January 30, 2011

Southern Sudan vote: 99% for independence
— Purple Avenger

That was easy, right? Decades of violence over just like that. Well, maybe not so much...

...The vote was promised in a 2005 peace deal which ended decades of north-south conflict, AfricaÂ’s longest civil war, which cost an estimated 2 million lives...

...Northern and southern leaders still have to agree on their shared border, how they will split oil revenues after secession and the ownership of the disputed Abyei region...

Political eyewash aside, that civil war was was, at its deepest core, waged over oil to begin with going all the way back to when the Islamic Khartoum govt cut a deal with the French oil giant Total, which was repudiated by people in the south who, not unreasonably, thought the oil under their land should be theirs.

This whole "deal" and vote doesn't mean squat unless the Islamic Arabs in the north truly want peace and are willing to make genuine concessions to the heavily Christian south.

What do you suppose the real chance of that happening is - particularly with the Muslim Brotherhood feeling its oats in Egypt, which is right next door?

Slim? None? Vanishingly close to zero? Better than my chances of spotting Elvis in a 7-11 tonight?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 04:35 AM | Comments (346)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

1 More like seeing Elvis as the new leader there...

Posted by: Gmac at January 30, 2011 04:38 AM (ckslJ)

2 Damn. The Egyptians are Revolting!

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 30, 2011 04:39 AM (tJjm/)

3 Anyone see Shrillery tap dancing around the whole subject of 'transition' on the talkies this AM?

Posted by: Gmac at January 30, 2011 04:40 AM (ckslJ)

4 Slim? None? Vanishingly close to zero? Better than my chances of spotting Elvis in a 7-11 tonight?

Oh but Fox's pet priest said the Christians were OK in Egypt.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2011 04:41 AM (M9Ie6)

5 that civil war was was, at its deepest core, waged over oil to begin with

Ahh, so this is Bush's fault, too.

Posted by: Herr Blücher at January 30, 2011 04:42 AM (5DwhA)

6 O/T:  "Tourists besiege Cairo airport, but flights halt" "Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan organized an additional 10 flights to evacuate their citizens, officials at Cairo International Airport said. Among those who left were families of diplomats."

"We're going to contact the U.S. consulate, because we want them to know we're here," said Regina Fraser, co-host of the "Grannies on Safari" show on PBS, an American public access television channel. "We're going to try and figure out how the heck we're going to get back because we're very concerned there may not be any flights."
"Families of Egyptian businessmen leave Cairo" "The official said the jets left Saturday carrying dozens of family members of Egypt's business elite. He said most of the planes were headed for Dubai."

The US seems to be behind the curve on getting Americans out of there.

Posted by: curious at January 30, 2011 04:44 AM (p302b)

7 All Bush's fault - if he just "let it go" after 9-11 everything in the ME would be peaceful and prosperus by now.

Posted by: Druid at January 30, 2011 04:46 AM (RnujI)

8 The US seems to be behind the curve on getting Americans out of there.

They're not behind, they're just "bending" it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 04:51 AM (G92Fs)

9 Endless civil war ahead in Sudan. When the Three Pillars of Middle East conflict are in place -- those would be religion, land and oil -- are in play, there can be no permanent settlement. Also see: Korea, North and South.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 04:51 AM (Ulu3i)

10
  "Behind the curve"--what an apt descriptor for this administration.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 30, 2011 04:52 AM (ud5dN)

11 I blame Bush for the "Crusades" phrase after 9-11. That's what really ticked off the ME, and poor Barry is left with the consequences of this intemperate remark. As Druid said, if only Bush had just sloughed 9-11 off, the entire Muslim world would be a picture of peace, light, and understanding!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 04:54 AM (alr7n)

12 NBC news is reporting that Egypt has taken Al Jazeera off the air by revoking their license.

Posted by: curious at January 30, 2011 04:54 AM (p302b)

13 Agreed. The Sudanese vote is cover, a distraction from reality.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 04:57 AM (H+LJc)

14 Egypt has taken Al Jazeera off the air by revoking their license

In ME terms, this usually means a car bomb flattens your office.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 04:58 AM (G92Fs)

15 Behind the curve, dollar short and a day late, not the sharpest tools in the shed.  Pick the euphemism of your choice, but this is what amateur hour looks like in the big leagues. 

I'm glad I don't have any loved ones whose health depends on this clown car government.

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 04:59 AM (P18+/)

16 curious,

Al Jazeera reported that themselves @ their Live blog 30/1 - Egypt protests

From our headquarters in Doha, we keep you updated on all things Egypt, with reporting from Al Jazeera staff in Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:00 AM (H+LJc)

17

Al Jazeera in Egypt shut down by Mubarak's security forces (not the police nor the army, so wonder if this really amounts to VP Suleiman's* intelligence operatives), and subsequent confiscation of all cameras, computers, phones and media equipment from Al Jazeera staff and offices. Live blog 30/1 - Egypt protests published the photo of a woman (not related to the German dentist) holding a poster illustrating a man (to a typical American viewer, it looks like Obama in golf attire) shouting "Freedom" while waving the Egyptian flag behind overhead, as if to shout or blow down the first in a string of armed-police dominoes.

/If Egyptians lend significance to numerology, then perhaps the domino sequence has a story.
Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 09:42 AM

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:01 AM (H+LJc)

18 11 Exactly.This is a big country,we could have absorbed the blow.

Posted by: steevy at January 30, 2011 05:04 AM (G4FjE)

19 Evidently, Suleiman's armed-car intelligence decision to protect himself and Mubarak abroad, conveniently saved both men's skin while promoting Suleiman's importance to top Mubarak's inner circle of whom to trust -- whose life is owed to whom. And being in charge of intelligence, with a reputation amongst British intelligence that supersedes Mossad's chief, Suleiman holds all the goods on Mubarak. The implication being that Mubarak has been Seleiman's puppet all along.

...overnight @ 09:50 AM has the links substantiating that surmisal. 

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:04 AM (H+LJc)

20 Yes,we were very wise to elect a neophyte enigma president.

Posted by: steevy at January 30, 2011 05:09 AM (G4FjE)

21 Remarks by Pres. George W Bush at the National Endowment for Democracy 11/6/2003 Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government. http://tinyurl.com/4r62tdv The Bush foreign policy in the Middle East was clearly stated as a move to help foster democracy and freedom throughout the region. The elites said he as an idiot. Someday, Bush may actually get the credit he deserves.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 05:11 AM (TMB3S)

22

"Twitter Is Over Capacity"

 

Same thing happened during one of the Pres. debates. Annoying.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 05:13 AM (hUf/c)

23 This just in. High speed rail kills 10 in Germany.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 05:14 AM (SJ6/3)

24 Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism?

Yes.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:15 AM (N49h9)

25 My Tweeter isn't over capacity.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 05:16 AM (SJ6/3)

26 Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 10:11 AM

I disagree. The idea of using US resources to install "democracy" in the ME was not Dubya's finest hour.

What have we gotten for the efforts he began? Egypt, where our current President is babbling, Huey P. Newton-style, about the "legitimate grievances" of rioting, looting civilians, Sudan, where a new and long-lasting civil war is warming up, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and, need we say it, that shining democracy that is Saudi Arabia.

One bright, shining day, we'll have a president and government that worry about preserving our republic and lets the rest of the world deal with its own woes. And quickly kicks the shit out of any threat to this nation.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 05:18 AM (Ulu3i)

27

I can use Twitter now. Temporary bottleneck/glitch I guess. The guy linked (Lars_akerhaug) yesterday is still at it.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 05:20 AM (hUf/c)

28 One bright, shining day, we'll have a president and government that worry about preserving our republic and lets the rest of the world deal with its own woes. And quickly kicks the shit out of any threat to this nation.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 10:18 AM (Ulu3i)


Exactly. 

As our nation is being taken apart and our own federal government looks to work in the interests of everyone BUT the American citizenry, people are musing about the likelihood of a muslim free society with individual liberties.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:23 AM (N49h9)

29

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 10:18 AM (Ulu3i)

This coming from the guy who thinks the primary reason for Bush invading Iraq was to get revenge for them "trying to kill daddy". 

I wouldn't trust your analysis of international politics more than I would trust some troll from Kos.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 30, 2011 05:30 AM (A/oSU)

30 Its a good thing Hillary is in Haiti. That Egyptian thingy is a bit over her paygrade.

Posted by: Krugman: NOBEL at January 30, 2011 05:31 AM (fy8R6)

31 >>One bright, shining day, we'll have a president and government that worry about preserving our republic and lets the rest of the world deal with its own woes. And quickly kicks the shit out of any threat to this nation. If we lived in Ron Paul's world where what happens in the rest of the world had no affect on us then that would be super. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where events around the world affect us profoundly. Like it or not, the events in the Middle East have enormous impact on our economy and our safety, our way of life. We can either allow others to exert, Russia, Islamic radicals, etc., or we take steps to help the people achieve freedom. Free countries almost never go to war with each other.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 05:31 AM (TMB3S)

Posted by: curious at January 30, 2011 05:32 AM (p302b)

33

This whole "deal" and vote doesn't mean squat unless the Islamic Arabs in the north truly want peace and are willing to make genuine concessions to the heavily Christian south.

Hahahahahaha.  Like any Muz anywhere are willing to live in peace.  It's absurd.  They're animals.

We should be arming the shit out of those southern Christians.  I'm tired of seeing the US sell out the Christians world wide to the fucking Muz.  We spent considerable blood and treasure to "liberate" (neutralize) Iraq, and the primary social change the Iraqis have brought about as a result is to murder every Christian and Jew they can get their dirty hands on. 

I say we should supply the southerly Sudanese with whatever form of weaponry they ask for short of nukes, so long as they promise to use those weapons and are capable of maintaining and deploying them.  We should also be training them so they can fight like a modern force, and at the same time help them to develop their own oil industry to help pay for all those weapons. 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 05:33 AM (4nbyM)

34 One bright, shining day, we'll have a president and government that worry about preserving our republic and lets the rest of the world deal with its own woes. And quickly kicks the shit out of any threat to this nation. Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 10:18 AM (Ulu3i) Turning the Islamic World into a sea of peaceful democratic republics is in the strategic interests of the United States.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:33 AM (n0WLs)

35 this isn't an American naval vessel right?

Posted by: curious at January 30, 2011 10:32 AM (p302b)

Are the letters INS any clue?

Posted by: Tami at January 30, 2011 05:35 AM (VuLos)

36 After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957.

Of course, Japan and Germany were beaten to absolute pulps (with between 5 and 10% of their entire populations killed and cities reduced to ashe) and only then then had systems imposed on them without any "cultural considerations", along with totally defanging them.  Japan was essentially reacculturated, and done in such a way that would constitute a "crime against humanity" these days - which is the key.  And islam, which is what it is, was not involved in either case.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:36 AM (N49h9)

37 Maybe Ebola changed it to Indonesian States Ship.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:36 AM (n0WLs)

38 Turning the Islamic World into a sea of peaceful democratic republics is in the strategic interests of the United States.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 10:33 AM (n0WLs)

It's also a dangerous pipe-dream.  It certainly can be done, but that would require a level of ruthlessness and cultural insensitivity (actually, cultural imposition) in pursuing it that no one has the stomach for, anymore.  Further, any such move is now considered "illegal" by the laughable Geneva Conventions.  That's okay.  All of the winning tactics and strategies of WWII are now "illegal" too, meaning that WWII would turn out quite differently today.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:39 AM (N49h9)

39 Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 10:36 AM (N49h9) So, the new Iraq we and Iraqis and others created in the 8 eight years is what: a joke, a failure, doomed to fail?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:39 AM (n0WLs)

40 18 Yes and we could even say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" 21 The Japanese turned around their centuries old culture because of two atomic explosions from a "no conditional surrender" opponent, that then on went to occupy, reorganize, and restructure the Japanese society in a fundamental way. India had considerable exposure to the concepts of British law and citizenship models and was not a dominantly Muslim society. When push came to shove, the Indian people decided that an Indian democracy was the best form of government for them. This won't work in most places especially in teh ME. Bush and other neoconservative elites probably really believed in the concept that "every person has the ability and the right to be free". Unfortunately for the rest of us, this "right" recognized in very few parts of the Middle East (or any Islamic society), and you can't change 14+ centuries of indoctrination by dropping a few conventional weapons and hanging a dictator or three.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 05:39 AM (alr7n)

41 curious it's indian

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 05:40 AM (eOXTH)

42 This all happened because al Bashir and Turabi deposed al Mahdi back in  1989, who gave a farthing for the people of Darfur, once upon a time, being a politician, he ultimately ended up backing Al Bashir and the Janjaweed.  I could imagine a similar fate for the Copts, in a  MB regime,

Posted by: justin cord at January 30, 2011 05:40 AM (2C3OH)

43 It's also a dangerous pipe-dream. It certainly can be done, but that would require a level of ruthlessness and cultural insensitivity (actually, cultural imposition) in pursuing it that no one has the stomach for, anymore. Further, any such move is now considered "illegal" by the laughable Geneva Conventions. That's okay. All of the winning tactics and strategies of WWII are now "illegal" too, meaning that WWII would turn out quite differently today. Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 10:39 AM (N49h9) The idea is you plant a few seeds and they eventually replace the native plant life. It is supposed to take decades. I suspect a certain narrow vision on your part.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:41 AM (n0WLs)

44 Any lasting peace will require the killing of the islamists.

Posted by: pst314 at January 30, 2011 05:41 AM (wKfRY)

45 So, the new Iraq we and Iraqis and others created in the 8 eight years is what: a joke, a failure, doomed to fail?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 10:39 AM (n0WLs)

We'll see what Iraq ends up being.  That story is far from over.  In the mid-term, I would say that it's doomed to fail.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:43 AM (N49h9)

46 (from NR last night)


AndyÂ’s right that Hamas has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.  So does SudanÂ’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, EgyptÂ’s neighbor to the south, who came to power in a coup and ruled as the head of the National Islamic Front until the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement when an interim constitution was adopted.  In December, Bashir announced to supporters, “If south Sudan secedes, we will change the constitution and at that time there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicityÂ… Sharia and Islam will be the main source for the constitution, Islam the official religion and Arabic the official language.”  This, of course, follows Muslim Brotherhood principles. This month, the south did apparently vote for secession (official results due in a week or so).  This means Egypt could eventually be part of a vast new Ikwan Islamic state from Gaza to the northern border of the new Republic of South Sudan.

Posted by: pam at January 30, 2011 05:43 AM (uDwml)

47 Ron Paul's strategy would have led to a German Europe by 1942, and a Japanese Pacific Rim.

But it's nice to think that he'd be willing to deal with the Axis global power once it came knocking at San Francisco.

Posted by: nickless at January 30, 2011 05:43 AM (aemFw)

48 As for Sudan, a quick and peaceful split is not likely.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:43 AM (n0WLs)

49 "The idea is you plant a few seeds and they eventually replace the native plant life"

A little weeding can help the process along.

Posted by: pst314 at January 30, 2011 05:44 AM (wKfRY)

50

Of course, Japan and Germany were beaten to absolute pulps (with between 5 and 10% of their entire populations killed and cities reduced to ashe) and only then then had systems imposed on them...

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 10:36 AM (N49h9)

All true.  But let's also not forget that the Germans and Japanese of the 1930's, well before any imposed reformation, were still 100 times more civilized than the best the muslim world has to offer.  They actually had decent civil culture to begin with.  The muslims can't even acknowledge that military defeat and decimation of their population can really mean anything other than a tactica adjustment is in order.  The lives of people outside his clan mean nothing to a muslim.  Most of them already live in conditions we'd consider deplorable - what's a little more rubble one way or another?  Especially when the world is afflicted with Western do-gooders intent on patching everything back together.

They're unsalvageable vermin.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 05:45 AM (4nbyM)

51 "The idea is you plant a few seeds and they eventually replace the native plant life" A little weeding can help the process along. Posted by: pst314 at January 30, 2011 10:44 AM (wKfRY) We did a lot of that in Iraq, are doing a fair amount in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not nearly enough in Iran.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:46 AM (n0WLs)

52 When the Three Pillars of Middle East conflict are in place -- those would be religion, land and oil -- are in play, there can be no permanent settlement.

McScribbler, you're right.

Our foreign policy is convoluted. In chorus with Kratos: in the end, chaos. The only cohesion I can see meshes pro-Islamic domination. Our neoconservative socialist federal government policy in force is pro-Islam and anti-Christian while carrying on a never ending war in Islam.

So far as taking sides, the US straddling the fence as it does divides to destroy each of our own motivating interests. The region's indigenous Christians who predate Muslim subjugation have no friend or voice in the US Federal Government, including Reagan's administration, even when the S.Dafur natural resourced located Christians have what the US industry demands. They are left unaided to starve and be tortured until no longer existent, leaving the oil to the Muslim aggressors. The US is complicit in the genocide of the MidEast Christians.

When indigenous dogma eschews the "liberator" and fights to the death rather than having their hearts and minds won by those bringing "evil" to conquer tradition, the only way to "win" such a cultural/military war in an indigenous dogmatic ancient tribal culture is genocide. (Better not to have begun something that one cannot or will not finish. I don't buy the current wave of neoconservative propaganda praising GWBush clarity with the MidEast.) Oddly, the Dafur Christians are not dogmatic as to refusing peaceful coexistence with Muslim neighbors and the "socialist international community"; nor are the Dafur Christians dogmatic about refusing to develop their tribal region's natural resources in a manner friendly with international free trade, or even in a manner of being subjugated.

