>don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving
>>bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops
>>on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business.
>
>
> Oh I agree that the threat to the US is minimal. I am not so sure about the
> threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the order
> of the day.
Well, there's a recent Frontline. I think the denial phase has
passed. What's the Henri Bernard Levy quote - 17 areas
of France are really no longer under government control?
> I am particularly troubled by the willingness of many lefties to
> capitulate on free speech. They seem blissfully unaware that free speech is
> the key right...once they lose that, the game is over.
>
Precisely.
> However, the willingness of lefties to hypocritically ignore what Islam is
> makes things infinitely more dangerous. Eventually, some Muslim terrorist
> will get a nuke. When Paris goes up in a fireball, my predicted war between
> Islam and the West will become obvious to all.
>
>
Clear as the nose on your face. But here's the *ugly* part -
the Top Guys in the terror business *know* that. And
they won't do it. It'd shut the sausage grinder down.
>>And I didn't mean to be insulting. Sorry; I'm usually more
>>careful about proofreading. That sentence needed a rewrite.
>
>
> My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless
> reserves of patience and good cheer. :-)
>
This is emotional. But I'll be dadgummed if I'm gonna
give the terrists :) the chance to spoil my
mood.
<snip>
>>>So I guess it's just a coincidence that Muslims are the ones killing 95%
>>>of people killed in terrorist incidents?
>
>
>>Sorry; I wasn't keeping score. Some of that is just ... technology.
>
>
>>Really.
>
>
> 95%?
>
>
I honestly don't know. I'll try to dig on that figrue
a little more.
<snip>
>
> Except that these people have proven perfectly willing to give it up in
> other contexts -- they seem to worry little about offending Christians or
> Jews for instance.
>
> I dunno...sounds like hypocrisy to me.
>
Couldn't hear you - I have this giant beam in my eye....
> --Ty
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Ty
"The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a
repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of
the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.
"In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security
Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to
show "prudence" when covering religion.
"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the
consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the
newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."
You gotta love that..."we are ready to SELF-REGULATE" the right to free
speech.
Way to go Eurabia. It's so inspiring to see you cravenly give up your most
fundamental rights merely because a bunch of savages demand it.
Well, look on the bright side -- burkas and veils are pretty cheap.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims
>> with an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every
>> other vile ideology in human history. I think you should address this
>> point.
> Fine.
> I don't know *how* we got this far astray, but I wasn't saying
> that Islam should be immune to criticism.
Well, we got this far astray because of my clever tactic of putting words
into your mouth :-)
> I just don't think we can do much else.
Fair enough. I am certainly not calling for a war of annihilation with the
Muslim world. But I *am* calling for an honest admission from our
multicultural devotees that Muslim ideology -- as it stands -- is
incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Then, proceeding from this
admission, I am calling for us to avoid appeasement whenever important
Western values are at stake. IMHO it is despicable to allow misguided
notions of tolerance or political correctness to lead us into surrending
core values like free speech. Especially to a barbaric culture that stands
in direct opposition to Western liberal values.
It isn't hard, really. All these lefties have to do is treat Muslims with
the same degree of disdain that they treat Christians.
They might also do well to consider that you treat true equals as adults,
not as children. So we should expect and demand that Muslims act like
grownups and not spoiled children in these kinds of matters.
> I am also saying that I dont' think Islam is *inherently* Evil(tm),
> since there appear to be not-evil interpretations of it.
Well, I don't think that we can meaningfully debate this point, because I
don't think we agree on what Evil (tm) is. If you'll notice, I have couched
my critique of Islam in terms like "a threat to Western liberal democracy",
"brutal", "misogynistic", "disgusting", "intolerant", etc.
>> So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to
>> suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they
>> going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up
>> beheaded in Muslim nations for being apostates.
> You got me. Christianity transformed many times over. Perhaps that's
> what's afoot now in Islam.
I see no evidence of that. My point in asking the question was only to point
out that Muslims face a much different -- and far more difficult -- problem
than Christians did.
Christians who murdered infidels and tried to blend Church and State "only"
had to start doing what Jesus told them to do. Not a particularly easy task,
especially that "turn the other cheek" part. I am fortunately one of those
rare Christians who finds it easy to turn the other cheek, love my enemies,
etc... <grin>
Muslims, however, are going to have to ignore the plain words of their
Prophet if Islam is to become egalitarian, tolerant, enlightened and
peaceful. And since the Prophet and his words are considered perfect for all
time, these hypothetical moderate Muslims will be committing apostacy by
arguing that his words and deeds are not all perfect for these times. Hard
to imagine that there are many folks that will be willing to risk beheading
like that.
I do expect that Islam will weaken among educated Westernized Muslims (who
will presumably understand that the freedom to blaspheme and choose your
faith [or no faith] are the reasons that life is really good in the West.
But the problem is that Western multicultural true believers have sabotaged
the cultural assimilation of Muslims in most Western nations. The US is far
better in this regard. And I don't expect Islam to weaken among those
insular groups, nor in the third world. I think that Islam's strength in the
third world is due to its ability to blame *every* failure on the infidels.
And to channel all that resentment and hatred against a faraway foe -- the
West. The same is/was true of Marxism, I think, and Islam has spiritual
elements that make it more attractive than Marxism could ever be.
Now all of this wouldn't matter much to me, except that these lunatics will
start getting nukes in the next few decades. And many of our political
leaders (mostly on the left, but an uncomfortable number on the right as
well) seem way too enthusiastic about appeasing these savages.
>> Your point is irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam and Christianity
>> are similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become
>> civilized like the Christians did.
> They'll either be civilized or they'll be irrlevant.
I would have agreed with you 25 years ago. And when we make the transition
from an oil based energy economy, you may be right then. But I am worried
about the nexus of nukes (or biological weapons), rogue states and Muslim
terrorists.
Of course, a candid assessment of the threat would likely lead to very
effective countermeasures. As I see it, the weakest link are rogue states
like Saddam's Iraq, Khadaffy's Libya, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, Iran, etc.
But lefties seem to oppose the removal of *any* lunocrat anywhere if he
constitutes any threat to the West, so I am not optimistic.
>> I don't *care* why it does what it does. It is a threat to my
>> civilization and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the
>> same way, I don't care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK
>> believe what they do.
> It is most decidedly *not* a significant threat. Not even Egypt at its
> most organized stood up for more than Six Days. It's been
> downhil from there. And "why" matters a lot.
Agreed that Muslims do not pose a credible military threat to the West. And
if that were the sole source of danger we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
I see two other threats that I am not so sanguine about:
1. Nukes and terrorism as discussed above.
2. The serious erosion of Western democratic traditions like free speech and
religious tolerance caused by Western lefties who seem willing to capitulate
to these savages on demand.
>> If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand
>> there trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real
>> impressed with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while
>> agonizong over *why* the dog wants to bite me.
> Well, you've vastly overestimated the rabidity of this
> particular dog. It's most likely been chewing frogs.
Perhaps, but my point is sound. It is irrational to anguish over the "root
causes" of a direct threat in lieu of dealing with that threat.
>>>Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we
>>>see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime,
>>>why does it happen so often?
>> Actually, Muslims are told to infiltrate infidel countries so that they
>> can lay the groundwork for conquest, so it isn't a crime.
>> I think Muslims come to the infidel West for the same reason most third
>> world folks come to the West -- things are *far* better in the land of
>> the infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile
>> to Western civilization.
> Right. And the harshness of the texts is blunted by prosperity.
> That's the general pattern.
> <snip>
An interesting assertion when we consider the "Behead Those Who Insult
Islam" signs displayed by rioting Muslims in *Britain*. Or the disclosure
that Muslims were hiding a cache of weapons, explosives, false passports,
*NBC warfare suits*, etc. in the the Finsbury Park Mosque.
Your assertion has a glaring assumption that I think is false -- that
Muslims will assimilate into Western culture and be swayed by its obvious
superiority. But what happens if these folks refuse to assimilate? And
worse, are actively discouraged from assimiliation by idiotic lefty
multiculturalists and policies?
>> You are impaled on the same multicultural delimma that has so many
>> lefties confounded.
>> A categorical committment to "pluralism" or "tolerance" sounds good on
>> paper. But it leaves one question unanswered -- does a categorical
>> committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of
>> intolerance?
> I agree - it's a headache-generator, but I think we've done
> reaosnably well with it.
Yeah, I'm particularly impressed by the EU's willingness to capitulate...
> No, we must not be tolerant of intolerance. But it
> is a challlenge.
It's only a challenge if you actually try. And I am coming to suspect that
lefties hate the West so much that they are willing to appease intolerant
savages just to weaken the West. The irony is that many of these
empty-headed lefties will be among the first to be beheaded if the Muslims
ever took power.
> If I may, the most serious threat is overestimation of the threat,
> with a resulting overreaction. I am more afraid of Us, than of
> Them.
I am not. Western nations have a history of "forgiving and forgetting" that
is utterly lacking in most of the rest of the world. We wage brutal,
devastating war. But when it's over, we're far more likely to shake hands
with our former enemies than third world (especially Muslim) nations are.
The danger of miscalculation is with the Muslims and their Western leftyt
apologists IMHO.
>> Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective.
>> They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or
>> Communism.
>> Hypocrites. Or idiots.
> Most people are not up to understanding the limits
> of tolerance, I think. Some days, I'm not
> either.