To date, the US citizenry don't yet want to endorse or participate in genocide. If we were as a nation to vote which population in Dafur to support, at least the funding providing participation in the genocide would have democratic substantiation, expressing the will of the American people. Obviously things don't "work" that way in Washington, as the establishment keeps reminding the Tea Party movement. Since such decisions are made by administrative bureaucrats, it's best and long past overdue to clip the wings of our own congressional and administration's corruption. When drowning, it's best to get out of the water.

Rand Paul's stance in interview with Blitzer, to retain tax funds in the US proper in order for our own government to function constitutionally and without bankruptcy during the current economic and unemployment crises,  makes sense even more when we see the vain fallacy of US "compassionate" efforts to buy alliance via bribe or via loans that will never be repaid, or via sales that will never be reimbursed.

/Alinsky styled attacks against Rand Paul only muddy the water.


Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:47 AM (H+LJc)

53 They're unsalvageable vermin. Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 10:45 AM (4nbyM) Every single one?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:48 AM (n0WLs)

54 India was able to establish a Democracy because they split off the Muzzies to Pakistan.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2011 05:49 AM (M9Ie6)

55

PA's convinced that a guy is gonna walk up to him in the 7-11 and ask, "Are you lonesome tonight?"

Posted by: The Q at January 30, 2011 05:49 AM (AXHCj)

56 /Alinsky styled attacks against Rand Paul only muddy the water. Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 10:47 AM (H+LJc) You mean Ron Paul, right?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 05:50 AM (n0WLs)

57 Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 10:45 AM (4nbyM)

Very true.  The Germans of the 19th century were the epitome of civilization (which is really what made the Holocaust so bad, since it showed that society could easily go from the most advanced to the most barbaric in the blink of an eye) and the Japanese were smart and had a very keen cultural sense of what losing actually meant.

Arabs, on the other hand, have none of these qualities.  I wonder how many people know that Egyptians think, and teach their kids, that they won the '73 war.  Seriously.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 05:50 AM (N49h9)

58 US tax funds are misappropriated and disappear through sticky fingers along the way never reaching "intended" target, somehow funding enemies of the USA.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:51 AM (H+LJc)

59 eman, Rand Paul.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 05:51 AM (H+LJc)

60 44 If that is the case, then I am all for lasting peace.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 05:52 AM (SJ6/3)

61
Every single one?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 10:48 AM (n0WLs)

There are always a few individuals who are deviant from the norm, and therefore salvageable.  We don't have the luxury of sorting them out, nor do we have the means given that their culture regards truth as essentially meaningless and flasehood as a legitimate tool for dealing with nonbelievers. 

Kill them all.  God will recognize his own.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 05:53 AM (4nbyM)

62 This means Egypt could eventually be part of a vast new Ikwan Islamic state from Gaza to the northern border of the new Republic of South Sudan.

I generally consider the unified "Arab Nation" notion to be untenable.  Historically, whenever there weren't Jews or Christians handy to kill, the Arabs have been quite willing to kill each other.

The traditional Arab narrative has this internecine conflict state of affairs not happening during the Caliphate, but that's pretty much a crock.  The vast majority won't be happy with the methods used by any Caliphate to generate such a peace.

Toss in the wild card of the black gold, and all bets are off.  Oil rich areas aren't going to just share their wealth with oil poor areas out of Islamic brotherly good will and bonhomie.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 05:54 AM (fpjWk)

63 Lasting peace in our time.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 05:57 AM (SJ6/3)

64 We take great offense at your remarks.

Posted by: Councilm of American Unsalvagable Vermin Relations at January 30, 2011 05:59 AM (SJ6/3)

65  I wonder how many people know that Egyptians think, and teach their kids, that they won the '73 war.  Seriously.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 10:50 AM (N49h9)

Great point!  I forgot about that.  I once read a great quote attributed to an English woman touring the Middle East when it was part of the Empire.  I can't remember the words she used, but basically what she observed was that the Arabs would cover any inconvenient or embarrassing truth with a huge mountain of lies, and repeat those lies so often that they believed them themselves.

To date, the US citizenry don't yet want to endorse or participate in genocide

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 10:47 AM (H+LJc)

This is why we can never win.  All we're doing is scrambling to prevent the inevitable - the day when they finally manage to beat us.  Because they'll never stop attacking, and eventually they'll get a modern day Saladin.  Somebody with enough brains to be effective.

Imagine if we'd been stupid enough to try to make a parallel society work with the Native Americans.  It would have been civil war without end.  Wiping them out was necessary.  It was wrong to make treaties based on lies and crooked dealing - but the job had to get done, and it was done.  We're lucky it was.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 06:00 AM (4nbyM)

66

54

Even that failed, though, because there are more Muslims in India today than in all of Pakistan.

Posted by: The Q at January 30, 2011 06:01 AM (AXHCj)

67 If advanced Nations in a period of decades can collapse to nightmares like Nazi Germany, why can't backward nations be uplifted in decades? BTW, Germany's history in the last 100 years shows we should be careful in judging how firmly rooted good behavior is in a nation or people, and be careful about facades. Nations are constantly in flux and the best we can hope to do is steer them and ourselves towards good outcomes.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:01 AM (n0WLs)

68 True the Caliphates, went from Ummayad (Damascus) to Abbasid (Baghdad) to Fatimid (Cairo) and  Ottoman Turks

Posted by: justin cord at January 30, 2011 06:03 AM (2C3OH)

69 We come in peace.

Posted by: Council of American Unsalvagable Vermin Relations at January 30, 2011 06:03 AM (SJ6/3)

70 Jack, Bush made that point even more powerfully in his Whitehall address of November 19, 2003. It still astonishes me that Bush denounced American policy toward the Middle East since WWII:
"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle
East. Your nation [Britain] and mine in the past have been
willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the
sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to
overlook the faults of local elites.

"Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe.
It merely bought time while problems festered and
ideologies of violence took hold.

"As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye
to oppression just because the oppression is not in our
own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is
benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny
is never benign to its victims and our great democracies
should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

"Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy
of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently
challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies
of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our
friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities
in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of
democracy we have begun.

"There were good-faith disagreements in your country
and mine over the course and timing of military action
in Iraq. Whatever has come before, we now have only
two options: to keep our word or to break our word.

"The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people
back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists
who wish to destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in
Iraq, because our will is firm, our word is good and
the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom."


Posted by: Brown Line at January 30, 2011 06:03 AM (9HKEM)

71 Sorry about the big type - it looked much smaller when I pasted it into the box.

Posted by: Brown Line at January 30, 2011 06:04 AM (9HKEM)

72

57  I wonder how many people know that Egyptians think, and teach their kids, that they won the '73 war.

That bit of self-delusion actually worked in our benefit - the Egyptian "victory" allowed the public to become comfortable with Sadat, who then had the freedom and the gall to make peace with the Israelis.

Probably cost him his life, though, thanks to some of the "unsalvagables".

Posted by: The Q at January 30, 2011 06:04 AM (AXHCj)

73 Ooh big letters. Impressive.

Posted by: Council of American Unsalvagable Vermin Relations at January 30, 2011 06:04 AM (SJ6/3)

74 Imagine if we'd been stupid enough to try to make a parallel society work with the Native Americans. It would have been civil war without end. Wiping them out was necessary. It was wrong to make treaties based on lies and crooked dealing - but the job had to get done, and it was done. We're lucky it was. Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 11:00 AM (4nbyM) Should the Confederates have been exterminated? You know, completely remove the threat. Let God sort them out?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:05 AM (n0WLs)

75 India was able to establish a Democracy because they split off the Muzzies to Pakistan.
Posted by: Vic

Both India and Pakistan chose federal parliamentary systems of government.

The British arbitrarily designated part of India to be Pakistan as if separation would settle problems between the Hindi and Muslims. It wasn't exactly India's choice to lose territory and enforce population removals to territory according to faith regardless of private property rights.

India earned its independence through decades of passive aggressive peaceful protest; and established Parliamentary governance because they chose to replicate and perpetuate the British bureaucracy, managed without the British in control. I listened to a dialogue on PBS regarding the progression India made in its relations with Britain following the hardships of colonialism. Oddly enough, the traditions of British bureaucracy highly regarded in India is the government jobs for the massive population in need of orderly employment. hm.

Pakistan is a Democracy. It isn't as if Muslims don't have Democracies, especially given the 20th Century era of secular Turkey.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 06:05 AM (H+LJc)

76 Walk Lose our Internet access like an Egyptian:

Committee Passes Plan for Internet Kill Switch in Egypt U.S.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 30, 2011 06:07 AM (9hSKh)

77 --I generally consider the unified "Arab Nation" notion to be untenable.  Historically, whenever there weren't Jews or Christians handy to kill, the Arabs have been quite willing to kill each other.

That's very true, but pan-arab nationalism is pretty much gone, these days.  It's a pan-islamic nationalism that is gonig on, which is much stronger glue.  The Ottomans had no love for the arabs, and vice versa and all in between, but they held their empire together ... until they got their asses kicked in WWI.

Obviously, inter-arab battles would continue under any system, but islamic glue could still hold them together against the infidels.

--The traditional Arab narrative has this internecine conflict state of affairs not happening during the Caliphate, but that's pretty much a crock.  The vast majority won't be happy with the methods used by any Caliphate to generate such a peace.

That's also true, but the Caliphate never required that its popualtion be happy with them.  Don't forget, islam means "submission".  THat is the core of islamic culture.  It's why muslims have to kiss the ground 5 times a day - to remind themselves of their ultimate submission and to never forget how insignificant they are as individuals.

--Toss in the wild card of the black gold, and all bets are off.  Oil rich areas aren't going to just share their wealth with oil poor areas out of Islamic brotherly good will and bonhomie.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 10:54 AM (fpjWk)

This is the major reason why any sort of democracy is doomed to failure in the muslim world.  There's too much wealth to fight over.

In the end, all threats from the arab/persian/muslim world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields.  Without those fields, the arabs *might* have a chance at building self-rule with individual liberties. With those fields, there's too much money and power in the hands of their leaders, which means that any free governments will constantly be under threat and that power that comes from the fields will continue to be used to fuel the threats against the rest of the world.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 06:07 AM (N49h9)

78 Brown Line at January 30, 2011 11:03 AM

Truth cutting both ways, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 06:07 AM (H+LJc)

79

By the way, that'd be a pretty good movie name.

Jason Statham, Paul Walker, and Dwayne Johnson ARE

The Unsalvagables

Posted by: The Q at January 30, 2011 06:07 AM (AXHCj)

80 In this case we could just not let them in, and deport the rest. Any with citizenship should be deported and stripped of citizenship, as being a muslim American is an overt act of sedition and high treason.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 06:08 AM (SJ6/3)

81 Toss in the wild card of the black gold, and all bets are off.  Oil rich areas aren't going to just share their wealth with oil poor areas out of Islamic brotherly good will and bonhomie.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 10:54 AM (fpjWk)

 

And as the situation worsens in the ME we'll still be alright because we'll be able to get along with windmills and solar power. The fact that developing our own resources has been thwarted for years doesn't matter as long as we're GREEN.

Posted by: PoconoJoe at January 30, 2011 06:09 AM (EkqvF)

82

I generally consider the unified "Arab Nation" notion to be untenable.  Historically, whenever there weren't Jews or Christians handy to kill, the Arabs have been quite willing to kill each other.

Anybody remember the U.A.R.?

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 30, 2011 06:10 AM (7+pP9)

83 The 1% from Southern Sudan who did not vote "Yes", are they members of the People's Front of Sudan, or the Sudanese People's Front?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:11 AM (n0WLs)

84 Anybody remember the U.A.R.? Posted by: Ed Anger at January 30, 2011 11:10 AM (7+pP9) Yep.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:12 AM (n0WLs)

85 Without those fields, the arabs *might* have a chance at building self-rule with individual liberties. With those fields, there's too much money and power in the hands of their leaders, which means that any free governments will constantly be under threat and that power that comes from the fields will continue to be used to fuel the threats against the rest of the world.
Posted by: iknowtheleft

So for their own good, usurp their gulf oil fields because that much wealth and power wouldn't corrupt whoever.

I'd rather utilize our own resources to strengthen our own economy.

I'd rather vote out the US fascists from my own government than fight international military engagements on behalf of those US fascists currently running the US Federal Government as authoritarians, oblivious to the US Constitution except in their joy of revisionism for revision's sake (the reason for Marxist "modern art" for its own sake, or for that matter, Marx for his own sake).

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 06:15 AM (H+LJc)

86 Should the Confederates have been exterminated?

You know, completely remove the threat.

Let God sort them out?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:05 AM (n0WLs)

Our differences with the Southerners, as a collective, were essentially political.  We did not have a deep cultural and ethnic divide in the way we did with the N.A. people.  Same religion (in the general sense) and a world view that was 90+% shared.  They, like us, recognized that once the war was over, it was over.  As a result we didn't find ourselves fighting an interminable insurgency.  They agreed with the Unionists on the basic rules of behavior - the Western way of war, as it were, and also of peace. 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 06:16 AM (4nbyM)

87

Islamist states, by their ideological nature (and philosophical bent) never really become stable (and free, democratic, and open shouldn't even be brought up in jest).

Of course there won't be peace in the Sudan -- this succession, along with the situation in Eygpt sets up a situation where the muslim "brothers" get to declare war (with the appropriate outrage to get it kick started).  Then they get to slaughter southern Sudanese Christians to their hearts' content (and it won't stop them from killing any of their fellow mohammedans who might have some qualms with anything they do or those who might want to challenge them for power; it also won't stop them from exporting terrorism either).  These will be drawn out, long lasting wars of terror, intimidation, and attrition -- that's the only sort of war any Islamist state can actually win.

Recent history has told us that.  It wasn't that Bush had a bad idea, but it wasn't implemented nearly as strongly as it needed to be, nor for half as long.  I blame a lot of this on the left, which is in bed with Islamism, and a bit on the citizens of the West -- who appear to have lost their stomachs and their spines (they'd better find them soon, if it isn't too late already).

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 06:19 AM (5/yRG)

88 >>It still astonishes me that Bush denounced American policy toward the Middle East since WWII: And he was right. Condi Rice made the same point in Cairo of all places in (IIRC) 2006 when she said something to the effect: We have pursued a strategy for 60 years of security over peace and we have gotten neither. Her words were not well received by the Mubarak's of the region and those who seem to think Muslim states can never be democratically ruled. For many years the populations of most of the Muslim states were trapped in totalitarian states with very little contact with the outside world. What they knew of the world is what they were told by their gov'ts and those gov'ts kept a lid on things by playing a very duplicitous game of blaming all of their ills on the Great Satan while dealing with us for security. It's no surprise that among the first things Mubarak did was to shut down the internet and communications. But it won't work. The population in Egypt is largely young and even the poorest are seeing that the world is not what they were told. It's absurd to think that the Middle East is entirely made up of savages who don't want what people everywhere want, a better life for themselves and their children. Travel around the Middle East and you will see that where ever liberalization has been brought in, the people are more free, more friendly and desirous of peace and stability and where ever repression is the highest it is just the opposite and radicalism is viewed as a viable if not the only solution. The Middle East is coming out of the dark. The era of repression is lifting for many states right before our eyes. We can either help foster their efforts to more open and democratic states or we can let those who want to institute a new era of religious oppression dominate.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 06:19 AM (TMB3S)

89 This whole situation helps to illustrate the fundamental truth that the US providing MORE of its own energy resources (ie, competing in the world oil market, or at least using domestic oil production to leverage US influence over those markets) in the bigger picture is pro-peace and anti-despot. 'Green' shit (ie, US withdrawing from production in some vain dream of making windmills rule the world) is simply pro-dictator and anti-peace and stability.

Us producing our own oil takes away power and money from people who are real scum, and those who want to fight with them over those valuable resources.

Posted by: nickless at January 30, 2011 06:20 AM (wgkZv)

90 Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 11:16 AM (4nbyM) Didn't Native Americans do the same thing? Didn't they surrender when defeated and give up their fight? They were not exterminated, BTW. Are you truly proposing the extermination of 1.2 billion people because you can't come up with a better answer?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:21 AM (n0WLs)

91 So for their own good, usurp their gulf oil fields because that much wealth and power wouldn't corrupt whoever.

I'd rather utilize our own resources to strengthen our own economy.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 11:15 AM (H+LJc)

But, they aren't "their fields".  THey didn't build them.  They had almost nothing to do with them.  The Saudis STILL don't have the ability to run and maintain the Saudi fields.

We let them steal those fields in the forced nationalization waves of the mid-20th century.  ANd what have they done with the free cash that has flowed from the fields?  THey have destabilized the civilized world as much as they were able.  Of course, some little places have used it to build - a mile high office building in the desert (where space is not at a premium) and a sinking man-made island chain ... but most have squandered the trillions in free money to harm the free world.

Retaking the oil fields would not be for their good.  I couldn't care less about what helps or harms arabs. They aren't my concern.  Taking the fields is a necessity if the West ever wants to end the serious threats to us that emanate from the arab/persian/muslim world.  It is just a lucky consequence for the arabs that without control of the fields they would possibly be able to form semi-civilized free societies, but that is not the reason for what I said.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 06:21 AM (N49h9)

92 @86  At the end of WWII, there were plenty of people who wanted to annihilate the Japanese, and more than a few who wanted the same for the Germans, including the Treasury Secretary.  It is difficult to argue that we lack a cultural affinity with the Germans.  As for the Japanese, many doubted that they would ever be persuaded to give up militarism given their penchant for fighting to the death.  They were seen as subhuman. 

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 06:23 AM (P18+/)

93 Should the Confederates have been exterminated?

You know, completely remove the threat.