Well, I am not so sanguine. It isn't rocket science. But it does go against
a lot of liberal religious faith (and yes, I consider multiculturalism and
socialism to be religions).
> I don't think it is hypocrisy *per se*. It's just lack of skill.
> Nobody taught 'em how to deal with the idea that
> tolerance-of-intolerance might not be all that wonderful. It's
> subtle.
An example of such subtlety can be found in the New York Times. After
self-righteously refusing to run the cartoons out of respect for Muslims,
they ran a photo of a statute of the Virgin Mary made from excrement.
Sorry, but I know hypocrisy and cowardice when I see it.
>> Demand (and get) capitulation on core Western rights -- women's rights,
>> free speech, religious tolerance, etc.
> Uh, sovereignty?
Yet another Western value that lefties seem too willing to capitulate on to
placate the savages. See the brave EU...
>>>I've never seen such impotence in rage as with Islamic terrorists.
>>>Tactically, strategically,
>>>they're utter nimrods. They go *splat*. Sheesh.
>> Hence the tragedy of liberal capitulation. Lefties are appeasing and
>> surrendering to the most incompetent ideology in history.
> I don't think that can be overemphasized. Some people undoubtedly
> mutter "but they're so *committed*...." to themselves.
<shrug>
I have little patience with the lefty canard that we cannot defeat fanatics.
I think it's nothing more than lefty wishful thinking. Certainly, history
contradicts them. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Nazis and
Japanese militarists were among the most fanatical in history. Yet we
stomped them.
And yes, I think that we will win what appears to me to be a nearly
inevitable war between the West and Islam. But I also think that more
realism and less liberal hypocrisy might make that war less likely.
>> Yes, the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and
>> Tokyo could enlighten the Muslims...if they'd listen. So could the
>> Chinese, who lost millions of troops in Korea. Or the Vietnamese...whose
>> "victory" was purchased at the cost of over a million dead (vs. about
>> 50,000 US dead). The list goes on and on...
> "You wouldn't like me if I got angry" - The Incredible Hulk ( which
> I think was specifically designed with that in mind ).
> I don't wanna come off as JINGOISTIC! here, but there's a pattern.
> Once the funding starts...
It's quite interesting to assess the history of Western warfare. In general,
the West has utterly dominated nonwestern opponents on the battlefield. From
Marathon to Iraqi Freedom, the result is the same -- massive nonwestern
casualties, insignificant nonwestern casualties. The few exeptions (the
Mongols, at times the modern Japanese, early Muslims) are notable precisely
because they are so rare.
The reason for this superiority is complex, but I think it fundamentally
boils down to culture. Western armies *tend* to be composed of a much
greater percentage of the "middle class" than nonwestern ones. The Greek
hoplites were landowners, unlike their Persian slave army foes. The result
tends to be armies composed of men with a real stake in the outcome. The
western concept of war has always emphasized annihilating the enemy, rather
than the trickery, "subtlety" and "strategy" characteristic of nonwestern
military theory. Compare the empty, vague, self-evident platitudes of the
grossly overated Sun Tzu with the brutally practical advice of George
Patton, for instance. My money is on Patton in a fight. And despite the fond
hopes of theorists, you almost always win wars by destroying the enemy
armies in battle.
There's also the synergistic effects of egalitarianism, superior military
technology, the idea that armies should not be used as police, the
debilitating effect of warrior societies on military effectiveness, the
Western obsession with free flow of information, etc.
And the most brutal wars in terms of sheer destruction and carnage are those
between Western opponents.
We see this in Iraq now -- the fanatical Warriors of Allah being routed in
every single fight with US and British citizen soldiers. I recall one battle
in which Allah's Warriors were firmly trounced by US military police --
mostly women and commanded by a woman. Marvelous. (I wonder if the Warriors
of Allah get as many virgins if they're killed by infidel women in battle?)
>> Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I
>> think you are rationalizing hypocrisy.
> I recognize it as something more like illiteracy. There but for
> the grace of $DEITY go I, you know? And I am probably a hypocrite
> more than I should be. T'aint easy.
Well, it is true that hypocrisy exists to some extent in all of us. But I
don't see how that justifies ignoring gross hypocrisy that actually
endangers us.
>> Then we agree. Understand... Muslims are free to believe whatever they
>> want. However, this should not blind us to the fact that we are at war
>> with a religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually
>> necessary to identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him.
> It would appear that if we just keep making Semtex, they'll
> take care of the defeat part for us.
> That was tasteless. Shame on me. I just hate human sacrifice.
Yeah, but it *was* funny. If you're gonna be tasteless, you might as well be
funny.
>>>For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just
>>>don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving
>>>bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops
>>>on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business.
>> Oh I agree that the threat to the US is minimal. I am not so sure about
>> the threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the
>> order of the day.
> Well, there's a recent Frontline. I think the denial phase has passed.
> What's the Henri Bernard Levy quote - 17 areas
> of France are really no longer under government control?
I think that your thesis will be confirmed or disproven by the reaction of
Europeans to the EU's craven and pathetic suggestion that they enact a media
"speech code".
> Precisely.
Agreement! Huzzah!
> Clear as the nose on your face. But here's the *ugly* part -
> the Top Guys in the terror business *know* that. And
> they won't do it. It'd shut the sausage grinder down.
You may be right. BUT...you are counting on gibbering fanatics to behave
rationally in their own self interest. I am skeptical...
>> My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless
>> reserves of patience and good cheer. :-)
> This is emotional. But I'll be dadgummed if I'm gonna
> give the terrists :) the chance to spoil my
> mood.
Well, they misunderestimated us, that's fer sure.
> Couldn't hear you - I have this giant beam in my eye....
Well here, let me get it out for you. I'm quite good at that, you know :-)
--Ty
Shibumi
they are so rare.
>
> The reason for this superiority is complex, but I think it fundamentally
> boils down to culture. Western armies *tend* to be composed of a much
> greater percentage of the "middle class" than nonwestern ones. The Greek
> hoplites were landowners, unlike their Persian slave army foes. The result
> tends to be armies composed of men with a real stake in the outcome. The
> western concept of war has always emphasized annihilating the enemy, rather
> than the trickery, "subtlety" and "strategy" characteristic of nonwestern
> military theory. Compare the empty, vague, self-evident platitudes of the
> grossly overated Sun Tzu with the brutally practical advice of George
> Patton, for instance. My money is on Patton in a fight. And despite the fond
> hopes of theorists, you almost always win wars by destroying the enemy
> armies in battle.
>
I should think Sun Tzu is hardly overrated and self-evident when the
military - for about 100 years - has consistently misread and
mis-applied what it says.
Ty
news:1139756757.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> they are so rare.
Then we disagree. I find that Sun Tzu's vague platitudes tend to be either
so metaphorical as to be useless in the real world, or so obvious that I
wonder what all the fuss is about. I also think that one of Sun Tzu's key
premises -- that wars can be won by trickery and largely without fighting --
is unsupported by the weight of Western military historical evidence.
The enchantment that some Western theorists have with him is understandable
when you recognize that many of these theorists are themselves advocating
some kind of dramatic doctrinal shift -- usually to a more sophisticated
"maneuver" warfare. And of course, there's the unfortunate tendency of some
folks to equate vague metaphors with wisdom.
Finally, Sun Tzu's "wisdom" reflects his *culture*, which may not be very
applicable to a very different culture.
As I noted earlier, Western civilization tends to fight wars of annihilation
and their armies tend to be designed with that in mind. And they win aginst
nonwestern armies far more often than they lose.
I think an interesting and telling comparison can be found in the Midway
campaign in 1942. While the Japanese adopted Western weapons and (some)
doctrine, Japan was very much a non-Western nation. The Midway campaign -- a
disaster for Japan -- failed for the simple reason that it was too complex
and relied on *tricking* the Americans into making a mistake (the Aleutians
feint). Had the Japanese simply sent their combined fleet to Midway, I think
that they would have won the fight. Instead, they scattered their forces in
vain attempts to be "indirect" and "sophisticated". Yes, the Americans were
lucky. Yes, the American decoders provided a very valuable advantage. But
the reality is that the Americans should never have had a chance. Even with
good luck and code intercepts, the Americans would almost certainly have
lost the battle if Nagumo had had the other 5 Japanese carriers. For their
part, the American plan was typically straightforward. Every available ship
was sent to Midway to fight the Japanese. One small event illustrates the
huge difference between the US and Japan (and West and East). Admiral
Yamaguchi, arguably the best Japanese admiral, refused to leave his sinking
flagship and died with his ship. By contrast, Admiral Fletcher thought
nothing of abandoning the Yorktown. As a result, Japan was deprived of a
very talented commander while the US retained the services of a very
talented commander. I also think of the Japanese officers who risked their
life to save the Emperor's portrait from a burning carrier. Hard to imagine
US officers incurring that kind of risk to save a portrait of Roosevelt...or
Christ.
Of course, there's some value in Sun Tzu's writings. I just think he's
grossly overrated. I think a ruthlessly pragmatic commander like Patton (or
Guderian or Manstein or Grant) would easily beat him in a real war.
--Ty
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" <lNOca...@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
> news:uXxGf.18191$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Ty wrote:
>
>
>>>This is the *critical* flaw in your reasoning. You are excusing Muslims
>>>with an argument that would also excuse the Nazis, the KKK, and every
>>>other vile ideology in human history. I think you should address this
>>>point.
>
>
>>Fine.
>
>
>>I don't know *how* we got this far astray, but I wasn't saying
>>that Islam should be immune to criticism.
>
>
> Well, we got this far astray because of my clever tactic of putting words
> into your mouth :-)
>
Right. I think I used the phrase "false alternative". That's okay;
I think I understand what you are doing.
>>I just don't think we can do much else.
>
>
> Fair enough. I am certainly not calling for a war of annihilation with the
> Muslim world. But I *am* calling for an honest admission from our
> multicultural devotees that Muslim ideology -- as it stands -- is
> incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Then, proceeding from this
> admission, I am calling for us to avoid appeasement whenever important
> Western values are at stake. IMHO it is despicable to allow misguided
> notions of tolerance or political correctness to lead us into surrending
> core values like free speech. Especially to a barbaric culture that stands
> in direct opposition to Western liberal values.
>
> It isn't hard, really. All these lefties have to do is treat Muslims with
> the same degree of disdain that they treat Christians.
>
That's different. The disdain is also about which Heresy(tm)
is espoused by which side. That's squabbling amongst ostensible
intellectual cousins, not Aliens(tm). It's the narcissism of
small(er) differences.
> They might also do well to consider that you treat true equals as adults,
> not as children. So we should expect and demand that Muslims act like
> grownups and not spoiled children in these kinds of matters.
>
>
Yes, but that has to be done in a relatively Machiavellian
manner.
I think people underestimate the level to which the Bush
Administration has *successfully* applied Machiavelli in
this case. Mainly, because "the M word" has a faint whiff
of sulphur.
And I still am of two minds about *this* myself.
>>I am also saying that I dont' think Islam is *inherently* Evil(tm),
>>since there appear to be not-evil interpretations of it.
>
>
> Well, I don't think that we can meaningfully debate this point, because I
> don't think we agree on what Evil (tm) is. If you'll notice, I have couched
> my critique of Islam in terms like "a threat to Western liberal democracy",
> "brutal", "misogynistic", "disgusting", "intolerant", etc.
>
>
Right. And I'm jumping up a level and saying all human systems
of thought can be considered subjectively Evil(tm).
The counter consists of words like "empire", "hegemony" ,
"gangster ism" and "the moral decay of the West". Those
words would be as at home in The Unabomber Manifesto
as they would in the mouth of a mullah.
It is a choice of the interpreter of those to pick and
choose elements of the doctrine that do not seriously
conflict with Cosmopolitan values. Boy, that's a
lotta work.
>>>So...how will Muslims somehow moderate their faith? Are they going to
>>>suddenly decide that the Prophet was *not* perfect for all time? Are they
>>>going to twist his plain words? Folks that do that usually wind up
>>>beheaded in Muslim nations for being apostates.
>
>
>>You got me. Christianity transformed many times over. Perhaps that's
>>what's afoot now in Islam.
>
>
> I see no evidence of that.
Oh, it's out there and is significant. I mean Christianity as an
agent of politics and of history, not the sort of thing
you as a Christian would be likely to ascribe to as Christianity.
The "render unto Creaser" parts :)
> My point in asking the question was only to point
> out that Muslims face a much different -- and far more difficult -- problem
> than Christians did.
>
That's true. But we can give significant Difficulty Points to one
Augustine for closing Catholicism into a consistent doctrine -
making it fit as a civil influence. He encoded several
choice doctrines as "because that's the way it is",
foundational almost-axioms that allowed the Church to survive.
If Islam can have no Augustine, then it is doomed.
> Christians who murdered infidels and tried to blend Church and State "only"
> had to start doing what Jesus told them to do. Not a particularly easy task,
> especially that "turn the other cheek" part. I am fortunately one of those
> rare Christians who finds it easy to turn the other cheek, love my enemies,
> etc... <grin>
>
> Muslims, however, are going to have to ignore the plain words of their
> Prophet if Islam is to become egalitarian, tolerant, enlightened and
> peaceful. And since the Prophet and his words are considered perfect for all
> time, these hypothetical moderate Muslims will be committing apostacy by
> arguing that his words and deeds are not all perfect for these times. Hard
> to imagine that there are many folks that will be willing to risk beheading
> like that.
>
Well, it is either "oppressive and therefore doomed" or it is not.
> I do expect that Islam will weaken among educated Westernized Muslims (who
> will presumably understand that the freedom to blaspheme and choose your
> faith [or no faith] are the reasons that life is really good in the West.
> But the problem is that Western multicultural true believers have sabotaged
> the cultural assimilation of Muslims in most Western nations. The US is far
> better in this regard. And I don't expect Islam to weaken among those
> insular groups, nor in the third world. I think that Islam's strength in the
> third world is due to its ability to blame *every* failure on the infidels.
But that's a "bridge" concept. It's sufficiently ... internally
inconsistent that it cannot last. Yet it has. Has it?
The individual people in Islamic regions are generally embittered
by their lot in life, and the harsh interpretation of Islam follows
that.
They think that the down cycle is Allah's punishment
for bad faith, and that Allah wants more converts in
payment.
Yet Dubai builds resorts on manmade islands.
> And to channel all that resentment and hatred against a faraway foe -- the
> West. The same is/was true of Marxism, I think, and Islam has spiritual
> elements that make it more attractive than Marxism could ever be.
>
> Now all of this wouldn't matter much to me, except that these lunatics will
> start getting nukes in the next few decades. And many of our political
> leaders (mostly on the left, but an uncomfortable number on the right as
> well) seem way too enthusiastic about appeasing these savages.
>
>
I cannot clearly identify a course of action they could otherwise
take. How can an Infidel effectively - *effectively* be critical
of Islam?
>>>Your point is irrelevant to the issue of whether Islam and Christianity
>>>are similar enough that we can be confident the Muslims will become
>>>civilized like the Christians did.
>
>
>>They'll either be civilized or they'll be irrlevant.
>
>
> I would have agreed with you 25 years ago.
But has it *really* changed? I submit: only in degree, and in
the number of available electronic channels for terrorists.
> And when we make the transition
> from an oil based energy economy, you may be right then. But I am worried
> about the nexus of nukes (or biological weapons), rogue states and Muslim
> terrorists.
>
I think this is simple. We simply have to factor this cost in as
part of the real cost of oil. We have to understand that what
we pay for oil is subsidized by force of arms , and that this
cannot work forever.
We simply have to accept that we must pay much, much more for
oil at the wellhead ( and not as a carcass for tax vultures
to rend ) than we presently do.
Europe's weakness is the dependence on oil taxes to
pay for government.
> Of course, a candid assessment of the threat would likely lead to very
> effective countermeasures. As I see it, the weakest link are rogue states
> like Saddam's Iraq, Khadaffy's Libya, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, Iran, etc.
> But lefties seem to oppose the removal of *any* lunocrat anywhere if he
> constitutes any threat to the West, so I am not optimistic.
>
>
That's because removal of lunocrats* has worked so badly in the
past. If the removal of Saddam doesn't work, I don't know how else
to do it, either.
Again, please look at the legal DNA of Jordan. It's
a hybrid; it is not pure Sharia.
*excepting Hitler and the Imperial Japanese power structure.
>>>I don't *care* why it does what it does. It is a threat to my
>>>civilization and my way of life, and that's what I'm focused on. In the
>>>same way, I don't care *why* the Nazis or the Communists or the KKK
>>>believe what they do.
>
>
>>It is most decidedly *not* a significant threat. Not even Egypt at its
>>most organized stood up for more than Six Days. It's been
>>downhil from there. And "why" matters a lot.
>
>
> Agreed that Muslims do not pose a credible military threat to the West. And
> if that were the sole source of danger we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.
>
> I see two other threats that I am not so sanguine about:
>
> 1. Nukes and terrorism as discussed above.
>
I don't think that's a problem. But I hold a MUCH more cynical
view of the internal structure of the terrorist system.
Their reason d'etre is much more about self-annihilation
than annihilation of the enemy. Its product is martyrs,
not victory.
A suitcase nuke simply destroys their ability to be
terrorists. And they know this. They can't be trusted,
but I think they're still bound by some vestige of
reason.
If one *is* deployed, then that's it. It'll be
utter and total rage against Islam. I think this
might extend to *any* sort of "other shoe dropping".
Spain doesn't apparently* count because the Spanish people
simply quailed. We'll see how that plays out - some
people in Spain just know better. But it is
very uncomfortable...
> 2. The serious erosion of Western democratic traditions like free speech and
> religious tolerance caused by Western lefties who seem willing to capitulate
> to these savages on demand.
>
>
You can't force reason :)
>>>If I see a rabid dog, I shoot it. I don't let it bite me while I stand
>>>there trying to understand the epidemiology of rabies. And I am not real
>>>impressed with the intellect of those who would have me get bitten while
>>>agonizong over *why* the dog wants to bite me.
>
>
>>Well, you've vastly overestimated the rabidity of this
>>particular dog. It's most likely been chewing frogs.
>
>
> Perhaps, but my point is sound. It is irrational to anguish over the "root
> causes" of a direct threat in lieu of dealing with that threat.
>
>
I think those are the same thing. At least I have a
star to steer by. And this *is* dealing with the threat,
at least in a manner short of total war.
>>>>Um, because they vastly outnumber the television performers we
>>>>see in the media? If living amongst infidels is such a crime,
>>>>why does it happen so often?