Let God sort them out? Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:05 AM

What has to be borne in mind -- and Dubya and the rest of the "democratic nation-building" crowd have never understood this -- is that the ME is nothing like the Western world. Despite Osama Obama's best efforts, we do not have a controlling religion based on pre-medieval savagery or a social structure that condemns a vast majority of the population to eternal poverty.

The Confederates at least had a shared heritage and moral code with the Union. When the Civil War ended, there was a reasonable expectation that the nation could be healed. As it was.

Conversely, in the ME there are tribal differences and simmering centuries-old hatreds that keep the Arab world permanently separate from the West. The Arabs cannot unify, except in violence, and that's temporary.

We waste lives and resources trying to impose a system there that is fundamentally unacceptable to the Muzzies. We cannot get the notion through our heads that they do not think the way we do, and never will.

Despite what some of the armchair philosopher/diplomats commenting here think, nation-building is an objective that cannot be achieved absent the conditions that imposed "regime change" in Japan after WWII, and the efforts have come at an ungodly cost to ourselves.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 06:25 AM (Ulu3i)

94 ...being a muslim American is an overt act of sedition and high treason.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 30, 2011 11:08 AM (SJ6/3)

Indeed it is. 

The first mosque wasn't built in the US until 1915.  This country wasn't developed by them, settled by them, nor meant for them in any way.  They are alien to our way of life.  If the Founding Fathers could have imagined that Americans of the future would allow them to settle is mass numbers on this soil (no doubt unthinkable in those days), they almost certainly would have reconsidered the wording of the Constitution. 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 06:26 AM (4nbyM)

95

El baradei has joined proesters in Tahrir (sp?) Square.

Per the Twitterverse.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 06:27 AM (hUf/c)

96 >>You don't read your history much, do you. >>There is no peace within Islam. Not for you, not for me, not for anyone. I read quite a bit of history. More importantly, I have and continue to travel throughout the Middle East. You?

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 06:29 AM (TMB3S)

97 89 There are a lot of people in the ME who are coming out of the dark, true Jack.  However, that makes it all the more dangerous: the totalitarian, theocratic ideology that holds sway there cannot exist in a free, open, and democratic society; I'm not so sure it can exist as it is in a state of high civilization.  So, looking at it from a naturalist's pov, that organism will double, treble its efforts to keep control, to keep on existing.  That's where we are at now in regards to the ME, imho.  It will take a long time and a lot of blood and treasure to eradicate that organism (an organism that is aggressive in its defense: it has eyes on us as well as keeping its foothold in the ME).  We are not taking this fight seriously, which means we could very well lose (so will those in the ME who desire freedom and the advancement of their societies).

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 06:29 AM (5/yRG)

98 O/T -- Not Sudan, but close.  A new poll shows two Repubs within striking distance of Debbie Stabmenow.  My linky disappeared, but it's at Insty for our Michigan/political junky Morons.

Posted by: RushBabe at January 30, 2011 06:29 AM (urYpw)

99 Despite what some of the armchair philosopher/diplomats commenting here think, nation-building is an objective that cannot be achieved absent the conditions that imposed "regime change" in Japan after WWII, and the efforts have come at an ungodly cost to ourselves. Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 11:25 AM (Ulu3i) So, Iraq is a failure, it just doesn't know it yet? The Confederates possessed a moral code that allowed them to buy and sell human beings like donkeys. To destroy families. Murder people at will and live off the fruits of their labors like parasites. Is this the moral code that helped them escape extermination by the North?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:31 AM (n0WLs)

100

 "Behind the curve"--what an apt descriptor for this administration.

That invoked a mental image of the president peeking out from behind Hillary's cankles.  Eesh.

Posted by: Mama AJ, who likes to share her pain at January 30, 2011 06:32 AM (XdlcF)

101

This whole "deal" and vote doesn't mean squat unless the Islamic Arabs in the north truly want peace and are willing to make genuine concessions to the heavily Christian south.

What do you suppose the real chance of that happening is

Well, if the US would support the Christian South, they might have a chance.  But Odipstick will of course support the Muzzie North.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 30, 2011 06:33 AM (xdHzq)

102

102 My eldest was there: she thinks that Iraq "has a chance", but we pulled out way too soon and did not properly address Iran (which she believed was ripe for change, but we missed the golden opportunity) -- both of which iho, needed to be done.  She believes at this point Iraq could very well be lost, at the best, their chances are much slimmer.

I tend to take her word on this as she was/is much closer to the source.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 06:34 AM (5/yRG)

103 Arabs, on the other hand, have none of these qualities.  I wonder how many people know that Egyptians think, and teach their kids, that they won the '73 war.  Seriously.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 10:50 AM (N49h9)

And how many American children think that the MILITARY lost Viet Nam?

Few know that there were a coupld of years after we signed a Peace treaty, and pulled our troops out, where there was relative Peace...

Then the North sent in some minor raids after hearing that our own Law would stop us from supporting the South... and when we did not do anything, even with Air Power... sent their regular army across the border.

Viet Nam was not lost, it was betrayed and given away, by our own Congress.

Yet, that is not what is taught to our children (was pretty funny when my daughter wrote a paper on that subject for a history class... Teacher got pissed...).

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 06:34 AM (AdK6a)

104 Well, if the US would support the Christian South, they might have a chance. But Odipstick will of course support the Muzzie North. Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 30, 2011 11:33 AM (xdHzq) I say go with the religion of peace every time!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 06:34 AM (alr7n)

105 BTW, has the US embassy in Cairo been evacuated yet?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 30, 2011 06:35 AM (xdHzq)

106 Don't worry, George Clooney and his Hollywood friends are going to defend the new country.

The civil war is over, and the plain old war begins.

Posted by: PJ at January 30, 2011 06:36 AM (QdxaI)

107 The Confederates possessed a moral code that allowed them to buy and sell human beings like donkeys. To destroy families. Murder people at will and live off the fruits of their labors like parasites. Is this the moral code that helped them escape extermination by the North?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:31 AM

And there was none of that in the Union?

Damn, I've been reading the wrong history books. This is incredibly simplistic.

It is also a structure that this country grew out of, on its own.

The United States didn't need the massive aid and foreign military presence we have squandered in the ME to become a free nation.

In fact, your "Confederate moral code" sounds like the structure that controls the ME. Shall we invade and change them by outside military force? I'd prefer that to the endless dispersing of our resources to prop up despots and arm savages to fight each other and, eventually, us.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 06:37 AM (Ulu3i)

108 reactionary..... i think your bigotry is being to show.....i agree that we are a nation founded on christian judeo values but people of other religions are actually allowed here...they just need to follow our laws....they even get to practice their religion here as long as it isn't in direct conflict with our laws....by your standards...hindus, buddhists, shintos, hell...even native americans aren't welcome.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 06:38 AM (eOXTH)

109 I just want to know who the 1% are who thought it would be better to stay aligned with the North.  Perhaps they were Obama voters who got lost on teh way to Mecca.

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 06:39 AM (P18+/)

110 I think Natural Selection is at work in World politics and has always been. When the Freedom Mutation was born it took root in relative isolation, then began to spread. I think Freedom is a stronger selecting force than religion and tribalism and tyranny. It will eventually replace all other political species, but as it is in Nature, it won't be pretty and it won't be linear. For example, a New caliphate could form, but it would not stop the inevitable. It too will be replaced.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:39 AM (n0WLs)

111 Oh, this is the 99% that's being enslaved by the Muslims up north. Sure, I'd vote for independence too. And I'm sure the guys up north will cheerfully grant it to me.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at January 30, 2011 06:40 AM (gmKGN)

112 The Confederates possessed a moral code that allowed them to buy and sell human beings like donkeys. To destroy families. Murder people at will and live off the fruits of their labors like parasites. Is this the moral code that helped them escape extermination by the North?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:31 AM (n0WLs)

Slavery wasn't universally supported even in the South - they just weren't about to be told by outsiders what they could or couldn't do.  Slavery had been part of the human condition for millenia, and was only just changing that century (largely thanks to the Brittish Empire).  But even if we take the arguement at face value, the fact is that we have more in common with 19th Century Southerners that we ever could have in common with Muz.  The Muz practice human slavery TO THIS DAY.  You can buy women and children in slave markets in the ME with no trouble.  At least the Southerners were not known to breed black children for the purpose of child molestation.  Among the muslims the rape of prepubescent children is perfectly acceptable.

That, all by itself, condemns them.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 06:41 AM (4nbyM)

113 they just need to follow our laws....they even get to practice their religion here as long as it isn't in direct conflict with our laws..... Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 11:38 AM

This is the nut of the whole thing, phoenixgirl.

We know from experience that too many Muzzies are not willing to "co-exist" with other religions. They want preferential-- not equal --  treatment in our nation. And their enablers, led by Osama Obama's regime, want them to have that.

Those who live as Americans should always be welcome. Others who expect to freely follow the beliefs and codes of the savage societies from whence they came should be sent back.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 06:44 AM (Ulu3i)

114 by your standards...hindus, buddhists, shintos, hell...even native americans aren't welcome.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 11:38 AM (eOXTH)

Not at all.  Those others don't have "religions" that demand the power of state and are intrinsically enemies of Judaism and Christianity - as part of their ideologies.

You are aware that the koran declares the Jews and Christians liars - because mohammed plagiarized parts of the Old and New Testament, but changed the stories and then claimed that the Jews and Christians were liars for having hidden the true stories with their books of lies? 

It's funny how this aspect of islam is never treated in our public conversations.  Mohammed not only plagiarized, but he turned everything around, screwed up the meanings, and then accused the original authors of being liars because the original texts were different from mo's new one that stole from them.  Do you unnderstand what sort of culture woudl even support such a thing?  We have integrity in the West and a love of truth.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 06:44 AM (N49h9)

115 Shall we invade and change them by outside military force? I'd prefer that to the endless dispersing of our resources to prop up despots and arm savages to fight each other and, eventually, us. Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 11:37 AM (Ulu3i) Yes, as we see necessary.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:44 AM (n0WLs)

116 garrett.....so you would be for removing muslims from the USA? all of them....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 06:45 AM (eOXTH)

117 >>I don't know if I agree with this. Are Arab nations more liberalized now then they were thirty to forty years ago? I don't think so. I think we've seen the creep towards a more Islamic based society then vise versa. And it's not just the leadership, it's the people themselves. Take a trip to the UAE. To Qatar. To Oman. There are numerous examples of how these states are liberalizing and moving very rapidly toward modernity. I was in Abu Dhabi last month, probably heading back in a couple weeks. When I was there in December I had a meeting in a lobby of the Emirates Palace, the hotel that put up the $10 million dollar Christmas tree and then spent National Day in Dubai at the foot of the Burj in Dubai right outside what is touted as the biggest mall in the world, the Dubai Mall. You want to see capitalism at it's zenith, try Dubai. As a matter of fact, I'm in the middle of trading emails with one of my customers there right now. Islam is still an important part of life in the UAE and other modernizing Muslim states but it is hardly a religious theocracy. Is it a true Jeffersonian democracy? Of course not. Are there things that we as westerners would find oppressive? Of course. But it is a open society and getting more open and modern by the day. If you still don't think that Muslims want freedom explain the Green Revolution in Iran this past year.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 06:45 AM (TMB3S)

118 Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 11:41 AM (4nbyM) And your solution to present-day slavery practiced by Muslims is to exterminate all 1.2 billion of them?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:47 AM (n0WLs)

119 iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 11:21 AM

Don't ignore the point that whatever the West "takes" from the MidEast had better be purchased at a price mutually agreed upon. There's no legitimacy washing hands of an entire region of the world during intercourse, whether married or not if the act is without mutual consent. "The West" can't presume not to care what happens after quarreling with Islam over the Persian Gulf Oil Reserves. Globalist Islamists have already immigrated influential populations wherever resources abound.

It seems there will be nothing but more of the same perpetual warfare by concentrating international oil production efforts in the MidEast.

The US private industrial sector isn't even American. It was once but no longer since the globalist industrial identity monopoly "owns" property. 

Those same companies that own Persian Gulf Oil wells also own wells in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore US territory, in Alaska, Canada, contiguous US states, and Latin America.

So far as American interests are concerned at the moment, drill in America. Produce jobs and products in America.

The pre-existing reasons are revised to benefit globalist interests for when the US Military is used to engage in war abroad defending oil production outside of our nation. ESPECIALLY at present, that's a burdensome distraction while our own national resources are being denied developed production -- not to mention our national open borders and invasion of international cartels along with illegal aliens who all share things in common beyond criminal trespass. Illegal aliens and cartels send massive amounts of US dollars out of our country, hindering our economic recovery.

We should clean our own house before assuming the authority to either clean or ransack other regions. Our house of cards is hardly the basis for current foreign exploits.


Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 06:48 AM (H+LJc)

120 And your solution to present-day slavery practiced by Muslims is to exterminate all 1.2 billion of them?

Furthermore, any government powerful and ruthless enough to accomplish such a thing is a far greater danger than the Muslims.  Overheated rhetoric is seductive, but it gets you in trouble pretty quickly.

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 06:50 AM (P18+/)

121 Yes, as we see necessary.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:44 AM

On this we agree.

Sadly, our so-called "leaders" are oh-so-willing to extend the carrot (the golden carrot, no less) but haven't the balls to employ the stick when it is necessary.

From Korea on, we have seen the terrible folly of taking halfway, politically correct measures to protect our interests. We did the same in Vietnam and are doing it now in the ME.

I would prefer that we stay out of conflicts wherever possible. But if we must get involved, the diplomats should be sent off to their playpens and let the military sort things out by the most efficient and direct means possible.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 06:51 AM (Ulu3i)

122 If the U.S. government won't support the Southern Sudanese, what about private individuals?  Raise money for arms and equipment, or even volunteers.  Out of three hundred million people, surely a couple thousand could be found to form a regiment.

Posted by: Alex at January 30, 2011 06:51 AM (J2ejK)

123 How much of the anti-Muslim hostility posted here comes from Christian/Muslim rivalry, and how much comes from a genuine desire to protect the USA?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:51 AM (n0WLs)

124 Unfortunately, Aljazeera is reporting that Albaradi, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood is headed to Trahrir Square in Cairo to speak to the protesters.  I really don't think this is going to end in a democratic government.  The world is going to be an extremely tumultuous place over the immediate future.  The Saudi market has dropped 6% today as well.  Could this creep further than Jordan and Syria and Libya?   

Posted by: DailyDish at January 30, 2011 06:52 AM (+5yI+)

125 garrett.....so you would be for removing muslims from the USA? all of them....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 11:45 AM (eOXTH)

I can't speak for garrett, but I would stop pretty much all muslim immigration.  The US has had a muslim population of around ZERO, until the last couple of decades.  Even the Nation of Islam weren't considered muslims by the islamic world ... until they figured out that it was advantageous to have an ally in the "belly of the beast".

It's very interesting how you would hear almost nothing about muslims or muslim grievances or building mosques ... until after 9/11.  That's when muslims in America suddenly found their voice and started demanding foot-baths and the right to deny taxi service to blind people and mosques and all sorts of crap.  Chew on that little fact for a while and tell me what you think it means.

And now, we have B+ Hussein trying to convince America that muslims have always been part of our culture.  That's beyond laughable.  There's a reason why most arabs that came to the US before were Christians.  Only in very recent times have we stupidly been taking in muslims by the boatload and they have contributed nothing but problems, save a few individuals here and there.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 06:52 AM (N49h9)

126 The Muzzie Brotherhood are idiots.  They've come out of the closet.  Prior to this they were an undercurrent (albeit a strong one).  They were systematically consuming Europe through population volume; total destruciton was a mere generation away.

But oh no.  Now these MB morons pull the trigger way too early; just like the Marxists in this country.  Now they're out in the open, hostile enemy to the West and specifically the U.S.  This is actually a good thing for us.  The enemy now has a face, a target (I denounce myself).  With the European Union on the slow road to dissolution and thus nationalism, the Muzzies in Europe will become targets for deportation.

In the US, the Brotherhood has now become our clear and present danger, culturally, socially, legally.

Islam is now fully engaged folks.  The war is just now starting.

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at January 30, 2011 06:53 AM (MPtFW)

127 i think your bigotry is being to show.....i agree that we are a nation founded on christian judeo values but people of other religions are actually allowed here...they just need to follow our laws....they even get to practice their religion here as long as it isn't in direct conflict with our laws....by your standards...hindus, buddhists, shintos, hell...even native americans aren't welcome.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 11:38 AM (eOXTH)

First off, if you look to what's going on in Europe you'll see our future.  The muz don't give a shit about our laws or customs or traditions.  At soon as there are enough, they spit on our kind.  Every time.  Only when they are too few to be a threat do they behave.  Just last year they began the persecutions of Christians in Dearborn Michigan via the legal system.  That city is already developing Muslim no-go areas. 

As for hindus, buddhists, and shintos.  There are some hindus who should not be welcome.  For example, the worshippers of Kali - the murder cult.  Luckily the British army killed most of those bastards off a long time ago, but no doubt there are those who'd rekindle the tradition.  Others believe that there is a special class of young girls that should be born into prostitution.  India has a healthy helping of such young girls enslaved in brothels.  As law enforcement grows ever more slack, and as cultural balkanization sets in, we'll see that here.  And we'll see worse. 

A hand full of cultural outsiders can be controlled, tolerated, and eventually assimilated.  But assimilation is key, and it's no longer happening like it should.   The Left is getting exactly what it wants - dividing the US into ethnic, religious, and cultural enclaves that can't cooperate against the common enemy - the ever-expanding State.   