>
>
>>>Actually, Muslims are told to infiltrate infidel countries so that they
>>>can lay the groundwork for conquest, so it isn't a crime.
>
>
>>>I think Muslims come to the infidel West for the same reason most third
>>>world folks come to the West -- things are *far* better in the land of
>>>the infidels. The problem is that their religion is fundamentally hostile
>>>to Western civilization.
>
>
>>Right. And the harshness of the texts is blunted by prosperity.
>>That's the general pattern.
>><snip>
>
>
> An interesting assertion when we consider the "Behead Those Who Insult
> Islam" signs displayed by rioting Muslims in *Britain*. Or the disclosure
> that Muslims were hiding a cache of weapons, explosives, false passports,
> *NBC warfare suits*, etc. in the the Finsbury Park Mosque.
>
I know. It's a general pattern, with lots of exceptions. I'm not
extremely comfortable with this myself.
> Your assertion has a glaring assumption that I think is false -- that
> Muslims will assimilate into Western culture and be swayed by its obvious
> superiority.
If they don't, then where is the superiority?
> But what happens if these folks refuse to assimilate? And
> worse, are actively discouraged from assimiliation by idiotic lefty
> multiculturalists and policies?
>
>
Dunno.
>>>You are impaled on the same multicultural delimma that has so many
>>>lefties confounded.
>
>
>>>A categorical committment to "pluralism" or "tolerance" sounds good on
>>>paper. But it leaves one question unanswered -- does a categorical
>>>committment to tolerance mean that you must be completely tolerant of
>>>intolerance?
>
>
>>I agree - it's a headache-generator, but I think we've done
>>reaosnably well with it.
>
>
> Yeah, I'm particularly impressed by the EU's willingness to capitulate...
>
>
I'm just not surprised.
>>No, we must not be tolerant of intolerance. But it
>>is a challlenge.
>
>
> It's only a challenge if you actually try. And I am coming to suspect that
> lefties hate the West so much that they are willing to appease intolerant
> savages just to weaken the West. The irony is that many of these
> empty-headed lefties will be among the first to be beheaded if the Muslims
> ever took power.
>
>
Probably.
>>If I may, the most serious threat is overestimation of the threat,
>>with a resulting overreaction. I am more afraid of Us, than of
>>Them.
>
>
> I am not. Western nations have a history of "forgiving and forgetting" that
> is utterly lacking in most of the rest of the world. We wage brutal,
> devastating war. But when it's over, we're far more likely to shake hands
> with our former enemies than third world (especially Muslim) nations are.
>
> The danger of miscalculation is with the Muslims and their Western leftyt
> apologists IMHO.
>
>
>>>Their purported "committment to pluralism" seems extremely selective.
>>>They've bitterly condemned other ideologies. Just not Islam...or
>>>Communism.
>
>
>>>Hypocrites. Or idiots.
>
>
>>Most people are not up to understanding the limits
>>of tolerance, I think. Some days, I'm not
>>either.
>
>
> Well, I am not so sanguine. It isn't rocket science. But it does go against
> a lot of liberal religious faith (and yes, I consider multiculturalism and
> socialism to be religions).
>
>
Right.
<snip>
>>I don't think that can be overemphasized. Some people undoubtedly
>>mutter "but they're so *committed*...." to themselves.
>
>
> <shrug>
>
No, this is significant - it leads directly to how
Orwell observed that power works in human psychology.
> I have little patience with the lefty canard that we cannot defeat fanatics.
They bleed like everybody else, but it's winning the *peace* that's
hard.
> I think it's nothing more than lefty wishful thinking. Certainly, history
> contradicts them. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Nazis and
> Japanese militarists were among the most fanatical in history. Yet we
> stomped them.
>
> And yes, I think that we will win what appears to me to be a nearly
> inevitable war between the West and Islam. But I also think that more
> realism and less liberal hypocrisy might make that war less likely.
>
>
Possibly.
<snip>
>>I don't wanna come off as JINGOISTIC! here, but there's a pattern.
>>Once the funding starts...
>
>
> It's quite interesting to assess the history of Western warfare. In general,
> the West has utterly dominated nonwestern opponents on the battlefield. From
> Marathon to Iraqi Freedom, the result is the same -- massive nonwestern
> casualties, insignificant nonwestern casualties. The few exeptions (the
> Mongols, at times the modern Japanese, early Muslims) are notable precisely
> because they are so rare.
>
Well, the accounts of "Johnny Turk" from WWI were quite admiring.
The Western thing does war well because of production leverages,
at least since the 19th Century. And I'd say it was
logistical support that made Rome. Rome died when its tax
base died.
> The reason for this superiority is complex, but I think it fundamentally
> boils down to culture. Western armies *tend* to be composed of a much
> greater percentage of the "middle class" than nonwestern ones. The Greek
> hoplites were landowners, unlike their Persian slave army foes. The result
> tends to be armies composed of men with a real stake in the outcome. The
> western concept of war has always emphasized annihilating the enemy, rather
> than the trickery, "subtlety" and "strategy" characteristic of nonwestern
> military theory. Compare the empty, vague, self-evident platitudes of the
> grossly overated Sun Tzu with the brutally practical advice of George
> Patton, for instance. My money is on Patton in a fight. And despite the fond
> hopes of theorists, you almost always win wars by destroying the enemy
> armies in battle.
>
Yes, Patton in a fight, but Ike and Churchill at the bargaining
table*. And perhaps Marshall and MacArthur in occupation.
We're just not Hoplites, nor are we Athenians.
*Don't start about Yalta. Feh. Face it, Stalin was a poker
player dee-luxe :)
> There's also the synergistic effects of egalitarianism, superior military
> technology, the idea that armies should not be used as police, the
> debilitating effect of warrior societies on military effectiveness, the
> Western obsession with free flow of information, etc.
>
> And the most brutal wars in terms of sheer destruction and carnage are those
> between Western opponents.
>
> We see this in Iraq now -- the fanatical Warriors of Allah being routed in
> every single fight with US and British citizen soldiers. I recall one battle
> in which Allah's Warriors were firmly trounced by US military police --
> mostly women and commanded by a woman. Marvelous. (I wonder if the Warriors
> of Allah get as many virgins if they're killed by infidel women in battle?)
>
>
But it is the lousy *statesmanship* after the battle that's led
us this far. We have to pursue the peace; Marshall
and MacArthur...
>>>Again, this purported pluralist tradition seems awfully selective. I
>>>think you are rationalizing hypocrisy.
>
>
>>I recognize it as something more like illiteracy. There but for
>>the grace of $DEITY go I, you know? And I am probably a hypocrite
>>more than I should be. T'aint easy.
>
>
> Well, it is true that hypocrisy exists to some extent in all of us. But I
> don't see how that justifies ignoring gross hypocrisy that actually
> endangers us.
>
>
But I disagree it is "hypocrisy" hypocrisy. It's just a significant
weakness in our doctrine. It was, after all, largely Colonial
conquest that got us into this mess. We've been learning the whole
time.
But "speech codes" won't help.
>>>Then we agree. Understand... Muslims are free to believe whatever they
>>>want. However, this should not blind us to the fact that we are at war
>>>with a religious ideology, not merely a few cranks. It is usually
>>>necessary to identify an enemy if you're gonna defeat him.
>
>
>>It would appear that if we just keep making Semtex, they'll
>>take care of the defeat part for us.
>
>
>>That was tasteless. Shame on me. I just hate human sacrifice.
>
>
> Yeah, but it *was* funny. If you're gonna be tasteless, you might as well be
> funny.
>
>
>>>>For what it is worth, that's really not what I mean. I just
>>>>don't see a particularly critical situation here. We have roving
>>>>bands of ... idiots makeing up IEDs to "deploy" against troops
>>>>on the ground in Iraq, and the rest is mostly show business.
>
>
>>>Oh I agree that the threat to the US is minimal. I am not so sure about
>>>the threat to Europe, where appeasement and capitulation seems to be the
>>>order of the day.
>
>
>>Well, there's a recent Frontline. I think the denial phase has passed.
>>What's the Henri Bernard Levy quote - 17 areas
>>of France are really no longer under government control?
>
>
> I think that your thesis will be confirmed or disproven by the reaction of
> Europeans to the EU's craven and pathetic suggestion that they enact a media
> "speech code".
>
>
Yeah. *Sigh*.
>>Precisely.
>
>
> Agreement! Huzzah!
>
>
>>Clear as the nose on your face. But here's the *ugly* part -
>>the Top Guys in the terror business *know* that. And
>>they won't do it. It'd shut the sausage grinder down.
>
>
> You may be right. BUT...you are counting on gibbering fanatics to behave
> rationally in their own self interest. I am skeptical...
>
>
If it persists, it's not gibbering fanaticism. It's
Organization. If you ignore Reason, then Evolution
has her way with you...
>>>My apologies as well. I'm under the weather, so I lack my usual limitless
>>>reserves of patience and good cheer. :-)
>
>
>>This is emotional. But I'll be dadgummed if I'm gonna
>>give the terrists :) the chance to spoil my
>>mood.
>
>
> Well, they misunderestimated us, that's fer sure.
>
>
>>Couldn't hear you - I have this giant beam in my eye....
>
>
> Well here, let me get it out for you. I'm quite good at that, you know :-)
>
I really wish that were true - that that were all it took. I'd
even go to your Nobel ceremony :)
But somebody in media should be able to make a good couple of bones
outta identifying this. Unfortunately, it'll be some clown like
Bill O'Reilly.
> --Ty
>
>
>
--
Les Cargill
samvaknin
You may find these of added interest:
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal87.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/islam.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/12.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/14.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
Take care.
Sam
Ty
>>>I don't know *how* we got this far astray, but I wasn't saying
>>>that Islam should be immune to criticism.
>> Well, we got this far astray because of my clever tactic of putting words
>> into your mouth :-)
> Right. I think I used the phrase "false alternative". That's okay;
> I think I understand what you are doing.
Actually, I was kidding. I do not intentionally do this; it's far too easy
for someone to rebut.
I do however, find that folks will often use the "there are other options"
defense when in fact, they can't actually tell us with reasonable
specificity what those options are, and how likely they are to succeed.
>>>I just don't think we can do much else.
>> Fair enough. I am certainly not calling for a war of annihilation with
>> the
>> Muslim world. But I *am* calling for an honest admission from our
>> multicultural devotees that Muslim ideology -- as it stands -- is
>> incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Then, proceeding from this
>> admission, I am calling for us to avoid appeasement whenever important
>> Western values are at stake. IMHO it is despicable to allow misguided
>> notions of tolerance or political correctness to lead us into surrending
>> core values like free speech. Especially to a barbaric culture that
>> stands
>> in direct opposition to Western liberal values.
>> It isn't hard, really. All these lefties have to do is treat Muslims with
>> the same degree of disdain that they treat Christians.
> That's different.
How?
> The disdain is also about which Heresy(tm)
> is espoused by which side.
Of course, there's the irony. Many lefties loudy excoriate Christians for
(purportedly) treating women as inferior, bombing abortion clinics, etc. Yet
they give a complete handwave to Muslims, whose religion treats women *far*
worse and who annually slaughter 1000 times as many people in the name of
Islam than have been killed by *all* abortion clinic bombers (7,000 vs 7).
And while you see this as some kind of essentially innocent ignorance, I see
it as hypocrisy.
> That's squabbling amongst ostensible
> intellectual cousins, not Aliens(tm). It's the narcissism of
> small(er) differences.
Please elaborate. I seem unable to grasp your point here.
>> They might also do well to consider that you treat true equals as adults,
>> not as children. So we should expect and demand that Muslims act like
>> grownups and not spoiled children in these kinds of matters.
> Yes, but that has to be done in a relatively Machiavellian
> manner.
I disagree. If most Muslims *are* mature and reasonable -- as so many
lefties confidently assert -- then I think that we should demand that they
act mature and reasonable. If they are truly mature and reasonable, they'll
do so.
But if lefties secretly believe that most Muslims are really *not* so mature
and reasonable, then I can certainly see why the lefties would want to avoid
exposing this fact. Because once it's exposed, the *lefties* will look like
idiots and their Religion, multiculturalism, will be exposed as an absurd
ideology.
And I think lefties have shown themselves willing to compromise every one of
their purported core values to avoid looking like idiots. They have
pointedly overlooked the intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, brutality, etc.,
of the Muslim world, for instance. And many lefties seem willing -- indeed,
eager -- to compromise their own free speech rights.
> I think people underestimate the level to which the Bush
> Administration has *successfully* applied Machiavelli in
> this case. Mainly, because "the M word" has a faint whiff
> of sulphur.
> And I still am of two minds about *this* myself.
Well, "misunderestimating" Bush has been something of a liberal religion.
He defeated a Democratic governor in Texas who was widely considered
unbeatable a year before the election. He then became the first governer to
serve consecutive terms since Reconstruction. He did the same to a
Democractic Vice President, who was also widely considered unbeatable a year
before the election. He soundly trounced John Kerry in 2004, despite
relatively low approval ratings, a speech impediment, and Dan Rather's
attempt to foist forged documents on the American people a few weeks before
the election.
He achieved a nearly unprecedented victory in 2004 -- his party made large
gains in the Congress, when the reverse is almost always true of mid term
elections.
Under his leadership, a small number of American troops defeated the Taliban
in Afghanistan...despite overwhelming predictions of a quagmire and US
defeat. Despite the fact that a far larger Soviet army failed in Afghanistan
and that a highly trained professional British army failed there in the 19th
century.
Under his leadership, a comparative small Allied force overran Iraq in a few
days in a mechanized advance that made Patton's Operation Cobra and
Guderian's advance in the first month of Operation Barbarossa look like
WWI's Western Front. This despite predictions of a quagmire that began a day
after the war started.
He's been condemned because an insurgency arose in Iraq and because many
thousands of Jihadis swarmed in from all over the Middle East. Well, our
casualties are shockingly low by historical standards. And I've seen
casualty estimates of 30,000-50,000 jihadis killed, with even more captured.
A necessary bloodletting in the Middle East, and one that I'd rather carry
out in the Middle East, rather than in NYC. When given the chance, Iraqi
voters turned out in greater percentages than American voters to elect a
democratic government. And despite dire predictions immediately after 9-11
that the War on Terror would be "unwinnable", there has been no terrorist
attack on US soil since then.
Despite grousing that Bin Laden hasn't been captured, we don't see much of
him anymore. I kinda like the idea of the would-be Sword of Allah living a
troglodyte existence. And yet, the Dems still grouse -- which will make them
look stupid when we do produce the body.
He's also managed to outmaneuver the Democrats at every turn. He's somehow
drawn them into fighting them on his strongest turf (and their weakest
turf) -- national security. Democratic leaders have actually taken the
following positions, then had to cravenly backtrack due to public outrage:
--Calling for retreat and surrender in Iraq, then voting against a pullout;
--Opposing spying on terrorists (despite the fact that Clinton and Carter
did it as well, and to a much greater degree), then backing off and now
supporting it; and
--Opposing the Patriot Act, bragging about killing it, then doing a 180 when
the 4 fig leaf Republican Senators changed position.
His opponents have now made statements identical to those made in Bin
Laden's tape. They have embraced Hillary Clinton in 2008, despite polls
showing that a stunning percentage of people will never vote for her (43% in
the last poll vs 26% who will). They even elected Howard Dean as head of the
DNC. I dunno...should you elect the guy that your enemies are begging you to
elect? They've embraced whack jobs like Cindy Sheehan, whose rather ugly
public nervous breakdown should be an embarrassment. They've whined about
GOP corruption, then looked like hypocrites when the same whining Democrats
turned out to have received money from the same source. And it goes on and
on and on.
Anyhow, it's amusing to hear lefties call Bush stupid. Given the way he's
utterly outmaneuvered his opponents, the Democrats must be vegetables.
>>>I am also saying that I dont' think Islam is *inherently* Evil(tm),
>>>since there appear to be not-evil interpretations of it.
>>>You got me. Christianity transformed many times over. Perhaps that's
>>>what's afoot now in Islam.
>> I see no evidence of that.
> Oh, it's out there and is significant.
Where?
> I mean Christianity as an
> agent of politics and of history, not the sort of thing
> you as a Christian would be likely to ascribe to as Christianity.
> The "render unto Creaser" parts :)
>> My point in asking the question was only to point
>> out that Muslims face a much different -- and far more difficult --
>> problem
>> than Christians did.
> That's true. But we can give significant Difficulty Points to one
> Augustine for closing Catholicism into a consistent doctrine - making it
> fit as a civil influence. He encoded several
> choice doctrines as "because that's the way it is",
> foundational almost-axioms that allowed the Church to survive.
> If Islam can have no Augustine, then it is doomed.
Um, I don't see one.
>> Christians who murdered infidels and tried to blend Church and State
>> "only"
>> had to start doing what Jesus told them to do. Not a particularly easy
>> task,
>> especially that "turn the other cheek" part. I am fortunately one of
>> those
>> rare Christians who finds it easy to turn the other cheek, love my
>> enemies,
>> etc... <grin>
>> Muslims, however, are going to have to ignore the plain words of their
>> Prophet if Islam is to become egalitarian, tolerant, enlightened and
>> peaceful. And since the Prophet and his words are considered perfect for
>> all
>> time, these hypothetical moderate Muslims will be committing apostacy by
>> arguing that his words and deeds are not all perfect for these times.
>> Hard
>> to imagine that there are many folks that will be willing to risk
>> beheading
>> like that.
> Well, it is either "oppressive and therefore doomed" or it is not.
Vegas money is on "oppressive and therefore doomed".
>> I do expect that Islam will weaken among educated Westernized Muslims
>> (who
>> will presumably understand that the freedom to blaspheme and choose your
>> faith [or no faith] are the reasons that life is really good in the West.
>> But the problem is that Western multicultural true believers have
>> sabotaged
>> the cultural assimilation of Muslims in most Western nations. The US is
>> far
>> better in this regard. And I don't expect Islam to weaken among those
>> insular groups, nor in the third world. I think that Islam's strength in
>> the
>> third world is due to its ability to blame *every* failure on the
>> infidels.
> But that's a "bridge" concept. It's sufficiently ... internally
> inconsistent that it cannot last. Yet it has. Has it?
I don't agree with you. Blaming the west for every problem is not
*inconsistent*, it's merely inaccurate. And so long as a significant
percentage of Western lefties *agree*, then the Muslims don't even have to
confront the inaccuracy of the claim.