In any case, hell yes I'm bigotted against the Muz - but for their voluntarily held religion - not their race or place of birth.  Any person who defects from the Muz and joins the opposition to them becomes my brother.  I WILL NOT accept their views, nor acknowledge that they have any legitimacy at all.  They're my enemy - they would subjugate or kill me and my kind if they could - and nothing would suit me better than their wholesale annihilation.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 06:55 AM (4nbyM)

128 Don't ignore the point that whatever the West "takes" from the MidEast had better be purchased at a price mutually agreed upon.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 11:48 AM (H+LJc)

We don't have to pay them for disarming them when they threaten us.  They use oil as a weapon.  As so, it needs to be treated as a weapon, which is all that I have said.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 06:55 AM (N49h9)

129

El baradei speaking. He has (or is trying to) co-opted the protests. "We can not be stopped, blah, blah, blah..."

So he'll be head of the "opposition" as they form a "unity" Government, or at least that's his plan.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 06:55 AM (hUf/c)

130 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at January 30, 2011 11:53 AM (MPtFW) Yes, it is helpful when groups like the MB pop up their heads.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 06:56 AM (n0WLs)

131

The key distinction, that many miss, is that Islam is not JUST a Religion.  Its a Political Philosophy and Legal system as well... which are inherent parts of the Religion.

Ergo, if you actually follow the Religion, ie read and follow the book itself, you will be in conflict with every Western Country.

The only way you will not, is if you are NOT following the religion strictly.

Until Islam goes through an internal Reformation?  It is incompatable to Western ways of life....

And so, IMO the Gestalt known as Islam, should be outlawed in the West... in the same way we took care of the Nazis, or Communists... by making it clear that they are not welcome.

But first? Drill for oil here.. we DO have enough if we do it wisely (Natural Gas for transporation is workable)... then DO NOT TRADE with them, or anyone who does business with them (Trump is correct, China can be brought to heel very quickly by threatening trade with them).

Let them stagnate in their own Middle East cesspool, killing each other, until they grow up.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 06:57 AM (AdK6a)

132

I would prefer that we stay out of conflicts wherever possible. But if we must get involved, the diplomats should be sent off to their playpens and let the military sort things out by the most efficient and direct means possible.

Dear God, no.  We need a strong State Department that is well integrated with the military, not one that is completely neutered and absent from foreign policy once conflict begins.  Ultimately, military operations are an extension of US foreign policy, and must work in tandem with diplomatic considerations.  The problem is that the State Department is run by pacifists who despise the military, and who are leftists with a love of strong central governments (IMHO, this fact alone is responsible for half our problems in Afghanistan). 

Posted by: Alex at January 30, 2011 06:57 AM (J2ejK)

133 El baradei speaking. He has (or is trying to) co-opted the protests. "We can not be stopped, blah, blah, blah..." So he'll be head of the "opposition" as they form a "unity" Government, or at least that's his plan. Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 11:55 AM (hUf/c) I think this guy El-Baradei is gong to go down in history as one of the worst people of all time. He is bought and sold and in the pocket of Iran. Egypt is all but gone. The next country to go will be Jordan.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 06:59 AM (0GFWk)

134 >>I can't asshole. How's that for embracing freedoms? You can, dipshit. One of my associates is an Orthodox Jew. He was in the UAE the week before last. Managed to escape with his head. You throw around a lot of opinion and attitude for someone who is so badly informed.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 06:59 AM (TMB3S)

135 i know the left i'm familiar enough with islam to understand and teach my children that it is in direct contradiction to their Christian faith....they are also aware that their hindu relatives were murdered by muslims and that their rightful property in the punjab was stolen from them.... culturally and spiritually islam is not compatible with my families traditions or beliefs... if they are in this country legally and are obeying the laws of this land...i really have no problem with them...on the other hand, if they are here illegally or are here to only do my country or my family harm....that is a different story...and i have that problem with anyone from any back ground......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 06:59 AM (eOXTH)

136

Posted by: nevergiveup

But, but, but... Nobel Prize!

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 07:00 AM (hUf/c)

137 It is astounding to see a decade after 9/11, how so few people bothered to acquaint themselves with the tenets of islam, which is what fostered the attacks on us. (and, will continue to do so).
1)  ISLAM IS ANTITHETICAL TO DEMOCRACY.
2)  ISLAM SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYTHING AND ANYONE NON-ISLAMIC.
Please, go get a koran and read a few surrahs: prove me wrong.

Posted by: What the MSM wont tell you at January 30, 2011 07:03 AM (HqFeB)

138 Posted by: nevergiveup But, but, but... Nobel Prize! Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 12:00 PM (hUf/c) yeah OK but I'll just throw out 2 words: Arafat Carter

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:03 AM (0GFWk)

139

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 11:59 AM (eOXTH)

I'm still interested to hear what you think about muslims in America having found their voice only after 9/11.  What do you make of that?

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 07:03 AM (N49h9)

140

So he'll be head of the "opposition" as they form a "unity" Government, or at least that's his plan.

Yeah, I've got some news for him...

Posted by: Alexander Kerensky at January 30, 2011 07:03 AM (J2ejK)

141 It is astounding to see a decade after 9/11, how so few people bothered to acquaint themselves with the tenets of islam, which is what fostered the attacks on us. (and, will continue to do so). 1) ISLAM IS ANTITHETICAL TO DEMOCRACY. 2) ISLAM SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYTHING AND ANYONE NON-ISLAMIC. Please, go get a koran and read a few surrahs: prove me wrong. Posted by: What the MSM wont tell you at January 30, 2011 12:03 PM (HqFeB) Nah people shouldn't waste their time. Your 100% correct.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:03 AM (0GFWk)

142 How much of the anti-Muslim hostility posted here comes from Christian/Muslim rivalry, and how much comes from a genuine desire to protect the USA? Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:51 AM

Not being a Christian, here's my take: there are some Christians who would be delighted to have their particular religion -- and not Christianity in general -- dominate the USA. Unlike the Muzzies, their "weapon" of choice is laws that free them from any getting-along-with-others restrictions. I dislike that, but at least have no fear of it.

The Islamic world is based on a need for absolute dominance by Islam, and if a few (or a few million) infidels have to die to achieve that end, that's nothing.

I am -- and always will be -- hostile to any group that cannot get along with other races and religions. The Muzzies steeped over the line long ago.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:04 AM (Ulu3i)

143 10,000 criminals escape/released from Egyptian Jails. Oh that should help

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:05 AM (0GFWk)

144 I posted this Friday and it reflects American Muzzies

First mention of the Anti-Sharia bill by local media that I have seen

Of course CAIR attacks it.

They ALL want Sharia law which is NOT reflective of a Democratic government.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2011 07:05 AM (M9Ie6)

145

You throw around a lot of opinion and attitude for someone who is so badly informed.

I do consulting work for a fortune 200 co. once in a while. 

On that list of countries you mentioned, the UAE is the only one that does not expressly forbid me from entering, but they advise the parent company against it, strongly. They also suggested that if I were to travel there, against their warnings, that I get a passport that doesn't list my religion.

How about you take me to Quatar to see Israel play in the World Cup, asshole?

Sorry if that doesn't fit your rosy perspective, but it is reality. 

 

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:06 AM (lJQmo)

146 Biden: Mubarak is not a Dictator! The rent, she will stay the same!

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:06 AM (0GFWk)

147 yeah OK but I'll just throw out 2 words: Arafat Carter Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 12:03 PM

I raise you one Osama Obama.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:07 AM (Ulu3i)

148 And your solution to present-day slavery practiced by Muslims is to exterminate all 1.2 billion of them?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 11:47 AM (n0WLs)

If I had a big red button to push that would accomplish this goal, I would push it instantly and without remorse.  The number means nothing - 1 or a trillion.  I don't want one cockroach in my house - and my willingness to squish dirty bugs is not lessened because there are thousands or millions or billions of such bugs.  If anything, the more bugs there are the bigger the problem is, and the more urgent it is to find an effective solution. 

Slavery is only a small part of the problem.  It is, however, a window into their thinking.  They devalue all life outside their own little circle, and are quick to cast anyone in that circle who brings them embarrassment.  No non-muslim culture that I've ever heard of is so utterly loveless toward female relatives - not even the Chinese.  No culture is so quick to brutally murder women, often with sexual degradation thrown in.  Even the basest savages of the darkest jungle have better moral sense.  In Afghanistan they use public gang rape to as a punishment for "misdeeds."  They will gang rape a woman to punish a male relative.  Only the most vile and depraved creatures can do this.  They are like locusts - they bring conflict and misery to every place they exist on the earth.  Nowhere do they live in peace, unless there are so few that fear keeps them in line. 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 07:07 AM (4nbyM)

149 yeah OK but I'll just throw out 2 words: Arafat Carter Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 12:03 PM I raise you one Osama Obama. Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 12:07 PM (Ulu3i) Shit I fold. I can't beat that

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:08 AM (0GFWk)

150 Muslim Brotherhood:   http://tinyurl.com/3ag7uw7

Posted by: PoconoJoe at January 30, 2011 07:08 AM (EkqvF)

151 US Embassy in Egypt: Americans should leave ASAP? Ya think?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:09 AM (0GFWk)

152 ...unless the Islamic Arabs in the north truly want peace and are willing to make genuine concessions to the heavily Christian south.

Haha! Friggin hilarious.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 07:10 AM (w7Lv+)

153 167 US Embassy in Egypt: Americans should leave ASAP?

Ya think?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 12:09 PM (0GFWk)

Took a while to get the Commision report back... had to study the situation you know!

Smart Power!

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:10 AM (AdK6a)

154 BTW - I am also free to enter Dearborn.  But I would be ill-advised to do so wearing a kippa / yarmulke.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:11 AM (lJQmo)

155

Sorry if that doesn't fit your rosy perspective, but it is reality. Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 12:06 PM

Yo, Garrett: why not take a vacation in Riyadh, sit down on a park bench and open your copy of the Talmud. It's safe, dude!

And your Joooo wife or girlfriend? Take her along, too. She can wear any fashion that's popular in Tel Aviv with absolutely no worries about being hassled -- or worse -- by the locals.

JackStraw thinks you'll be just fine!

And if you believe that, I have a slightly used yellow-star emblem left over from those happy days back in Germany for you....

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 07:12 AM (Ulu3i)

156 pep at January 30, 2011 11:23 AM

Where the hell did that "plenty of people" story come?

As if the mid-twentieth century American citizenry were so blood thirsty as to have initiated global invasions or perpetuated genocide, it takes a really twisted mind to project today's American revisionism onto the past record to erase the distinctions.

Americans were so glad to end WWII in Europe that we didn't care about the European occupation by the USSR. Eisenhower told Patton to stfu.

Americans were so glad that Japan surrendered unconditionally after we double dosed them with atom bombs, that the GIs who stayed behind partied on to nation build Japan as an Asian ally.

Americans at home were so glad that WWII was finally over, it was a relief to close the internment camps and get back to normal in social relations with their fellow US citizens of Japanese descent, teaching their children to play together nicely at school and after school in clubs, shopping at each other's markets, and respecting the post-WWII American cultural transition into interracial marriages.

Americans then certainly had biases. But one of those biases was the preference to get along before resorting to an all out fight. And once the fight ended, to get back to getting along.

Posted by: by any other name at January 30, 2011 07:12 AM (H+LJc)

157 US audience can watch Al Jazeera right now 11am-3pm EST DIRECTV 375 and DISH 9410

Info from Twitter.  I have it on via DirecTV right now.  ElBaradei is in the square with a huge crowd.

I believe this is being orchestrated by someone.  Why did Al Jazeera suddenly become available?

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 30, 2011 07:13 AM (Fo83G)

158 Slightly O/T: This Slate article is just asking for a fisking.  Written by a total leftist idiot.  Starts: Obama is making the same mistakes as Carter did in Iran.  Ends: Obama should go even farther than what Carter did in Iran!

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:14 AM (pqsMB)

159 Hey, we would leave, but there's no high-speed rail.

Posted by: Northern Sudan at January 30, 2011 07:15 AM (FcR7P)

160

JackStraw thinks you'll be just fine!

What a crock of shit...it's hard enough to get through an Israeli Vacation without an Arab trying to cut your fuckin' head off! and this idiot wants me to go party with my bros. in the UAE.

...I still don't understand why he hasn't been sent back to Wichita to stand trial for murder.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:16 AM (lJQmo)

161 And how do we know the difference before they commit some horrendous act?
Posted by: lowandslow, Packer fan at January 30, 2011 12:08 PM

Lemme see...you could start by looking at the demands for public footbaths for one religion, cab-drivers who won't pick up fares with dogs, insistence on building religious structures in inappropriate places or, if you can find a translator, the words being spoken in many mosques....

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:16 AM (Ulu3i)

162

Why did Al Jazeera suddenly become available?

I would think that you would be thanking me?

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 30, 2011 07:17 AM (lJQmo)

163 >>How about you take me to Quatar to see Israel play in the World Cup, asshole? Why would I pay your ticket, dipshit? >>Qatar would let Israel take part in a World Cup on their territory despite not recognising the Jewish state,[16][17][18] the head of the Persian Gulf nationÂ’s bid to stage the 2022 event said. Israeli athletes had competed previously in Qatar, such as Israeli tennis player Shahar Pe'er in 2008.[19] In addition, an Israeli also participated in the Doha 2010 Indoor Championships http://tinyurl.com/4go8qgz If you want to continue to live in the days of Saladin while the world moves forward go for it. Your attitude is no better than the Muslims you accuse of living in the past.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 07:17 AM (TMB3S)

164 Lemme see...you could start by looking at the demands for public footbaths for one religion, cab-drivers who won't pick up fares with dogs, insistence on building religious structures in inappropriate places or, if you can find a translator, the words being spoken in many mosques.... Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 12:16 PM (Ulu3i) those words could have come out of my mouth word for word except if i was inbibbing maybe with a few more naughty words

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:17 AM (0GFWk)

165 i know the left what do i think about the muslims finding their voice only after 9/11? i'm not here to defend muslims or islam...i despise their religion...i don't understand how educated people would believe in it...my fil once told me that islam was for the truly ignorant...and that was because it gave the very lowly/stupid a way to look down upon people and allowed them to feel superior ....mohamed was a complete and total fraud...he fell asleep...dreamed..woke up... made a rule...saw how the rule didn't work to his advantage and changed it to be the opposite....the religion stole from judaism and christianity and became a twisted cult that muslims either fully embrace...jihadists or lie about..."moderate muslims" if there are any such people...but what are you proposing? get rid of muslims? in the USA? that are obeying our laws? that are here legally? if they are here illegally or not following our laws.. we have remedies.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 07:18 AM (eOXTH)

166

*gets caught by camera taking a drag on a cig*....Tonight on Nightline...America Held Hostage. Day 445, B+rry breaks par.

This edition brought to you by Government Motors your electric car company.

Posted by: Zombie Ted Koppel at January 30, 2011 07:22 AM (wbook)

167 132 How much of the anti-Muslim hostility posted here comes from Christian/Muslim rivalry, and how much comes from a genuine desire to protect the USA?
hmmm..... you mean i should t-o-l-e-r-a-t-e a cult that is required to behead me, after giving me 3 days of time to "consider" (read torture) "reverting" to islam?
Sorry, take your taqiyya or your hudna, knowing how najis islam is, and go live in the crap holes that are now considered islamic. 
Read this as a genuine love of America and a repudiation of the socio-economic, political-militaristic cult called islam.
PROVE ME WRONG.
and, no, i dont have the wrong translation, the wrong interpretation, and all the other canned taqiyya responses to the west bs.  My ARAB friends who left islam under penalty of death have read the Arabic version to me.  They were forced to learn islam from birth.  They left their families who would kill them for apostacy if they could find them, they left EVERYTHING to get away from islam.  A few of them left their genitalia in their homelands because of forced mutilation required by islam.
Yeah, i despise islam and I love America.

Posted by: What the MSM wont tell you at January 30, 2011 07:23 AM (HqFeB)

168 low and slow how do we know anyone is going to do something before they do it? would you like police to start rounding up people preemptively? with out reasonable suspicion...that kind of goes against what AMERICA IS ABOUT.....and as soon as that becomes the law of this land..we are truly doomed because tea partiers....conservatives....christians will be the first to be rounded up......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 07:23 AM (eOXTH)

169

132 I have known some Muslims who would leave me in peace and not subject me to their cultural mores; those I have no problem with.  However, there are others who would leave me with only the peace of the grave and very much want to subject me to their cultural mores and religious ideology -- those I have no problem with seeing killed to the last puppy (do onto others and all that).

I don't hate them persay; I just want them dead -- just like I'd kill a venemous snake if I found it in my house.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 07:23 AM (5/yRG)

170

Qatar would let Israel take part in a World Cup on their territory despite not recognising the Jewish state,[16][17][18] the head of the Persian Gulf nationÂ’s bid to stage the 2022 event said.  

That instills confidence in all the free people of the world, you fucking dimwit.

I don't recall the Israeli's being kept out of Munich.  Just slaughtered when they were there.

You are obviously too eager to try and prove to yourself that your delusions are reality. 

Don't trust Muslims.  It won't get you anywhere.  I think Daniel Pearl said that.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 30, 2011 07:24 AM (lJQmo)

171 184 It's been done before.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 07:24 AM (5/yRG)

172 If you want to continue to live in the days of Saladin while the world moves forward go for it. Your attitude is no better than the Muslims you accuse of living in the past. Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 12:17 PM

Before WWII, there were a number of American "intellectuals" -- including diplomats -- who lived in Japan and were so infatuated with that nation that they advised FDR to accede to Japanese demands. Militarism was only "one facet" of the Japanese culture, after all, and nowhere near as sweet as cherry trees and tea ceremonies.... The Japanese they knew were so polite, too, bowing and smiling and never saying "no."