Human history conclusively demonstrates to me that people will knowingly
engage in destructive behavior if that behavior produces pleasant results in
the short run (or prevents pain in the short run). The pleasant result/pain
prevention here is that blaming the West keeps Muslims from having to
confront the fact that their culture -- and remember, in their case culture
= religion = Islam -- has created a miserable existence for most of them.
The destructive behavior is that you cannot change your situation if you
blame everything on someone else.
> The individual people in Islamic regions are generally embittered
> by their lot in life, and the harsh interpretation of Islam follows that.
I disagree. I think that they are not "interpreting". The plain language of
the Koran and Hadiths shows an angry, violent, *bitter* ideology. You might
as well argue that Nazis are "harshly interpreting" Mein Kampf.
The bitterness and rage of Muslims is, IMHO, due to a religion that spawns
misery and brutality.
Every self-described Muslim nation sucks. Some suck more than others, but
they all suck. And I do not think that this is a mere coincidence. You have
an ideology that places little value on non-Muslim human life (and not much
more on Muslim life), that treats half of the population as property, that
is implaccably hostile to Western liberal values, etc. And that is severely
anti-intellectual. The UN Arab Human Development Project (written by Arab
scholars) notes that Spain translates more foreign books in one year than
the entire Arab world has in 10 centuries. Despite spending a great deal per
capita on education, all they seem to produce are religious fanatics.
Meanwhile, tiny Israel, with no oil or natural resources, exports computer
software, sophisticated weaponry, and a whole range of modern goods. I hear
that you can even see Israel's borders from space...the desert gets
noticably greener.
And the rest of the Muslim world isn't much better.
I don't think that they are all "misinterpreting" Islam. I think that they
are doing exactly what the Prophet commands...
> They think that the down cycle is Allah's punishment
> for bad faith, and that Allah wants more converts in
> payment.
Yeah, well, they've been pushing this line for over 1000 years, especially
in the last 400 years. Yet Allah continues to be displeased.
In any case, this makes them a threat to my civilization.
> Yet Dubai builds resorts on manmade islands.
Well, actually, Westerners design and build the resorts. The Arabs write the
checks.
>> And to channel all that resentment and hatred against a faraway foe --
>> the
>> West. The same is/was true of Marxism, I think, and Islam has spiritual
>> elements that make it more attractive than Marxism could ever be.
>> Now all of this wouldn't matter much to me, except that these lunatics
>> will
>> start getting nukes in the next few decades. And many of our political
>> leaders (mostly on the left, but an uncomfortable number on the right as
>> well) seem way too enthusiastic about appeasing these savages.
> I cannot clearly identify a course of action they could otherwise
> take. How can an Infidel effectively - *effectively* be critical
> of Islam?
By honestly acknowledging that Islam is incompatible with liberal Western
values. By adopting a policy of non-compromise on those values. Period. And
by placing the blame where it lies - with Islam itself. Oh, and by making no
concessions to a culture that views concessions as signs of weakness.
This would disarm the worst Muslim clerics by depriving them of the claim
that they have humbled the West. This should empower purported "moderate"
Muslims who presumably want to modernize their faith.
See, you cannot appease the unappeasable. All you'll accomplish is a
(possibly) fatal weakening of your position.
>> I would have agreed with you 25 years ago.
> But has it *really* changed? I submit: only in degree, and in
> the number of available electronic channels for terrorists.
I recall no 9-11 style attacks in the 1970s or 80s. After the Israelis
flattened the French nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, I don't recall a lot
of fear that terrorists would get nukes. So yes, I think things have
changed.
>> And when we make the transition
>> from an oil based energy economy, you may be right then. But I am worried
>> about the nexus of nukes (or biological weapons), rogue states and Muslim
>> terrorists.
> I think this is simple. We simply have to factor this cost in as part of
> the real cost of oil. We have to understand that what
> we pay for oil is subsidized by force of arms , and that this
> cannot work forever.
Or we can decide that the Muslims are not worth the cost and slaughter them.
I am not advocating this, I'm merely pointing out that the raw economic cost
might be outweighed by the raw economic benefit. And we might not have the
luxury of choosing one course over another. If a terrorist nuke goes off on
top of the Arc d'Triomphe, I suspect that Europe will reassess its absurd
commitment to multiculturalism and appeasement very quickly. It's
interesting that lefties openly worry about the so-called Christian right
wing taking power somewhere. Yet they seem blissfully untroubled by the
nuke-acquiring Iranian president who routinely calls for slaughtering
infidels and who's openly stated that he wants to bring about the Muslim
apocalypse. And Iran already has delivery systems that can reach Europe...
*Everything* has a cost; merely noting that fact doesn't get us very far.
It's the degree to which the benefits outweigh the cost (or vice versa) that
matter.
And I'm not much interested in being lectured by the left on energy policy,
given their religious opposition to the only real alternative to fossil
fuels -- nuclear power.
>> Of course, a candid assessment of the threat would likely lead to very
>> effective countermeasures. As I see it, the weakest link are rogue states
>> like Saddam's Iraq, Khadaffy's Libya, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, Iran,
>> etc.
>> But lefties seem to oppose the removal of *any* lunocrat anywhere if he
>> constitutes any threat to the West, so I am not optimistic.
> That's because removal of lunocrats* has worked so badly in the
> past. If the removal of Saddam doesn't work, I don't know how else to do
> it, either.
The problem is that lefties *love* to call for the removal of lunocrats in
areas with no US interests... They only get discouraged about the
effectiveness of doing so when it is in US interests to remove the lunocrat
(and if the US president is a Republican). The same people who demanded US
intervention in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and a dozen other
places, suddenly because isolationists when a Republican was elected.
Curious, that.
> Again, please look at the legal DNA of Jordan. It's
> a hybrid; it is not pure Sharia.
It still sucks. Maybe not as badly as Saudi Arabia, but that's little
comfort. And Islam recognizes no secular authority, so the situation is
terribly unstable.
>> Agreed that Muslims do not pose a credible military threat to the West.
>> And
>> if that were the sole source of danger we wouldn't be having this
>> conversation.
>> I see two other threats that I am not so sanguine about:
>> 1. Nukes and terrorism as discussed above.
> I don't think that's a problem. But I hold a MUCH more cynical
> view of the internal structure of the terrorist system.
What bothers me most about your view is that you are willing to make a huge
wager that Muslim terrorists or their leaders will behave rationally. I have
seen little in their behavior to justify such an assumption.
> Their reason d'etre is much more about self-annihilation
> than annihilation of the enemy. Its product is martyrs,
> not victory.
> A suitcase nuke simply destroys their ability to be
> terrorists. And they know this. They can't be trusted,
> but I think they're still bound by some vestige of
> reason.
I don't see anything in past experience to justify such an assumption.
> If one *is* deployed, then that's it. It'll be
> utter and total rage against Islam. I think this
> might extend to *any* sort of "other shoe dropping".
No rage will occur if the nuke fails to detonate. But if one does go off in
Europe, school's out for Islam I suspect.
> Spain doesn't apparently* count because the Spanish people
> simply quailed. We'll see how that plays out - some
> people in Spain just know better. But it is
> very uncomfortable...
No nukes though. I think that the reaction would be far different if an
attack slaughtered 50,000 people and made a radioactive ruin of a major
city.
And the terrorists flatly state that they intend to do this. Personally, I
believe them.
>> 2. The serious erosion of Western democratic traditions like free speech
>> and
>> religious tolerance caused by Western lefties who seem willing to
>> capitulate
>> to these savages on demand.
> You can't force reason :)
No, but I can identify and condemn such hypocrisy. And if enough folks
become aware of it, I think that the lefties will fail in their attempt to
destroy the West. And yes, I meant to say lefties.
>> Perhaps, but my point is sound. It is irrational to anguish over the
>> "root
>> causes" of a direct threat in lieu of dealing with that threat.
> I think those are the same thing. At least I have a
> star to steer by. And this *is* dealing with the threat,
> at least in a manner short of total war.
Uh, what is dealing with the threat?
>>>Right. And the harshness of the texts is blunted by prosperity.
>>>That's the general pattern.
>>><snip>
>> An interesting assertion when we consider the "Behead Those Who Insult
>> Islam" signs displayed by rioting Muslims in *Britain*. Or the disclosure
>> that Muslims were hiding a cache of weapons, explosives, false passports,
>> *NBC warfare suits*, etc. in the the Finsbury Park Mosque.
> I know. It's a general pattern, with lots of exceptions. I'm not
> extremely comfortable with this myself.
I respectfully submit that your theory is seriously contradicted by the
available evidence. I'd further note that you should avoid betting the farm
on such a weak hand.
>> Your assertion has a glaring assumption that I think is false -- that
>> Muslims will assimilate into Western culture and be swayed by its obvious
>> superiority.
> If they don't, then where is the superiority?
Superiority in this context is a subjective assessment. And true
assimilation is a very hard task. One that Western civilization makes harder
because it is *so* attractive.
I have had some practical experience here. Two of my 1st generation
Indian-American clients were having problems with their young adult
children. These children were engaging in behavior that horrified the
parents' cultural sensibilities, but that were quite common in mainstream
American culture. For some reason, the parents thought that I might be able
to help them understand the problem (I was their attorney). After listening
to their problem, I had to break the bad news to them. "You've raised two
*American* children. You tried to partially assimilate. You tried to blend
the best parts of American culture with the best parts of Indian culture. To
a very limited extent, you succeeded. Your children are educated and
successful compared to the average American of the same age. But that's it.