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:24 AM (Ulu3i)

173

In 1957, Fidel Castro adamantly promised democracy for Cuba, too, and the Communists in the MSM went along with it for the same reasons that they're deceitfully preaching it now. A democracy in Egypt? Get real.

Are the MSM intentionally disingenuous for insideous reasons, or just spoiled, lazy, careless, sloppy, incompetent, extremely irresponsible ... and incredibly stupid, also? (To hear them tell it, Venezuela doesn't really have a Communist Dictatorship either.)

The Communists are on the march again, this time empowered by Obama, Holder and Clinton..

Posted by: Brian at January 30, 2011 07:24 AM (sYrWB)

174 185 jane amen

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 07:25 AM (eOXTH)

175 Islam is the enemy.  Islam is an evil religion. There is no co-existence because Islam will not leave others in peace.

Muslims are compelled to expand Islam by force until the entire world is under Islamic rule and every single person is either a slave, a muslim, or dead.

Islam does not believe in the freedom of the individual. Islam does not believe in religious freedom, the freedom to choose your religion. Islam commands muslims to murder any muslim who leaves the faith.

Mohammad is a false prophet and probably the single most evil human to have ever lived. If you add up all the murders, rapes, and barbarism done in the name of Mohammad over the last 1,400 years. Add in the hundreds of millions kept in slavery.

Islam is a vile, despicable false religion.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 30, 2011 07:25 AM (QcFbt)

176 How much of the anti-Muslim hostility posted here comes from Christian/Muslim rivalry, and how much comes from a genuine desire to protect the USA? This is the same bullshit liberals spew. Big difference between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. I don't give a shit what people want to believe as long as their beliefs and ideology doesn't threaten my life and freedom and our society. Promoting and spreading Islamic jihad threatens all of them. Posted by: lowandslow, Packer fan at January 30, 2011 12:03 PM (GZitp) I agree, there is a difference between being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim, but I think my question is legitimate. How do we measure the religious rivalry component and the national self-preservation component? Can they be separately measured?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 07:26 AM (n0WLs)

177 The Bush foreign policy in the Middle East was clearly stated as a move to help foster democracy and freedom throughout the region. The elites said he as an idiot. Someday, Bush may actually get the credit he deserves.

Bush was an idiot.

Islamic societies are polygamous societies and are thus inherently unstable. It should come as no surprise that what the Muslims refer to as Islam's Golden Ages were periods of rapid conquest and expansion. It's was only by the culling of some it's restless male population through wars and expansion that the Islamic world was able to gain some modicum of stability.

This inherent instability is also why the Muslim world is ruled by dictators who rule with an iron fist. It's the only method a polygamous society that has not had a significant percentage of it's male population culled through war or other means is capable of maintaining order.

In conclusion, trying to make the polygamous societies of the Middle East into little peaceful democratic regimes is an effort of utmost foolishness and that's not even taking into account the MAJOR problems of compatibility of  democracy and Islam.   

Posted by: GhostShip at January 30, 2011 07:26 AM (kWn29)

178 190 I don't think you realize that I wouldn't have a problem with it if the circumstances warranted extreme measures.  jSometimes the rules of polite and civil society have to be thrown out the window.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 07:27 AM (5/yRG)

179 i'm not here to defend muslims or islam...i despise their religion...

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 12:18 PM (eOXTH)

I wasn't asking you to defend anything.  I was only asking what the fact that muslims suddenly found a voice in America after 9/11 says to you.  You'll notice that pre-9/11 most of the groups advocating for the middle east were arab groups.  After 9/11, you see nothing of arab groups, but only muslim groups like CAIR (a muslim brotherhood tool, BTW).

My point is this:  Westerners, if in that same sort of situation, would have become quiet in its aftermath.  The reaction by muslims in America was exactly the opposite.  That is a cultural statement.  My question is: what do you think this cultural statement of muslims in America, post-9/11, is?

Can you imagine what sort of culture would even think to try and build a victory symbol at Ground Zero less than ten years after, in a nation where they are still (Thank G-d) a tiny minority?  This must say something to you about that culture and what future interactions with it will probably look like.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 07:27 AM (N49h9)

180 Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 12:23 PM

^^^THIS^^^

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:29 AM (Ulu3i)

181 if they are here illegally or not following our laws.. we have remedies.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 12:18 PM (eOXTH)

In practice, we don't.  That was another part of Bush's lefty globalism that was insane.  He thought that illegals in the US had some sort of "right" to American citizenship - to add to whatever other citizenships they already had.

The concept of US sovereignty has become a "hate crime" in the US.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 07:30 AM (N49h9)

182 192 Pretty damn easily: if you say "I don't give a shit if Muslims are Muslims, just don't impose your ideology and allow me to live my life in peace" then we can, I believe, safely assume you're not engaging in religious rivalry.  Truly, I don't much care for a lot of what Islam is (some parts are ok, but tracts of it are very much not ok); I wonder at people who would want to live with it...but as long as they don't impose themselves upon me then I don't give a shit...however, one of the tenets of that religion is very much the obligation to impose itself upon others.  That's a bit of a problem in my book.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 07:31 AM (5/yRG)

183

Your attitude is no better than the Muslims you accuse of living in the past.

Again, wrong.  I am not calling for their extinction.  I am not refusing to recognize them as humans.  I am not averse to co-existing with anyone who has an understanding of civil society and the freedoms necessary for ALL, therein.

You, however, feel the need to bend over backwards and make excuses for a group that would gladly see all of your freedoms undermined and you and your family relegated to second class citizenship until such time that they decide to kill you and 'integrate' your family.

 

 So, kindly fuck off, Dhimmi.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 30, 2011 07:31 AM (lJQmo)

184 >>That instills confidence in all the free people of the world, you fucking dimwit. So you are wrong time after time and all you can do is stomp your little feet and throw insults. You're no better than the people you condemn. You want to keep on perpetuating untruths becase it fits the little world view you live by. Nobody is saying that everything is well between the Muslim world and the west. There are huge problems to be dealt with and far too many people like yourself who would rather live in the past than see that the world is changing and there is a chance to move things forward in a more peaceful way. But some progress has been made and we can either encourage that or live with the idea that all Muslims are savages and we should go to war with them in perpetuity. Thankfully, you represent a minority view.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 07:32 AM (TMB3S)

185 I agree, there is a difference between being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim, but I think my question is legitimate.

How do we measure the religious rivalry component and the national self-preservation component?

Can they be separately measured?

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 12:26 PM (n0WLs)

Well... I don't consider myself a Christian... I'm an agnostic who does not think any religion has got it right...

And I'm very Anti Islam.. partly because they have it even MORE wrong than the other relgions, and wish to force me to believe what I KNOW is wrong...

Just a single data pont... but I know others who feel the same way I do.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:32 AM (AdK6a)

186 Islam indeed is an enemy religion. Freedom and Islam are now at war. Partly with guns, partly with ideas. Freedom can defeat Islam, it can defeat any religion that threatens it. It just needs time.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 07:33 AM (n0WLs)

187

Cryptic (translated from Norwegian/Danish?) Tweet from guy in Cairo/Tahrir Square.

 

..."there are no shops or break teeth on cars now..."

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 30, 2011 07:34 AM (hUf/c)

188 Wow I'm sad to see so much cultural condescension here with respect to Muslims.  Can we judge them based on their actions and not based on their beliefs?

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:34 AM (pqsMB)

189 @172
The Conquerors by Michael Beschloss
Embracing Defeat by John Dower

To the rest of you who are enraged by the creeping sharia we see here and the galloping sharia in Europe: whose fault is that?  This problem is a failure of our nerve and our political class.  I keep hearing about what a pitiful culture Islam is, and yet you want to jettison our entire way of doing things to protect ourselves from it? 

Any robust culture will take advantage of openings for it to expand.  We did with the Americas.  I'm not comparing the culture of the West with that of Islam, but if we can't handle them without acting like savages ourselves, then we are already lost.  We can stop Islam without losing ourselves in the process.

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 07:35 AM (P18+/)

190 Freedom can defeat Islam, it can defeat any religion that threatens it. It just needs time.
Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 12:33 PM

And it needs determined, focused leaders, eman. Don't forget that.

We're where we are today in large part because we have a shortage of patriotic, sensible American leaders.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:35 AM (Ulu3i)

191 PA, what does all this have to do with high-speed rail?

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 30, 2011 07:36 AM (5lHJL)

192 204 Wow I'm sad to see so much cultural condescension here with respect to Muslims.  Can we judge them based on their actions and not based on their beliefs?

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:34 PM (pqsMB)

And when their Actions stem from the Beliefs?  When those very Beliefs TELL them to do those actions?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:36 AM (AdK6a)

193 Can we judge them based on their actions and not based on their beliefs?
Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:34 PM

Sure. As soon as they do likewise.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 07:36 AM (Ulu3i)

194 I wonder what Ayman al-Zawahiri is doing these days?

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at January 30, 2011 07:37 AM (yARWD)

195 Romeo @ 208, of course all actions stem from beliefs in some way.  But to throw people out of the country because they have impermissible beliefs just sounds too much like Thoughtcrime to me.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:38 AM (pqsMB)

196 158 10,000 criminals escape/released from Egyptian Jails. Oh that should help

Indeed.  Part of the reason why Iraq was so difficult to pacify after our initial invasion is that Saddam released about 100,000 prisoners from Iraqi jails before he fled Baghdad. 

Mubarak or the military playing a similar game?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 30, 2011 07:38 AM (9hSKh)

197 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 12:32 PM (AdK6a) Thanks for the candid and thoughtful answer. We share similar beliefs on religion and Islam. I think Islam can be reformed. Not easily, not quickly, and not bloodlessly, but it can be done.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 07:38 AM (n0WLs)

198 Hey, I am a Circle K guy, fuck 7-11.

Posted by: Elvis at January 30, 2011 07:38 AM (JpFM9)

199

I've been friends with and worked with enough Muslims to have candid conversations about the concepts of Freedom, Integration and World Religion with them. 

 To a man, they agree that America is only despoiled by the lack of Sharia compliancy. 

They want to be 'American'.  To them, that means to live under the laws of Islam on the American Continent. That's it.  They don't value my freedoms, your freedoms, or the freedoms of anyone else.  Just their own.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:39 AM (lJQmo)

200 We rightly don't want the government taking our guns, even if the government thinks we are dangerous kook wingnut militia types.  So what is the difference between that, and wanting the government deporting Muslims, if the government thinks they are dangerous seditious suicide bombers?

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:40 AM (pqsMB)

201 "We have come too far.  They cannot stop us now."

- Fidel El-Baredi

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at January 30, 2011 07:41 AM (yARWD)

202

Freedom can defeat Islam, it can defeat any religion that threatens it. It just needs time.

Maybe.  But it will also take the blood of the free.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:41 AM (lJQmo)

203 If we were getting 10 buck oil out of that shit hole then maybe I'd consider a different approach. Otherwise, wall it all off from the west. don't allow trade, planes or ships in or out. Camel travel only....let it rot.

Posted by: torabora at January 30, 2011 07:41 AM (wbook)

204 217 The answer to that is: who is the group that is really and wilfully practicing sedition?

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 07:41 AM (5/yRG)

205 10,000 criminals escape/released from Egyptian Jails. Oh that should help
Including a bunch that are Pali terrorists now on their way back to Gaza. (At the fourth link.) And there are several good links about the crisis here too including a funny Carter-Obama-Shah-Mubarek item.

Posted by: andycanuck at January 30, 2011 07:42 AM (2rOwc)

206 , and not bloodlessly, but it can be done.



Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 12:38 PM (n0WLs)

Are you volunteering American blood on American soil for your hypothetical?

Posted by: What the LSM Wont Tell U at January 30, 2011 07:42 AM (HqFeB)

207 They don't value my freedoms, your freedoms, or the freedoms of anyone else.  Just their own. Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 12:39 PM

H8er!!11!!

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 07:42 AM (Ulu3i)

208 jane i totally agree...hence the amen... i know the left the rabid vocal muslims response has been dispicable, trying to become the victims and push their vile agenda which no doubt is sharia law and world domination..which i will fight against with every ounce of blood in me....i have only heard one muslim speak out against 09.11 and that is Dr. Jasser....i keep hoping that there are others out there but i'm beginning to believe there aren't ...

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 30, 2011 07:42 AM (eOXTH)

209 Brother, can you spare a high-speed rail?

Posted by: hobo without a shotgun or a high-speed rail at January 30, 2011 07:43 AM (5lHJL)

210 211 Romeo @ 208, of course all actions stem from beliefs in some way.  But to throw people out of the country because they have impermissible beliefs just sounds too much like Thoughtcrime to me.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:38 PM (pqsMB)

Its against the Law to make a public speech which espouses violence.  Its against the Law to threaten to kill, hurt, or maim someone.  Its against the Law to publicly say that others should not follow the Law (encitment to insurrection).  Its against the law to call for the Overthrow of hte US Consitutition.

Yet the Koran, through ANY fair reading... does all these things.

We've already drawn the Legal line... we are just not willing to enforce that line on this religion for some reason (although we have on other religions throughout our History, think Mormons).

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:44 AM (AdK6a)

Posted by: the CLASH at January 30, 2011 07:44 AM (lJQmo)

212 Freedom can defeat Islam, it can defeat any religion that threatens it. It just needs time.

And the will to survive. Which is in question today in Europe and to some extent here.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 07:45 AM (w7Lv+)

213 I think Islam can be reformed. Not easily, not quickly, and not bloodlessly, but it can be done.



Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 12:38 PM (n0WLs)

But it can't be done from the outside... which is the problem.  Religions THRIVE on Martyrdom...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:45 AM (AdK6a)

214 I'm not comparing the culture of the West with that of Islam, but if we can't handle them without acting like savages ourselves, then we are already lost.  We can stop Islam without losing ourselves in the process.

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 12:35 PM (P18+/)

Oh?  And by what means?  I hear a lot of high minded talk about "not stooping to their level" and yet not a single concrete tactical option.  Let's hear something actually useful for accomplishing this lofty goal.  Shall we ask them nicely to please reconsider murdering us?  Or do you think that maybe they'll turn their children over to use to be re-aculturated? 

There were plenty of smart Jews in Germany in the 30's who failed to come up with non-violent ways to save their skins - what clever methods might they have used to escape the gas?

Acting like "savages" is often nothing more than taking action to preserve our kind, and has done us little harm.  The expansion into the West wasn't a story of how we held hands with the folks already there and hunted buffalo side by side with them.  Ugly things happened - things that we'd all rather hadn't been necessary.  Yet our culture was in no discernable way degraded.  The West was won.  Until recently the Western United states was probably the best and freest place on earth to live.  Brutality against outsiders and enemies has a negligible effect on our own quality of life once the deed is done.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 07:45 AM (4nbyM)

215 221 217 The answer to that is: who is the group that is really and wilfully practicing sedition?

See I don't think it is sedition just to be a Muslim.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:45 AM (pqsMB)

216 I wonder what Ayman al-Zawahiri is doing these days? Posted by: Bust of Churchill at January 30, 2011 12:37 PM (yARWD) buying a new suit for his forth coming inaugaration?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:46 AM (0GFWk)

217 233 221 217 The answer to that is: who is the group that is really and wilfully practicing sedition?

And besides, it's not really about who is seditious and who isn't, but it is more about who the government thinks is seditious.  Do you want the government to deport people or throw them in jail just because they think they are seditious?  That is too Orwellian for me to consider.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:48 AM (pqsMB)

218

See I don't think it is sedition just to be a Muslim.

There is no 'Integration' in Islam. 

Posted by: Ayatollah Khomeni at January 30, 2011 07:48 AM (lJQmo)

219 A good question is how best to destroy Islam. I think more public mocking of their religion and the fucker Mohammad is a good start Of course, anybody who does it publicly risks being murdered by the cockroach muzzies.

The Left has done a good job mocking Christianity -- bible-thumpers, jesus-freaks, Jesus-land, Jeebus -- and making it a stupid, contemptible thing. Unfortunately they don't do the same to Islam, out of either fear or multi-culti self-hatred, not sure.


The US muslim population is skyrocketing. As is the global muzzie population in general.  The US muzzie population will go from 2+million today to 6+million by 2030. Worldwide the muzzies will add a billion muzzies by 2030. In 2030 1 of every 4 people on the planet will be Muslim.

I do think using casual Islamic blasphemy helps. Although I don't know any good casual Islamic blasphemy. For example, I think the Simpson's Praise Jeebus line is a good example of casual  blasphemy. It takes a real Christian phrase, and turns it into a mockery, making the whole thing seems stupid, but it's not vulgar, no cursing. So it's hard for Christians to get upset at it.

Mockery, mockery, mockery. It works. Cause if you try and fight back against the mockery you just look even stupider.

It took decades for American comedians to slowly push the boundaries of mocking Christianity. At this point you can say practically anything about Christianity and Christians. And some comedians -- like say Lenny Bruce -- did have to suffer very real suppression and some real threats of bodily harm.

It's a tough problem, but it's an important soft power way to try and destroy and delegitimize Islam.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 30, 2011 07:48 AM (QcFbt)

220 See I don't think it is sedition just to be a Muslim.
Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:45 PM

I don't think any of us think that, chemjeff (etc.). We think it's sedition the way many of them act.

Just because Dubya called Islam a "religion of Peace" doesn't make it so. What we all want is equality, which necessarily includes living under that laws of our land if you want to be an American.

If you don't, tough shit.

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 07:49 AM (Ulu3i)

221

I wonder if JackStraw would be willing to wear a kipa in the Arab suburbs of London, Paris, or Malmo?

I'd pay his airfare and run the camera.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:49 AM (lJQmo)

222

Its against the Law to make a public speech which espouses violence.  Its against the Law to threaten to kill, hurt, or maim someone.  Its against the Law to publicly say that others should not follow the Law (encitment to insurrection).  Its against the law to call for the Overthrow of hte US Consitutition.

Yet the Koran, through ANY fair reading... does all these things.


The Bible also says "there is no God before me".  Does that mean a good devout Christian is advocating insurrection because he's not going to submit to the authority of the state, in a religious sense?  I have no problem with someone believing that the government is illegitimate, it's when they act on that belief that is disturbing.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:49 AM (pqsMB)

223 Dammit chemjeff, I don't want to agree with your view, but I do.  I detest the idea of 'thought' being judged and not actions.  I think the rub comes in that we don't bring the hammer down on those that then cross the line.  Just look how many are willing to give Muslims a pass.

Posted by: dogfish at January 30, 2011 07:51 AM (N2yhW)

224 Mohammedans, at least they don't let women drive, and they can have several wives, that's the good shit. 

The bad shit?  They don't drink and spend have their lives on their knees praying.

Oh, and they fuck goats.

Posted by: Kemp at January 30, 2011 07:51 AM (JpFM9)

225 Just remember, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:51 AM (pqsMB)

226 Hillary is off to Haiti because ya know that is the really important stuff going on today?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2011 07:51 AM (0GFWk)

227 Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:40 PM (pqsMB)

The number of muslims in America is still small enough, for now.  The question is why any more muslims would be allowed in.  I would not allow any new muslims immigrants, save a very few who have important and indispensable talents.  Of course, our immigration law is now family based, which is a serious problem in that respect, and will only become much worse as we move from "gay marriage" to polygamy (which is only fair, once "gay marriage" is recognized) which will then open up the floodgates of muslim immigration ... such as we see with Precedent Hussein, whose came from a far-flung polygamous family representing the point.

It's funny how the "gay marriage" supporters deny that polygamy should be acceptable, knowing that all will become undone as we move so far in the direction of destroying our notion of marriage, while we have someone occupying the White House right now (born and raised a muslim, as we all know) who represents exactly that.  It is really amazing to see so much leftist cognitive dissonance infecting American society, these days.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 07:51 AM (N49h9)

228 Are you volunteering American blood on American soil for your hypothetical? Posted by: What the LSM Wont Tell U at January 30, 2011 12:42 PM (HqFeB) Illogical.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 07:52 AM (n0WLs)

229 I believe it was a simple oversight by the Founders. They would have saved us a lot of trouble if they just spelled it out in black and white. The practice of any non-Christian faith is strictly illegal on us soil.

But then again, what did the Founders know about sharia law, child molestation, female genital mutilation, goat fucking, suicide vests, flying planes into buildings etc, etc.

Posted by: sTevo at January 30, 2011 07:53 AM (VMcEw)

230 dogfish thanks   yeah I'm as well irritated by the "let's accommodate Islam to the Nth degree while at the same time let's belittle and bash our Christian heritage" idiots, but that's a different discussion.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:54 AM (pqsMB)

231 Hello!

Posted by: pooh at January 30, 2011 07:54 AM (47OiY)

232 The Constitution is not a suicide pact; however, (and I am not a Constitutional lawyer/lecturer) it is based on the consent of the governed and represents a contract between a republican form of government and we the people. Such a contract is totally without force in the world of Islam, because ONLY the Koran (and associated interpretations) contains the total set of valid rules for the true believer. There are numerous exhortations (carried into active practice today) that sanction acts that a real civilization would find reprehensible (see any text on sharia, honor killing, death to Jews and infidels, etc.). Note that the core belief system of Islam makes it impossible for a reformation within Islam. They (fundamentalist Muslims) can't even agree today as to which aspect of the sub-cult is the true belief and are still busy killing each other. If (and this is a BIG if), any legal immigrant wishes to enter the country accepting without reservation support of the US Constitution, I would have no problem with that. Unfortunately, taqqiya is a formal declaration of the responsibility of the true believer to the infidel, thus I find it difficult to believe I can ever trust any _moderate_ Muslim as a true citizen of this country.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 07:56 AM (alr7n)

233

Just remember, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.

We don't want to give the state additional powers, jeff. 

 We just want parity under the law for all religions.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 07:56 AM (lJQmo)

234 See I don't think it is sedition just to be a Muslim.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:45 PM (pqsMB)

If you actually follow the religion Strictly?  It is.  The only way it is compatable with Western thoughts, Philosophy, and Government, is if you DON"T follow parts of it.

Mohamed (PBUH - Please Be Utterly Hateful) is put up as the Perfect Example... you are supposed to emulate him.... AND unlike the Bible, later parts of the Koran trump Earlier parts, thus, Moh's (PBUH - Proceed Brother, Unto Hell) later life, when he was Prostelyzing by the Sword as a Warlord, and sleeping with little Girls... is an even more Perfect Moh (PBUH Pig Blood Up His) than the earlier one.... and thus more to be emulated...

Thus, the more closely you follow the Religion... the more problem folks like me have with your worldview.... especially the part where I have to believe as you do, or die...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:56 AM (AdK6a)

235 There is no God named Allah, and Mohammad is his pervert.

Posted by: Mohammad at January 30, 2011 07:56 AM (QcFbt)

236 Just remember, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.
Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:51 PM

Once more, chemjeff. This is a nation of laws. If anyone breaks those laws, the hammer should be dropped on them.

The laws we have against any individual or group committing violence on others and/or the nation exist and should be enforced. We don't do that well, and that has contributed to the mess we're in.

No one is granted special privileges, except by the liberal fools. No one should be subject to special national laws because of their race, religion, or any other factor.

If expecting Muslims to live under our existing laws is somehow discriminatory against them, fuck 'em.

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 07:56 AM (Ulu3i)

237 I believe it was a simple oversight by the Founders. They would have saved us a lot of trouble if they just spelled it out in black and white. The practice of any non-Christian faith is strictly illegal on us soil. But then again, what did the Founders know about sharia law, child molestation, female genital mutilation, goat fucking, suicide vests, flying planes into buildings etc, etc. Posted by: sTevo at January 30, 2011 12:53 PM (VMcEw) "The practice of any non-Christian faith is strictly illegal on us soil." Oh, really? Kindly GFY.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 07:57 AM (n0WLs)

238 Muz immigration should have ended 9/12/01.
They should be allowed to stay if they renounce Sharia and the Global Caliphate, and agree to live by our Western standards of civilized society. That includes no honor killings or genital mutilation.
In short Islam must reform itself to modern standards to be compatible with civilization. Christianity did it centuries ago.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 07:57 AM (w7Lv+)

239 231 I think Islam can be reformed. Not easily, not quickly, and not bloodlessly, but it can be done.



Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 12:38 PM (n0WLs)


I don't think so. Ole Mo set up his "religion" with a specific purpose in mind, to justify and enable his Charlie Sheen lifestyle. In Islam, the guy at the top gets his rewards in this life, while his followers get their reward in the next. There's no incentive to correct economic inequality because it's Allah's will. In Islam the only injustice is when the non-believer has some say in the public square.


It'd be real nice if some of our new friends in Congress started sending support and arms to the Southern Sudanese. We could end up with friends with oil.

Posted by: Iblis at January 30, 2011 07:57 AM (9221z)

240 chemjeff,
READ the koran.  Listen to some "mainstream" imams in the West.
Then get back to us. 
I find it sad that you seem to abhor the idea of inequality while you refuse to educate yourself on what the target of your sympathies requires. 
Do you think all of us who vehemently denounce islam are ignorant rubes?
Don't you find it odd that this band of moron strangers are all saying virtually the same thing about islam or could it be perhaps that we KNOW something you don't about islam?

Posted by: What the LSM Wont Tell U at January 30, 2011 07:57 AM (HqFeB)

241 The question is why any more muslims would be allowed in.

Because they are people who have met our immigration guidelines, same as any other person of any other faith.

If a person has committed demonstrable ACTIONS which indicate that they represent a security threat, by all means don't let them in.

But, not letting someone in solely because he/she is a Muslim?  Again, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.  I don't want the state telling Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists that they can't come in just because of their faith, so I won't tolerate it for Muslims either.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 07:58 AM (pqsMB)

242 If (and this is a BIG if), any legal immigrant wishes to enter the country accepting without reservation support of the US Constitution, I would have no problem with that. Unfortunately, taqqiya is a formal declaration of the responsibility of the true believer to the infidel, thus I find it difficult to believe I can ever trust any _moderate_ Muslim as a true citizen of this country.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 12:56 PM (alr7n)

That and the Koran itself says its OK to lie to infidels... thus taking an Oath on their Holy Book seriously is kind of silly... if you are an infidel.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 07:58 AM (AdK6a)

243

If (and this is a BIG if), any legal immigrant wishes to enter the country accepting without reservation support of the US Constitution, I would have no problem with that. Unfortunately, taqqiya is a formal declaration of the responsibility of the true believer to the infidel, thus I find it difficult to believe I can ever trust any _moderate_ Muslim as a true citizen of this country.

This.   Eleventy.

If you take the time to talk to your moderate Muslim friends, they will admit this without shame. 

 "The only problem with America is Americans." - My Moderate Muslim Friend

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 08:00 AM (lJQmo)

244

The Bible also says "there is no God before me".  Does that mean a good devout Christian is advocating insurrection because he's not going to submit to the authority of the state, in a religious sense?  I have no problem with someone believing that the government is illegitimate, it's when they act on that belief that is disturbing.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:49 PM (pqsMB)

If the government ever says it is our God, then I'd say a Christian better not go along with that.  He should, at least secretly, rebel.  Or preferably leave for a more reasonable country.  Happily we don't have that issue.  I hope that if the government does say it is God that most every free thinking person would join the rebellion - it would be fully justified. 

No place does the Christian faith encourage insurrection - on the contrary.  Christians are to be law abiding citizens.  They're to render unto Ceasar what is his.  This principle acknowledges that the State exists independently from God, yet it derives legitimacy from God and is to be respected.  The State is in charge of important stuff - like the administration of justice.  Waging wars.  Etc.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 08:00 AM (4nbyM)

245 Do you think all of us who vehemently denounce islam are ignorant rubes?

No.  I think that many people who denounce Islam are falling into the same trap that leftists often fall into - they herd people into some group, and then treat everyone in the group in the same way.  I.e., "the rich", "the middle class", "minorities".  A big reason why I'm a conservative is that I believe strongly and passionately in the dignity and worth of every individual.  I abhor class-based, group-based politics.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:00 AM (pqsMB)

246 Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 12:32 PM (TMB3S)

You do know that you're full of shit, right?  You do know that?

You're Quisling; Quisling's always end up either castrated or hanged.  Sucks for you, eh?

Really, Jack, you have no clue regarding what you're apologizing for.  The people you are trying to 'understand' believe you to be essentially the same as a pig or dog

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:00 AM (UqKQV)

247 A-Salami and Bacon, my brothers.

Posted by: Mohammad at January 30, 2011 08:00 AM (QcFbt)

248

"The practice of any non-Christian faith is strictly illegal on us soil."

This is patently retarded.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 08:01 AM (lJQmo)

249

The Bible also says "there is no God before me".  Does that mean a good devout Christian is advocating insurrection because he's not going to submit to the authority of the state, in a religious sense?  I have no problem with someone believing that the government is illegitimate, it's when they act on that belief that is disturbing.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:49 PM (pqsMB)

Only if you equate State, and God...

Because it also says "Render unto Ceaser"...

But you already knew that.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:02 AM (AdK6a)

250 #258 real joe......That is a very ill informed statement.

Posted by: pooh at January 30, 2011 08:02 AM (47OiY)

251

The Bible also says "there is no God before me".  Does that mean a good devout Christian is advocating insurrection because he's not going to submit to the authority of the state, in a religious sense?  I have no problem with someone believing that the government is illegitimate, it's when they act on that belief that is disturbing.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:49 PM (pqsMB)

Christianity is spiritual.  It makes no demands on the state, other than people naturally wanting to be able to live by their moral codes.  The West is built on Christian morality.

Now, Judaism actually does describe a governing structure.  But Judaism is only meant to govern the Promised Land, and only meant to govern Jews there, in general, which means that Judaism doesn't try to install any Jewish government outside of the land promised in the Torah and, while Judaism accepts converts, it actively works against conversion; one is supposed to be turned away twice before being allowed to convert to Judaism.  (This is very much related to the American concept of limited governance.)

Islam, as usual, took concepts from Judaism and Christianity, perverted them, mixed them up, and came up with something truly toxic.  They took the Jewish idea of a governing body embedded in the religion and they combined it with the idea of the purely spiritual Christinaity's desire to proselytize and spread around the world, to come up with something that neither ever came close to: an ideology that seeks to establish a government over all areas muslims are found and a desire to make everyone muslim.  This is typical of islam.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 08:03 AM (N49h9)

252 In short Islam must reform itself to modern standards to be compatible with civilization. Christianity did it centuries ago. Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 12:57 PM (w7Lv+) Exactly. It has started in Iraq. There women can vote. That is something that is strictly anti-Islam. It gives women power over men. How does it happen? When the people and the government ignore certain elements of Islam. Over time it becomes natural to assume women can vote, then more and more elements of Islam are ignored and even discarded as antiquated and primitive.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 08:04 AM (n0WLs)

253 You;ve got a Straw Man in your pants, chemjeff.  Muslims don't "debate"--that's a Judeo-Christian concept they passed on.

If you're saying that many Muslims are token followers and don't want anyone killed for their religion, that's likely true.  If you're saying that the millions of Muslims with Murderous Intent can be reasoned with, you're a fool


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:04 AM (UqKQV)

254 Oh, so we are leftists? 
Rich, that is.

Posted by: What the LSM Wont Tell U at January 30, 2011 08:05 AM (HqFeB)

255

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:00 PM

No Labels?

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 08:05 AM (lJQmo)

256 I don't want the state telling Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists that they can't come in just because of their faith, so I won't tolerate it for Muslims either.
Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:58 PM

But...we should also be able to make leave if they don't live up to the oath they take to live here.

If someone arrives here and begins agitating and plotting acts of violence to install the Pope as the USA's Supreme Leader, or does the same to demand that the Laws of the Land be amended to force all public restaurants to enforce kashruth, they are not Americans. Same goes for Muzzies.

Americans live in harmony -- at least relative harmony -- with each other. Anyone unwilling to do so, for whatever reason, should not be allowed to stay.

That's the fucking law, dude.

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 08:06 AM (Ulu3i)

257 But, not letting someone in solely because he/she is a Muslim?  Again, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.  I don't want the state telling Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists that they can't come in just because of their faith, so I won't tolerate it for Muslims either.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 12:58 PM (pqsMB)

/set the Wayback machine for 1960, immigration desk, New York

Hi... I'm a member of the Soviet Unioin Communist Party, and uesd to work for the KGB.... and still carry around my copy of the Communist Manifesto.... can I come in???

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:06 AM (AdK6a)

258 269 #258 real joe......That is a very ill informed statement.

Posted by: pooh at January 30, 2011 01:02 PM (47OiY)


OK I'm game. Illuminate me as to why we must allow immigrants to come here for the express purpose of overthrowing our system.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 08:06 AM (w7Lv+)

259

Oh, really?

Kindly GFY. Posted by: eman

___________

This is patently retarded.

Posted by: garrett



I know, and I take complete responsibility for making the statement. But, in hindsight, look at all the trouble we could have avoided, as a country.
I will end it at that cause the implications will get out of hand.

Posted by: sTevo at January 30, 2011 08:08 AM (VMcEw)

260 Oh?  And by what means?  I hear a lot of high minded talk about "not stooping to their level" and yet not a single concrete tactical option.  Let's hear something actually useful for accomplishing this lofty goal.  Shall we ask them nicely to please reconsider murdering us?  Or do you think that maybe they'll turn their children over to use to be re-aculturated?

So, in short, for you there is no middle ground between flaccid acceptance of cultural death and outright extermination?  Sounds a lot like the most extreme practitioners of a certain religion I can think of. 
 
Here are a few means to be considered:
no accomodation of our laws to yours
no further Muslim immigration
deportation of those who refuse to assimilate
an eye for an eye retaliation to those responsible for perpetuating violence
execution of those found to have perpetuated violence
wars with countries that harbor terrorists

Each of these is could be appropriate, depending on the offense and the crime.  I don't think the crimes to date warrant the deaths of 1.2 billion people, or the expulsion of all Muslims from the country.  But then, I'm sure that we can count on you to be in the Einsatzgruppen as they sweep through a Muslim area and shoot toddlers in the head, right?

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 08:09 AM (P18+/)

261 We need them for the space program.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 30, 2011 08:09 AM (DLxD/)

262 Hi... I'm a member of the Soviet Unioin Communist Party, and uesd to work for the KGB.... and still carry around my copy of the Communist Manifesto.... can I come in???

False analogy - actually WORKING for an agency (KGB) that wants our government overthrown is one of those ACTIONS by which a person can and should be judged.  Just like if a Muslim actually went to a terrorist training camp or something.  Of course don't let those people in.  I'm talking about your typical Muslim guy fresh off the boat, not associated with terrorists.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:09 AM (pqsMB)

263 "OK I'm game. Illuminate me as to why we must allow immigrants to come here for the express purpose of overthrowing our system."

Because the essence of liberalism is telling good people that they are not good unless they welcome their deadliest enemies.

Posted by: pst314 at January 30, 2011 08:10 AM (wKfRY)

264 273 Oh, so we are leftists? 
Rich, that is.