Your daughters are Americans, not Indians. And they have American values,
not Indian values. Your values are shockingly archaic and primitive to them.
And there's no going back. You have unfortunately learned the hard way that
there is no compromise with Western culture. You cannot pick and choose. The
incredible attractiveness of Western culture means that it will dominate any
other cultural values...IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. By choosing to assimilate --
you gave Western culture that chance. Had you chosen to remain insular and
separate, your children would have Indian cultural values. But then you
would not have achieved the remarkable success you have."
This experience leads me to the obvious conclusion that we should encourage
Muslims to assimilate...the exact opposite of what lefty muliculturalists
(and lunatic imams) want. Gee...shouldn't lefties be a little worried that
they agree with the fanatics on this point?
>> But what happens if these folks refuse to assimilate? And
>> worse, are actively discouraged from assimiliation by idiotic lefty
>> multiculturalists and policies?
> Dunno.
Well, I am confident that you can reason your way to the answer. Hint --
your expectation that Western culture will erode Muslim fanaticism requires
assimilation. So what if that assimilation is discouraged?
>>>I agree - it's a headache-generator, but I think we've done
>>>reaosnably well with it.
>> Yeah, I'm particularly impressed by the EU's willingness to capitulate...
> I'm just not surprised.
I guess I am. I actually imagined that there was *some* limit to their
appeasement mentality. Silly me.
>> It's only a challenge if you actually try. And I am coming to suspect
>> that
>> lefties hate the West so much that they are willing to appease intolerant
>> savages just to weaken the West. The irony is that many of these
>> empty-headed lefties will be among the first to be beheaded if the
>> Muslims
>> ever took power.
> Probably.
Probably they hate the West or probably they'd be the first against the
wall?
>>>Most people are not up to understanding the limits
>>>of tolerance, I think. Some days, I'm not
>>>either.
>> Well, I am not so sanguine. It isn't rocket science. But it does go
>> against
>> a lot of liberal religious faith (and yes, I consider multiculturalism
>> and
>> socialism to be religions).
> Right.
<sigh>
I take little comfort in our agreement.
>>>I don't think that can be overemphasized. Some people undoubtedly
>>>mutter "but they're so *committed*...." to themselves.
>> <shrug>
> No, this is significant - it leads directly to how
> Orwell observed that power works in human psychology.
>> I have little patience with the lefty canard that we cannot defeat
>> fanatics.
> They bleed like everybody else, but it's winning the *peace* that's
> hard.
Well, you gotta win the war first. And our lefties seem extremely hostile
winning any wars...
>> I think it's nothing more than lefty wishful thinking. Certainly, history
>> contradicts them. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Nazis and
>> Japanese militarists were among the most fanatical in history. Yet we
>> stomped them.
>> And yes, I think that we will win what appears to me to be a nearly
>> inevitable war between the West and Islam. But I also think that more
>> realism and less liberal hypocrisy might make that war less likely.
> Possibly.
>>>I don't wanna come off as JINGOISTIC! here, but there's a pattern.
>>>Once the funding starts...
>> It's quite interesting to assess the history of Western warfare. In
>> general,
>> the West has utterly dominated nonwestern opponents on the battlefield.
>> From
>> Marathon to Iraqi Freedom, the result is the same -- massive nonwestern
>> casualties, insignificant nonwestern casualties. The few exeptions (the
>> Mongols, at times the modern Japanese, early Muslims) are notable
>> precisely
>> because they are so rare.
> Well, the accounts of "Johnny Turk" from WWI were quite admiring.
Oh yes, we're extremely gracious in describing the valor of the people we
slaughter in droves. American generals routinely lauded the American Indians
as superb light cavalry, etc., despite the fact that they started in
Massachutsetts and wound up defending Washington state.
> The Western thing does war well because of production leverages,
> at least since the 19th Century. And I'd say it was
> logistical support that made Rome. Rome died when its tax
> base died.
I'm more persuaded that Western culture tends to produce a whole package of
benefits that synergize and lead to an overwhelming battlefield advantage.
>> The reason for this superiority is complex, but I think it fundamentally
>> boils down to culture. Western armies *tend* to be composed of a much
>> greater percentage of the "middle class" than nonwestern ones. The Greek
>> hoplites were landowners, unlike their Persian slave army foes. The
>> result
>> tends to be armies composed of men with a real stake in the outcome. The
>> western concept of war has always emphasized annihilating the enemy,
>> rather
>> than the trickery, "subtlety" and "strategy" characteristic of nonwestern
>> military theory. Compare the empty, vague, self-evident platitudes of the
>> grossly overated Sun Tzu with the brutally practical advice of George
>> Patton, for instance. My money is on Patton in a fight. And despite the
>> fond
>> hopes of theorists, you almost always win wars by destroying the enemy
>> armies in battle.
> Yes, Patton in a fight, but Ike and Churchill at the bargaining table*.
> And perhaps Marshall and MacArthur in occupation.
> We're just not Hoplites, nor are we Athenians.
Well, the Athenians fielded hoplites. And our soldiers have typically been
far more like Hoplites than our nonwestern opponents.
> *Don't start about Yalta. Feh. Face it, Stalin was a poker
> player dee-luxe :)
And FDR was an arrogant fool who refused to admit that Stalin had his
number. Churchill knew, but he was also the weakest of the three.
>> There's also the synergistic effects of egalitarianism, superior military
>> technology, the idea that armies should not be used as police, the
>> debilitating effect of warrior societies on military effectiveness, the
>> Western obsession with free flow of information, etc.
>> And the most brutal wars in terms of sheer destruction and carnage are
>> those
>> between Western opponents.
>> We see this in Iraq now -- the fanatical Warriors of Allah being routed
>> in
>> every single fight with US and British citizen soldiers. I recall one
>> battle
>> in which Allah's Warriors were firmly trounced by US military police --
>> mostly women and commanded by a woman. Marvelous. (I wonder if the
>> Warriors
>> of Allah get as many virgins if they're killed by infidel women in
>> battle?)
> But it is the lousy *statesmanship* after the battle that's led
> us this far. We have to pursue the peace; Marshall
> and MacArthur...
<shrug>
I have found that "statesmanship" is a subjective concept that usually boils
down to "what the people I like have and the people I hate lack".
Now, if you can identify specific mistakes and suggest specific, credible,
effective alternatives, then I'm all ears.
>>>I recognize it as something more like illiteracy. There but for
>>>the grace of $DEITY go I, you know? And I am probably a hypocrite
>>>more than I should be. T'aint easy.
>> Well, it is true that hypocrisy exists to some extent in all of us. But I
>> don't see how that justifies ignoring gross hypocrisy that actually
>> endangers us.
> But I disagree it is "hypocrisy" hypocrisy. It's just a significant
> weakness in our doctrine.
Sorry, but it's so glaringly obvious that I just can't accept that
explanation. I *might* accept the explanation that these lefties are
mentally incompetent. But I cannot accept that they just don't quite get it
yet.
> But "speech codes" won't help.
Funny story. In my law school First Amendment Law class, we covered "hate
speech" laws. The professor encouraged vigorous debate and I excoriated the
class lefties for their flagrant hypocrisy. These same folks had
sanctimoniously invoked the First Amendment to defend all kinds of offensive
speech that they agreed with. But suddenly, they thought it was just fine to
restrict speech they found "offensive" and "hurtful". I had a lot of fun
ripping them apart.
But then we came to flag burning. The professor called on me to defend the
Constitutionality of laws prohibiting flag burning. Now understand -- I
*despised* Americans who would burn their nation's flag. I have a number of
combat veteran friends, including my best friend. My blue collar family
provided a lot of infantrymen in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. And I'd supported
anti flag-burning laws previously.
"Well." I sanctimoniously intoned, "a lot of folks gave up their lives, lost
loved ones and sufferered crippling injuries to defend that flag. Imagine
how they feel when they see it burned. I mean this has to be incredibly
offensive, uh..." I stopped in midsentence and realized that I'd just made
the lefties' argument in favor of hate speech laws. Somehow, I realized that
my intellectual consistency was about to go down the tubes if I continued.
*Very* meekly, I said, "Professor, I just realized that I'm using the same
argument that I condemned we we were talking about hate speech laws. I can't
oppose hate speech laws and then favor laws outlawing flag burning. Both are
unconstitutional. You need someone else to defend flag burning laws." He
grinned an incredibly annoying grin and called on someone else. Since that
day, I have *never* argued for laws against flag burning. And if you think
that's easy, try discussing it with your buddy the combat veteran.
So I don't want to hear about the anguish that lefties will go through by
admitting their hypocrisy and changing their views. I've been there and done
that.
The interesting thing is that the lefties in the class got no enjoyment by
my epiphany. Yes, I now agreed with them on flag burning. But my
transformation only highlighted their own hypocrisy. They predictably railed
about flag burning laws, and still supported unconstitutional hate speech
codes. So I cruelly deprived them of their revenge. Heh. A small gain. But a
lot of pain.
>> I think that your thesis will be confirmed or disproven by the reaction
>> of
>> Europeans to the EU's craven and pathetic suggestion that they enact a
>> media
>> "speech code".
> Yeah. *Sigh*.
Yup.
>> You may be right. BUT...you are counting on gibbering fanatics to behave
>> rationally in their own self interest. I am skeptical...