Posted by: What the LSM Wont Tell U at January 30, 2011 01:05 PM (HqFeB)


No - just that you're falling into the same leftist trap.  I've done it too, from time to time.  I just work to get over it.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:10 AM (pqsMB)

265 the New Testament clearly says to submit to secular authority--to 'render unto Caesar',. etc.  It does not say to kill infidels / non-believers; does not say that non-believers are pigs or dogs or apes; does not requiring worshiping moon rocks; does not set a pedophile up as the only Prophet

Christianity is spiritual, dualistic, and mystical;  Islam is a political doctrine based on military conquest and the force of government

wake up, some of you.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:11 AM (UqKQV)

266 Over the past 50-60 years Islam has gotten vastly more radical. 1950's era Egypt, Iran, and Lebanon were vastly more moderate than it is today.

Partly this is because the West has lost cultural confidence -- which is how we end up with leftist anti-American fucktards like Obama in office. But mostly it's due to the inherent evil and backwardness of Islam. What little progress they made out of barbarism enraged the muzzies who drag their civilization back to the Mohammedan pit.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 30, 2011 08:11 AM (QcFbt)

267 272 You;ve got a Straw Man in your pants, chemjeff. Muslims don't "debate"--that's a Judeo-Christian concept they passed on. If you're saying that many Muslims are token followers and don't want anyone killed for their religion, that's likely true. If you're saying that the millions of Muslims with Murderous Intent can be reasoned with, you're a fool Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 01:04 PM (UqKQV) I don't doubt that there are many Muslims that don't fully intend to carry out the details of jihad as prescribed in the Koran. In fact, I think the majority probably fall into this category. Then, I think of indoctrination over centuries, the formal words of the Koran inciting violence, and that it only nineteen true believers (out of a billion or so Muz) to take down the towers. My daughter was in the Pentagon on 9-11 (but unharmed Thank God), and I haven't forgotten what religion was responsible. apparently far too many have. Islam is just not compatible with what is left of Western Civilization.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 08:11 AM (alr7n)

268 One can try comparing western vs. Islamic culture point by point forever, and all that will happen is a standoff--because there are some blots on western cultures and a few points of encouragement in a few Islamic nations.

A far better test is this:  Does anyone recall seeing the Muz demonstrator in London carrying the sign "To hell with democracy"?  Another said "To hell with freedom." Or the imam who said "Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam"?

So what we have here is:  A religion that sees democracy and freedom as bad things.  And sees its divine mission as converting or subjugating all non-Muslims.  And routinely kills even other Muslims who the most radical imams deem insufficiently devout in these areas.

Bottom line--as about half of the commenters seem to understand--is that radical Muslims will eventually kill any moderates brave enough to stand up to them.  Recent example:  the murder of the governor of the Pakistani province who criticized the Pak law that calls for executing people convicted of "blasphemy against Islam."

By their own declaration, radical Muslims have sworn western concepts of freedom and democracy are their enemy.  Unless by some literal miracle they decide that Islam no longer contains that tenet, the only way we can coexist with them is the way they demand--conversion or submission and payment of the infidel tax.

If that's fine with you, you and I are no longer countrymen.  Period.  No compromise, no negotiation.  If you overtly work to weaken this nation, you just became my enemy.

Posted by: sf at January 30, 2011 08:12 AM (eSMQV)

269 You have a lot more work to do, chemjeff.  Your argument is unsound and invalid

Those who oppose Islam are not the same as Muslim extremists or 'Stalinists'

that's just a stupid, stupid argument

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:13 AM (UqKQV)

270 233 If you are a "bad" Muslim, no (and I know a few); if however, you are a staunchly good Muslim, yes (and there are far too many of those).  It has to do with the tenets of the religion, and the notion that it is indeed the word of God/Allah thus indesputible.  The former group of Muslims are, in fact, in as much danger from the latter as we infidels...but if they keep quiet and stay low they might escape for a bit.  Can't blame their desire for self-preservation.  That the ME has become more liberalized is one of the reasons for the extreme reactions too -- Islam, in its purest sense (and that's what the religion demands) doesn't hold up well to liberalization...but it isn't going to just quietly reform or go away (again, the ideology does not have that level of resilience within it).

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 08:13 AM (5/yRG)

271 Clubber Lang!

Speaking as a Catholic Christian,  the mocking and blasphemy of Christianity has not been a good thing.  Regardless if you are a believer or not,  the withdrawal of Christian influence from the public arena has had a pretty detrimental effect on our society.

And even if you leave my opinion aside,  you are asking to use a tactic that increases Islamic hatred of the west.   Don't think they haven't learned from watching how Christians were mocked and marginalized;  that is why they won't put up with it!

All that your tactic would cause is increased polarization.

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 30, 2011 08:14 AM (Fo83G)

272 There is no God named Allah, and Mohammad is his prom-date.

Posted by: Mohammad at January 30, 2011 08:15 AM (QcFbt)

273 Islam is just not compatible with what is left of Western Civilization.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 01:11 PM (alr7n)

I agree.  My point is that most Muslims would probably be willing to accept an Islam 'neutered' of the Crazy Shit.  

I could be wrong.........

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:16 AM (UqKQV)

274 If someone arrives here and begins agitating and plotting acts of violence to install the Pope as the USA's Supreme Leader,

Yes - arrest and punish these people, but not because of their faith, because of their conspiracy.  That's judging people by their actions.  I'm all in favor of that.

 or does the same to demand that the Laws of the Land be amended to force all public restaurants to enforce kashruth, they are not Americans. Same goes for Muzzies.

I have no problem with people advocating strange or bizarre views.  But it's the Constitution which is supreme.  Advocate all you want that restaurants be coerced to follow kashruth, I don't care.

I repeat: the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.  I have views that the state no doubt finds strange or bizarre (like, you know, slashing government spending).  I don't want the state to have the power to punish me based solely on the views that I advocate.  Again conspiracy to commit crimes is another story.


Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:16 AM (pqsMB)

275 False analogy - actually WORKING for an agency (KGB) that wants our government overthrown is one of those ACTIONS by which a person can and should be judged.  Just like if a Muslim actually went to a terrorist training camp or something.  Of course don't let those people in.  I'm talking about your typical Muslim guy fresh off the boat, not associated with terrorists.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:09 PM (pqsMB)

LOL... closer?

Hi, I was raised in the Soviet Union, and went to a Party School were I was taught the glory of Communism... and the evil of America... and here is my copy of the Communist Manifesto which tells me to overthrow your Government...

Vice, Hi, I was rasied in ---stan, and went to a Religious Madrasa, where I was taught the glory of Moh... and the Evil of the Decadent Great Satan, America... and here is my copy of the Koran, which informs me that God wants me to overthrow your evil ways to implement Sharia Law...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:16 AM (AdK6a)

276 I look at things from a long term historical perspective. Militant Islam was quiet for centuries after failing at the gates of Vienna because they lacked the strength to threaten the West. Oil wealth has now given them that capability. But their new found military strength may not even be necessary as Western nations commit cultural suicide by allowing unrestricted Muslim immigration with no requirement that they assimilate or even respect the laws and traditions of their host nations.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 08:16 AM (w7Lv+)

277 277 real joe......Sorry mate.Commented on the wrong post.

Posted by: pooh at January 30, 2011 08:20 AM (47OiY)

278

Posted by: lowandslow, Packer fan at January 30, 2011 01:09 PM (GZitp)


I'm not a leftist, that's a low blow.  I am an individualist.  Leftists are the ones who say we should be bending over backwards to accommodate our "Muslim brothers and sisters".  That's not at all what I'm saying.  I say treat each Muslim as separate individuals.  If that individual does something to break our laws, punish that person appropriately.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:20 AM (pqsMB)

279 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 01:16 PM (AdK6a)

I honestly have no problem with either case.  It is when those people start committing ACTIONS which undermine the state, that is when they should be punished and/or deported.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:23 AM (pqsMB)

280 The reasons that Islamic countries are still backwards in development are rooted in the tenets of their faith:

1.  Women are without rights,  careers,  or the ability to own property.  Half of their population is simply relegated to the home without any choice or recourse.  Not only is this bad for women,  but it means they function with only half of the population able to do anything productive.

2.  Education is pretty much non-existant for a lot of poor kids,  unless they go to a madrassa.  And in the madrassa,  all they are taught is how to read and study the Koran.  Not much work for those kids unless they become mullahs (which explains why the explosion in mosques everywhere).

3.  Because the educational system is so poor,  students who can do so head to western universities,  creating a brain drain,  because most of them do not return to their native lands.

4.  The requirement to have prayers 5 times a day is disruptive and draining on an economy.  ong ago the Catholic Church established monasteries which prayed the Daily Office,  the prayers of the Church as a whole.  In essence,   Catholics specialized and appointed people to do this prayer (which others may also pray but it isn't required to be a good Catholic).   Doing this one thing would help Islam quite a bit.  Monasteries with peole in charge of prayer would stop all of the disruption.

Just off the top of my head,  those are things which cause Islam lag behind.  There are more,  but I am not going to bore everyone to tears.

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 30, 2011 08:23 AM (Fo83G)

281 297 277 real joe......Sorry mate.Commented on the wrong post.
 
No prob. Was genuinely curious.

Posted by: real joe at January 30, 2011 08:23 AM (w7Lv+)

282

The Sudanese have done great things for our local economies! 

Without them, we'd never be able to directly support terror groups with fianncial aid and foot-soldiers of Allah. (Please Build Us High-SpeedRail)

Posted by: Minnesota, Chicago, Iowa Sudanese Emigre Council at January 30, 2011 08:24 AM (lJQmo)

283 Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:16 PM

For the last time -- before I go make myself a ham sammich -- I do not want the government to enact or have any fuckin' laws that target Muslims.

None. Zero. Zip Nada.

I want our government to enforce the laws against any-fucking-one working to overthrow our government, injure or kill our people, establish a religion-based government or discriminate against any other citizens.

If a Muzzie, Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon or Zoroastrian breaks those laws, punish them and kick their asses out.

You're starting to sound like a wet-brained liberal with all this talk about "ooooh, the poor, picked-on Muzzies," dude. I know you're a helluva lot smarter than that.

Posted by: MrScribbler©, Joooo at January 30, 2011 08:24 AM (Ulu3i)

284 Miss Marple:

My point was that the casual blasphemy has been an effective tactic. Active Christian faith has been decimated in Europe and severely weakened in America. And it has not produced a great backlash among Christians. Instead Christians have retreated and retreated.

Bill Maher's show, for example, could not have existed in America until recently. It took decades of comedians and leftists constantly pushing the boundaries of blasphemy until now somebody like Maher can just openly sneer how Christians are stupid idiots, Jesus was just some schizoid lunatic, the Bible is a book of lies, and Christianity is just a giant fraud for morons. And he gets paid millions to do this weekly on HBO. He is lauded and rewarded for this.

These developments are clearly bad for Christianity, but they are good for enemies of Christianity. Casual blasphemy worked wonders to undermine the Christian faith.

I consider myself an enemy of Islam. I want to undermine the Islamic faith. Therefore I'm looking at history for effective tactics. And you agree with me that the casual anti-Christian blasphemy has been a very effective tactic.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 30, 2011 08:25 AM (QcFbt)

285 One reason Radical Islam is on the rise now is the encroaching power of Western ideas and practices. Islamic nations in the ME are dominated by men. OBL made this clear in his declaration of war against the USA and the West. They fear the power of Freedom. Islam is designed to conquer and subdue its enemies. It can not play defense because it something to offer to only one half of it's population. And even then Muslim men live as slaves as well. They are obliged to be demented oppressors. The end result is stagnation and decay.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 08:26 AM (n0WLs)

286 I want our government to enforce the laws against any-fucking-one working to overthrow our government, injure or kill our people, establish a religion-based government or discriminate against any other citizens.

Then we agree.

You're starting to sound like a wet-brained liberal with all this talk about "ooooh, the poor, picked-on Muzzies," dude. I know you're a helluva lot smarter than that.

I don't feel sorry for Muslims as a group, no.  Individuals may or may not deserve my sympathy but that is based on their individual circumstances.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:26 AM (pqsMB)

287 Oh I see, only you're allowed to call us leftists but when you spew leftist thought we can't mention it?

I didn't call you a leftist.  I said that I believe many people here are falling into the same trap that leftists often fall into.  If you wear a green shirt and a leftist wears a green shirt, that doesn't make you a leftist.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:27 AM (pqsMB)

288

Just remember, the power that you want to give the state over Muslims can and will be used against you later.

Of course it does.


That power was given away a long time ago; the precedent was already set before I (and probably most of you) were born.  This in the end, does not come down to priciples/ideals -- it comes down to survival -- the resources and advantages that allow a person to live by principles are starting to become rather short in supply.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 08:29 AM (5/yRG)

289 299 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 01:16 PM (AdK6a)

I honestly have no problem with either case.  It is when those people start committing ACTIONS which undermine the state, that is when they should be punished and/or deported.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:23 PM (pqsMB)

Except that what we are talking about is immigration... and we can CHOOSE who we let have the Great Gift which is living in America.

Why let in someone who may very well be a threat.... where there are so many who are NOT in groups who threaten us, who want in?

Why let in anyone who belongs to a group, which SAYS they wish to do us harm, and change us, when there are so many others NOT in those groups?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:29 AM (AdK6a)

290 If only Mohammed/Muhamed/whatever had believed in high speed rail!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 08:29 AM (alr7n)

291

Brad Thor contends that it's the peaceful Muslims who've perverted the religion, that true believers are the bloodthirsty ones.

The perversion, however, allows the wolf in sheep's clothing to get into the herd.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 30, 2011 08:29 AM (DLxD/)

292 And I don't consider upholding the dignity and worth of every individual to be "leftist thought".  Leftists are the first ones to herd everyone into groups and deny the individuality of people in the group.  They are the ones who treat people like cogs in a machine with their grand government-run schemes to save the world or some such nonsense.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:29 AM (pqsMB)

293

Why let in anyone who belongs to a group, which SAYS they wish to do us harm, and change us, when there are so many others NOT in those groups?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 01:29 PM

Because NASA will fail in its mission if we don't?

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 30, 2011 08:30 AM (Ulu3i)

294

I'm not a leftist, that's a low blow.  I am an individualist. 

Of course you're not a leftist.  But you mistake individualism a bit.  Being an individualist doesn't mean that you deny any aggregate characteristics of groups.  That's an extremist Mises sort of attitude that is pretty whacky and totally at odds with reality.  There are groups and they do have characteristics.  Especially when they have founding documents that anyone can read and understand.

Leftists are the ones who say we should be bending over backwards to accommodate our "Muslim brothers and sisters".  That's not at all what I'm saying.  I say treat each Muslim as separate individuals.  If that individual does something to break our laws, punish that person appropriately.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:20 PM (pqsMB)

And this is where you are wrong.  The group of muslims have aggregate characteristics that we are all aware of, as I mentioned above.  Further, the US has no obligation to anyone to let them in to become American.  It is our choice who we let in, and it would behoove us to only let in those who are likely to be able to actually become American, in a cultural-political sense.  With muslims, this is generally unlikely, and becomes more unlikely as their numbers here swell.

You mistake the American concept of individualism, with respect to our internal law, with having to deal with every single individual in the world as an individual.  We don't do that.  When a nation or group threatens or attacks us, we retaliate against that group without having to figure out who the good individuals are and who the bad ones are.  Even American individualists understand that there are groups that are treated as groups - just not internally in our law (outside of age/sex classifications, which are just so obvious as to not need any explanation).

You are taking an odd view of American individualism that will lead you to totally untenable positions, such as the idea that Afghan terrorists have some sort of Constitutional rights and therefore need to be mirandized in Afghanistan. That is the sort of insanity that a desire to view the entire world as nothing but individuals, with the US Constitution extending rights to all of them, individually, necessarily leads to.  I am not accusing you of supporting that insanity, but your argument about individualism without bound is exactly the argument that leads to such policies.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 08:31 AM (N49h9)

295 There is no God named Allah, and Mohammad is his Poofter.

Posted by: Mohammad at January 30, 2011 08:31 AM (QcFbt)

296

I think Jeff just chose a bad way of saying that the slippery slope is too close to many of the arguments posed herein.

Carelessness in such a situation could lead to unintended outcomes that Jeff (and most of us) would have us avoid. 

However, I do not think that jeff appreciates the lack of distinction between the farsical notion of 'Radical' and 'Moderate' Islam.

There are adherents to Islam and then there are the Kaffir.  That's all that the Koran allows.  

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 08:32 AM (lJQmo)

297 314 Note how vociferously the peaceful Muslims have spoken up about the bloodthirsty ones. Really gives me hope for reconciliation!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 08:32 AM (alr7n)

298

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:26 PM (pqsMB)

Is Speech, Action?

Is the written Word, Speech?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:32 AM (AdK6a)

299 Can't we all agree that it is okay to have a pig farm next to a Mosque?

Posted by: dogfish at January 30, 2011 08:33 AM (N2yhW)

300

52 The US is complicit in the genocide of the MidEast Christians.

 

We attend church every week, and pay attention during the sermons.  I've never heard a word uttered in church regarding the murder of Christians by muslims, anywhere in the middle east.  Copts slaughtered by muslims in Egypt, silence.  Christians in Iraq systematically wiped out daily, crickets.

Never heard a word when the Church of the Nativity was taken over by islamic militants and desecrated.  The muslims turned the church into a muslim toilet.  Defecated everywhere.  It was disgusting.  Christian leaders of the west want to be seen as "tolerant" and "open-minded" and "part of the peace process".