> If it persists, it's not gibbering fanaticism. It's
> Organization. If you ignore Reason, then Evolution
> has her way with you...
Still unconvinced.
> But somebody in media should be able to make a good couple of bones outta
> identifying this. Unfortunately, it'll be some clown like
> Bill O'Reilly.
Or Hannity. Both men whip me...even though I often agree with them. Yuk.
--Ty
Shibumi
real character notion represents a very serious error in understanding
the Chinese pre-empire period.
Secondly the aphorisms in the treatise are global and dateless. They
are applicable at all times and in all circumstances. If you find the
text vague it is because you do not undetand it. If you find it so
general as to be of limited practical application you do not understand
it.
Finally, to suggest that the messages in the text are not valid because
history does not show the possibility of success without warfare
indicates either of two things: (a) Sun Tzu has never been well
understood and effectively deployed, or (b) it has been well understood
and effectively deployed by those who have achieved their goals without
conflict. Or notice.
Ty
> First of all there was no person ever called "Sun Tzu." The Sun Tzu as
> real character notion represents a very serious error in understanding
> the Chinese pre-empire period.
>
> Secondly the aphorisms in the treatise are global and dateless.
And often vague, dubious, self-evident or useless in a practical sense:
--When doing battle, seek a quick victory. [Really? And all along, I was
hoping for a long, drawn out war...]
-- [K]eeping an army intact is best, destroying an army second best.
[McClellan would have agreed completely with this, as would a great many
utterly mediocre commanders in history. Patton, Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov,
Grant, Sherman, Jackson and Lee would have disagreed.]
--[Among the ways a ruler can bring difficulty to his army is by ordering]
an advance when not realizing the army is in no position to advance, or to
order a withdrawal when not realizing the army is in no position to
withdraw. [What a brilliant point! Be sure your army can carry out the
orders you issue!]
--One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a
hundred battles. [Not exactly an astute point, really. Most commanders
understand the value of intelligence and accurate forecasting of
capabilities. And I dispute the "hundred battles" gibberish. The Americans
at Midway knew their enemy *and* new themselves. Yet no one would allege
they were in little danger. Even with this knowledge, it took a lucky break
to create an American victory (Yorktown's bombers hitting the Japanese
carriers with decks loaded and with the Japanese fighters scattered at low
level chasing the remnants of the US torpedo squadrons). Similar historical
examples abound... And this illustrates Sun Tzu's hidden cultural assumption
that wars can be won without fighting, I think.]
--The victorious army is like pent up waters released, bursting through a
deep gorge. [Uh, so we should all wear life preservers into battle?]
Et cetera.
> They are applicable at all times and in all circumstances.
Maybe so, but history pretty strongly suggests that Sun Tzu's doctrines
won't lead to victory if used against a Western army commanded by someone
like Patton, Rommel, etc.
I believe in very few rules that are "applicable at all times and in all
circumstances". Indeed, there are only 2 that I can immediately think of:
Beard's Law No. 3: Infinity may be defined as the difference between my
money and your money.
Beard's Law No. 29: Attractive women get far more breaks than ugly women.
> If you find the text vague it is because you do not undetand it. If you
> find it so
> general as to be of limited practical application you do not understand
> it.
Or maybe the text *is* vague and of limited practical application.
In any case, I'm not impressed by the empty "you aren't smart enough to
understand the great wise words" retort.
> Finally, to suggest that the messages in the text are not valid because
> history does not show the possibility of success without warfare
> indicates either of two things: (a) Sun Tzu has never been well
> understood and effectively deployed, or (b) it has been well understood
> and effectively deployed by those who have achieved their goals without
> conflict. Or notice.
Ah, the "no true Scotsman" cliche.
Well, Asian armies have been using versions of Sun Tzu's advice for
centuries. Indeed, a lot of Mao's gibberish was plagiarized from Sun Tzu.
But other than the Mongols and the Japanese for awhile, few have won against
Western armies on the battlefield. And I'd note that while the Mongols used
maneuver warfare to good advantage, they (a) didn't hesitate to fight
battles (violating Sun Tzu's gibberish about winning wars without fighting);
and (b) relied on maneuver only when the terrain rewarded it. I'd submit
that the Mongols developed a hybrid form of warfare that combined the best
attributes of Western and Asian military doctrines.
In any case, I will bet on generals like Patton and Zhukov. They were among
the very best generals ever produced by their nations. And they won by
destroying the enemy armies, not by acting like water.
--Ty
Shibumi
can see his own views so clearly.
kilgore trout
won an armoured engagement without massive air support. His tanks were shit.
Ty
news:uL0Kf.2994$GQ.1461@trnddc03...
> Ty wrote:
> Guderian was mediocre? What about MAnstein? Most Americans hate to admit
> it, but he never won an armoured engagement without massive air support.
> His tanks were shit.
Uh, re-read my post. I offered up Guderian and Manstein as examples of
Western generals who would obliterate the likes of Sun Tzu in a real fight.
And I'd stack Patton and Zhukov against *anyone*.
--Ty
kilgore trout
20-1. I could do that. He had stupendous casualties. Patton.....overrated. Why do you
think he was so good?Or are you just paying lip service? He didnt really have any
competition except Monty who was really a better strategist. I will grant you that Patton
had the disadvantage of a retarded CO.Ike.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> Oh no way, Zhukov....really. He never won a battle that he didnt just
> outnumber his foe by 20-1. I could do that. He had stupendous casualties.
> Patton.....overrated. Why do you think he was so good?Or are you just
> paying lip service? He didnt really have any competition except Monty who
> was really a better strategist. I will grant you that Patton had the
> disadvantage of a retarded CO.Ike.
No, I've devoted a significant amount of time to studying Patton. He's one
of those rare guys who wins at everything he does. He also maintained his
focus better than anyone. I honestly don't think that there has been a
better army commander (in the organizational sense -- a group of 2-5 corps)
in history. Due to his lack of diplomacy, he'd probably have had trouble
trying to do Ike's job.
It's been customary for military historians to deprecate Patton, especially
after the movie. Unfortunately, the movie presented an outlandish
caricature. Yes Patton was hard driving and often profane. But he also was
among the most literate, best read and best educated soldiers in our
history. He wrote more than any other general and devoted himself utterly to
the study of war. A very interesting analysis of this process of
self-education can be found in "The Patton Mind" (author escapes me). I
heartily recommend it.
--Ty
kilgore trout
> "kilgore trout" <nos...@eatme.com> wrote in message
> news:HPFKf.16228$dO2.2919@trnddc07...
>> Ty wrote:
>
>> Oh no way, Zhukov....really. He never won a battle that he didnt just
>> outnumber his foe by 20-1. I could do that. He had stupendous casualties.
>> Patton.....overrated. Why do you think he was so good?Or are you just
>> paying lip service? He didnt really have any competition except Monty who
>> was really a better strategist. I will grant you that Patton had the
>> disadvantage of a retarded CO.Ike.
>
> No, I've devoted a significant amount of time to studying Patton. He's one
> of those rare guys who wins at everything he does. He also maintained his
> focus better than anyone. I honestly don't think that there has been a
> better army commander (in the organizational sense -- a group of 2-5 corps)
> in history. Due to his lack of diplomacy, he'd probably have had trouble
> trying to do Ike's job.
>
I will grant you that last point. Yes he was no "yes man". Ike had a tough job, but he was
blinded by an irrational hatred of Germans.
> It's been customary for military historians to deprecate Patton, especially
> after the movie. Unfortunately, the movie presented an outlandish
> caricature.
I know he was a "thinker" and what we would call a "renaissance sort". I do not allow
hollywood to mold me as mush as I am able. I despise what they have done. They are
responsible for this belatted interest in Jewish travails in WW2. Today as we speak there
are three movie/docs on at the same time about the Holo or founding of Israel."Cast a
Giant Shadow" A doc about Exodus 1947 and Invincible(prewar farce about a super
Jew)(Actually based more on Isacc B SInger storys than truth), BAnned from the Bible-Hist
Channel.mmmmmm I dunno about this one, and an anti German WW1 show about atrocitys during
early days on Western Front, If all else fails we alwauys have Amys Parade on Democracy
Now which is so openly Zionist that she allowed Dershowitz to run roughshod over Prof e
Finklestein when they were "debating"(If you can call it that)It was a speech by Dersh
where he sat and called the Prof a liar, racist, traitor and even defamed his mother. So
we actually have about 4 on at the same time. This is Noon. I could do this anytime of day
in this socalled Begro History Month(Another joke)But its hard to find programming for
inventions and deeds that just dont exist.
Is this Holo month? Did I miss it. Do Germans get a month. Can you even imagine such a
thing?It sounds racist doesnt it. Even to me, but shouldnt they get one? They are evil
people, that just like to murder Jews,march, make wars, and spout politicaL SLOGANS. rIGHT?
Yes Patton was hard driving and often profane. But he also was
> among the most literate, best read and best educated soldiicers in our
> history.
nO MORE than Lee. He was a college president twice.
He wrote more than any other general and devoted himself utterly to
> the study of war.
What about Stonewall?
A very interesting analysis of this process of
> self-education can be found in "The Patton Mind" (author escapes me). I
> heartily recommend it.
>
> --Ty
>
>
And none of our WW2 leaders holds a candle to Manstein, Henrici,Guderian,even Rommel the
darling of the allies.