These so-called leaders are leading us to destruction.  There is less freedom now in muslim countries than 50 years ago.  Iran had a revolution and went backwards.  Turkey is sliding back into savagery, sharia is right around the corner for them, and they want it!  Catholic priests are murdered on their church grounds in Turkey, and the silence is deafening.  When the Pope spoke up about it, he was condemned, not the murderer.

I hate to be a gloom & doomer, but I think what we are seeing now is the beginning of something awful.  The muslim brotherhood and hamas and hezbollah and al quaida and the taliban and all the other islamic death cults sense that this is their moment.  America has a president who has signaled repeatedly that he's on their side, not our side. 


Posted by: Boots at January 30, 2011 08:36 AM (neKzn)

301 lowandslow, for the last time, relax, I'm not calling you a leftist.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:37 AM (pqsMB)

302 Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 01:31 PM (N49h9) Rational people would accept that the Constitution is a local document, i.e., binding on the people of the several united states and the US Federal government. It does not extend to Mirandizing jihadis, enemy combatants, and it doesn't say that the right to practice your religion includes the sub-clause that you can kill non-believers BECAUSE it is written in your Koran which is the key to your religion.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 08:37 AM (alr7n)

303

Is Speech, Action?

No.

Is the written Word, Speech?

Yes.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:38 AM (pqsMB)

304 >>Really, Jack, you have no clue regarding what you're apologizing for. The people you are trying to 'understand' believe you to be essentially the same as a pig or dog Oh bullshit. I am well aware of radical Islam and the dangers it poses. I understand, clearly better than you, that not all Muslims are radicals and if fact they are a small minority. Our foreign policy in the Middle East for years helped foster a lot of the radicalism. We supported strong men dictators that not only allowed but supported the growth of radical Islam among their people. They needed an outlet for their unhappiness at the conditions they were forced to live in and the Great Satans of the west and Israel made a perfect fall guy. I had dinner at the house of one of the directors of the National Bank of Abu Dhabi a while back. He is one of the most gracious and friendly people I have ever met. He was educated in the US and spent many years working and traveling in the US before returning home. His interest is in doing business with the west and particularly the US toward the goal of bringing his country into the future. He is also a devout Muslim. One of my other customers is a Palestinian who has lived in the UAE for over 30 years. He has two grown sons who were educated at US universities and are both engineers with American companies. All are Muslims. We have had a rocky history with the Middle East and our policies while helping to provide stability in the short term weren't always helpful in the long run. Helping remove a democratically elected government in Iran and installing the Shah because of a dispute over by the Anglo American Oil and the government of Iran over Iranian oil fields seemed like a good idea at the time but look what it got us in the long run. That's not to say there aren't bad actors in the Middle East, there are many. But judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few is idiotic and counterproductive to the world we live in. We can either help Muslim countries that are moving toward a new age choose a freer, more open and tolerant society or we can let them align with countries like Iran. Those are our options. It's playing out in Egypt in realtime. We had better choose wisely.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 08:39 AM (TMB3S)

305

And I can remember reading about a time when many people weren't let into this country simply because they were from the "wrong" sections of the world...not from countries at war with us, or had attacked us, or where influential people called for the destruction of our state from the inside out.  I also remember reading  about a whole group of people being interned in camps because of where they came from (the wisdom of which is debatable if morally repugnant); whole groups of people placed on reservations , sometimes exterminated because they were in a state of war with our country.

So I don't give a damn if poor Muslims are discriminated against -- so far they've gotten let off pretty easily -- and I'm tired of American handwringing; we were never lily pure (no country ever was/is/will be), and maybe it's time to get over it once and for all.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 30, 2011 08:40 AM (5/yRG)

306

I hate to be a gloom & doomer, but I think what we are seeing now is the beginning of something awful.  The muslim brotherhood and hamas and hezbollah and al quaida and the taliban and all the other islamic death cults sense that this is their moment.  America has a president who has signaled repeatedly that he's on their side, not our side. 


Posted by: Boots at January 30, 2011 01:36 PM (neKzn)

yeah, unfortunately for all of us, you're probably right. 

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:41 AM (UqKQV)

307

Posted by: Boots at January 30, 2011 01:36 PM (neKzn)

Born and Raised United Methodist... sang in the choir... was an altar boy... still a Family Pew in the church...

Final straw was when the "Council" decided there was no such thing as a justifiable War... and even scrubbed the Hymnal of "Onward Christian Soldier"...  would not even let that be sung at my Fathers Funeral, even though it was by far his favorite hymn when I was growing up...

Heck, even Jesus told his Disciples to sell their cloaks, to buy a sword... but Christianity has been on a Wimp path for a couple of Generations..

What scares me, is that the Pendulum WILL eventually swing... and may very well swing too far...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:41 AM (AdK6a)

308

Rational people would accept that the Constitution is a local document, i.e., binding on the people of the fifty-seven several united states and the US Federal government.

No need to thank me.  Just knowing you want to is enough.

Posted by: Barack al Aqsa Obama at January 30, 2011 08:42 AM (lJQmo)

309

Is Speech, Action?

No.

Is the written Word, Speech?

Yes.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:38 PM (pqsMB)

Therefore, it would be OK to stand up (or write) about the violent overthrow of the Government, or the Killing of people... even to telling others to do so?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:43 AM (AdK6a)

310 Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 01:39 PM (TMB3S)

You're a fool--and not worth arguing with.  Your dream is not their dream

Can you comprehend that?

Your 'reconciliation plan' is not in their book

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:43 AM (UqKQV)

311 I hate to be a gloom & doomer, but I think what we are seeing now is the beginning of something awful. The muslim brotherhood and hamas and hezbollah and al quaida and the taliban and all the other islamic death cults sense that this is their moment. America has a president who has signaled repeatedly that he's on their side, not our side. Posted by: Boots at January 30, 2011 01:36 PM (neKzn) All the muzzie cults have the commonality of purpose given by the Koran. They also have a ruthlessness that makes them very formidable, especially when they are facing down an emasculated populace. The West is now so insecure in it's view of anything non-secular that it has NO underlying sense of purpose. The Commie Progs have been very helpful in furthering this. Western Civilization--nice run while it worked.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 08:43 AM (alr7n)

312 Being an individualist doesn't mean that you deny any aggregate characteristics of groups.

Making observations about individuals and constructing patterns from those observations is fine and dandy.  It's when we judge and take actions based on those aggregate characteristics, rather than on the actions of the individual, is where I start to object.

Further, the US has no obligation to anyone to let them in to become American.

Well, no, there is no obligation.  But we owe it to ourselves to have principled reasons, consistent with our values, in making our determinations.

And I don't think that every individual has American constitutional rights.  Only citizens do.  I believe that we should respect the dignity of individuals.  Now sometimes that's not possible, like in the case of actual war, as you mention.  But we aren't talking about war.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:45 AM (pqsMB)

313 garrett, thanks - yes, I don't want the state to have the power to tell any group of people "you are not wanted here anymore" based solely on the characteristics of the group (and not by actions that members of the group have taken) because that power will be used against me in the future.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:46 AM (pqsMB)

314 Posted by: Hrothgar at January 30, 2011 01:37 PM (alr7n)

Yep.  It's weird that anyone can think that the US Constitution extends "rights" to people outside of our nation.  The Constitution places no restrictions on the behavior of our government outside of our sovereign territory. 

And even ON our sovereign territory, too many people don't seem to understand that our federal government was set up with the expressed purpose of working in the interests of American citizens and American citizens, only.   The Founders couldn't have been more explicit than stating, right in the preamble, that one of the only purposes of the federal government was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity;".  We can be generous and extend priveleges to resident aliens that are commensurate with the rights of American citizens, but when push comes to shove, given the same circumstances and the ability to only help one, the US government should always opt for an American over a legal alien.  In today's world, though, an illegal alien on American soil has all the same "rights" as an American.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 08:47 AM (N49h9)

315

 

67 If advanced Nations in a period of decades can collapse to nightmares like Nazi Germany, why can't backward nations be uplifted in decades?

Ever seen the controlled demolition of a large building?  Now compare how long and how much energy and planning it takes to build one against how little energy it takes to bring it down.

The Asians have their concept of the yin/yang dark side being equal to the light side wrong.  It takes more power and order to create than to destroy.

Death and chaos are a natural state, order and growth/life take far more energy and effort.

Posted by: Speller at January 30, 2011 08:49 AM (J74Py)

316

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 01:43 PM (AdK6a)


In fact, Romeo, Ted Rall, noted leftist douchebag, has a book out right now advocating armed insurrection.  Write and talk about it all you want.  But when you start DOING something about it, that is when the problem arises.  It's not "okay" to talk about insurrection, I never said it was.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:49 AM (pqsMB)

317 Well thanks for the discussion - gotta go and get some actual work done.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 08:50 AM (pqsMB)

318 There is no God but Allah, and chemjeff is his useful idiot.

Posted by: Mohammad at January 30, 2011 08:52 AM (QcFbt)

319 growth/life take far more energy and effort.

Posted by: Speller at January 30, 2011 01:49 PM (J74Py)

Perfect analogy--unfortunately

It took ( in the larger sense ) centuries to create and actually construct the Twin Towers--but only minutes to destroy them while killing thousands.

Savages always have that advantage

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 08:53 AM (UqKQV)

320 It's not "okay" to talk about insurrection, I never said it was.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:49 PM (pqsMB)

Therefore, you would aggree then, since you admit the written word is speech... that the Koran, which tells every Moslem that it is their duty to perform Jihad, and to bring Sharia Law into existance everywhere, thus supplanting the US Constitution... is wrong... or at least "not OK'...

Yet, you want people who Voluntarily follow that View, into America?

Is not their voluntarily following, and espousing, Islam, an Action? As the Religion itslef dictates that they MUST overhtrow the Governments of the West and instituts Sharia Law?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 30, 2011 08:56 AM (AdK6a)

321 Now sometimes that's not possible, like in the case of actual war, as you mention.  But we aren't talking about war.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 30, 2011 01:45 PM (pqsMB)

But we are.  Both a hot war and a cultural war.  Remember, jeff, it takes two to tango, but only one to force a war.

And it is not a question of being possible.  We are not restricted to acting being something is possible or not.  We act in the best interests of our nation, and with respect to any non-American, there is considerable latitude in that and considerable discretion that must be exercised.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 30, 2011 08:56 AM (N49h9)

322 Here are a few means to be considered:
no accomodation of our laws to yours
no further Muslim immigration
deportation of those who refuse to assimilate
an eye for an eye retaliation to those responsible for perpetuating violence
execution of those found to have perpetuated violence
wars with countries that harbor terrorists

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 01:09 PM (P18+/)

So - we agree at least that no more should be allowed to be here.  I'll say that's a good place to start.  As for the others, I have some questions:

-How long do they get to assimilate, how will you measure it, and why on earth should we go to the trouble of all this extra work to bring in a bunch of goat fuckers?  Are you also willing to deport their spouses and children with them?  Because that will be necessary, too.  And if no one will take them?  What then?  Dump them in the sea?  Quarantine them in the desert?

-Why do you think they're going to make it easy on us in terms of committing violent acts?  They're biding their time - waiting for the chance to strike, until there are too many to effectively control, as in Europe.  Once organized insurrection begins, how much mess are we going to be stuck with, and how many normal Americans must die to give the Muz the chance to play nice (which they will use only to prepare to attack us).

-Wars with terror sponsoring states sounds good.  And then what?  Occupy them all?  With what treasure?  With who's blood?  Iraq, once it's fallen back into the hands of zealous Muz, will be back to supporting terror.  Shall we go back in and invade again, spend billions again, and then leave them to go right back to it yet again after that, while we build up for the next invasion a few years later?  And shall we do this world wide?  

The problem with Muslim countries is simple - they're full of Muslims.  Only fixing that root issue will provide a long term solution.  

But then, I'm sure that we can count on you to be in the Einsatzgruppen as they sweep through a Muslim area and shoot toddlers in the head, right?

Posted by: pep at January 30, 2011 01:09 PM (P18+/)

If it came to it, yes.  Do you think I'd do it with joy or a song in my heart?  On the contrary.  I'd prefer to be left alone and pursue my interests in peace and never harm another person.  But that's foolish dreaming.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 30, 2011 08:57 AM (4nbyM)

323

Our foreign policy in the Middle East for years helped foster a lot of the radicalism.

Apologist, crap. 

 I went to the University of Arizona with several of the members of the mosque that several of the 9/11 Hi-Jackers used for cover and aid in Tucson.

They were 'great guys'.  Jordan, UAE, Quatar, Saud, all were represented there among my group of friends.  One of our buddies, Islam, went off the deep end.  Turned incredibly radical.  Kicked out of school for denouncing the West at all times and in all places...eventually, he all but moved into the mosque.  His friends weren't the least bit concerned...he was just more 'devout' to them. 

When it was discovered that I was a Jew, their attitudes toward me changed. 

The radical one threatened to kill me for sharing their hospitality (read Hookah)without informing them of my religion.  He threatened to kill me should I ever cross his path again.  I was told by several of my friends that I was a sub-human and that I deserved whatever fate befell me at the hands of Islam - my ex-friend. 

My experience with Islam, my heritage, and my common sense indicate that you are nothing but a stupid fucking Dhimmi. 

Good luck keeping your head on your shoulders.

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 08:57 AM (lJQmo)

324

sHrillary, on Fox News Sunday.

What a fucking idiot.  I think she's taking her talking points from JackStraw.

She used the phrase 'Egyptian Civil Society'!

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 09:06 AM (lJQmo)

325 Kill them all.  God will recognize his own.

I missed that chapter in the bible.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2011 09:07 AM (dxXO1)

Posted by: METALLICA at January 30, 2011 09:11 AM (lJQmo)

327 329 I hate to be a gloom & doomer, but I think what we are seeing now is the beginning of something awful.

Well, Marc Faber did just come out and say he believes this is the beginning of WWIII.  But he's not a gloom and doomer, though...(ha) Regardless, one might start investing as if it were the dawning of something much larger than we can readily contain.

Posted by: Derak at January 30, 2011 09:48 AM (1Fl1A)

328 It'd be real nice if some of our new friends in Congress started sending support and arms to the Southern Sudanese. We could end up with friends with oil.

There's a good idea.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2011 09:53 AM (dxXO1)

329 There is no God named Allah, and Mohammad is his prom-date.

A laugh among the rants - yeah.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2011 09:56 AM (dxXO1)

330 Islam is a vile, despicable false religion.

Whatever else it is Islam is the voice >1 billion speak to God via everyday.  I don't think He'll be happy if we replace those voices with a Geiger counter clicking.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2011 09:59 AM (dxXO1)

331 Savages always have that advantage Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 30, 2011 01:53 PM (UqKQV) So, sowing disorder is often easier and faster than doing the opposite. So what? How does that mean that an increase in order is impossible or too much trouble? The Reformation of Islam is already underway. The work will be hard and difficult. Many people will pay with their lives, but it is inevitable. Islam as we know it today will be exterminated and replaced with something much better.

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 10:40 AM (n0WLs)

332 VDH speaks: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/whats-the-matter-with-egypt/

Posted by: eman at January 30, 2011 10:51 AM (n0WLs)

333 >>VDH speaks Apparently, VDH never shared a hookah with garret at the University of Arizona so his world view is invalid. And since he basically said what I did, I guess he's just a fucking dhimmi.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 11:13 AM (TMB3S)

334 >>this seems to be the point of contention. Everyone has their personal experience, good and bad. If personal experience is writ large, in the behavior of its adherents, then you may have a case. But evidence points to the fact that muslims are freedom-fuckers... your experience not withstanding... When have they had a chance? The history of the Middle East is replete with authoritarian dictators be they religious or secular. They don't have much experience with self-determination and freedom as they are direct descendants of tribal rule. And I have had many bad experiences in the Middle East. Americans are not universally loved after decades of demonization. I'm under no illusion that the Middle East is going to start springing forth Jeffersonian democrats overnight, maybe never. But, as VDH notes and I said earlier, the modern age has largely passed them by as they were trapped by authoritarians and the only information they were given was spoon fed to them by their rulers. Modern communications technologies have put an end to that and it's no surprise that they are the first things to be limited in times of relative calm and shut down when shit hits the fan. But the more we engage the more individuals start to realize we aren't the Great Satan they have been brought up to believe we are. As eman noted, Islam is changing and its going to be a slow, painful process but it will happen. What is going on in places like the UAE, a country which didn't even exist 40 years ago, is the future of the Middle East if we support it. We can either help them move toward us or pretend that all Muslims are radical jihadists and let them be co-opted by the radicals.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 11:42 AM (TMB3S)

335

#354 - Islam is a cult.  A cult of death. mohammed stole his religious ideas from the Jewish and Christian texts to make himself sound legitimate.  mohammed's tribes and villages were idol worshippers.  mo saw that Jews were united by ONE God and Christians were untied by ONE God - and had the brilliant idea that he would destroy two of the three idols the villagers fought over as being the most powerful, and keep only the allah idol, and proclaim himself a prophet of the one IDOL.  (Notice he didn't have the balls to actually call himself a messiah). Hence the pilgrimages to Mecca to walk around a big black rock.  That's why "infidels" are not allowed at Mecca.  Because we wouldn't UNDERSTAND the importance of paying homage to a rock! 

mohammed did not write the koran.  It was written by his "followers," based on mo's edicts,  and then added to by successive regimes to fit whatever "law" they wanted to impose to subjugate the people through fear and violence, for their own personal power and monetary gain, just like any other rotten hearted bastards.

There is a reason why islamic govts. and religious institutions put apostates to death or don't allow Bibles or "infidel" thoughts into their cultures, it's because without fear and subjugation, islam cannot survive.  People allowed to think for themselves will eventually figure out what a sham it is. 

Posted by: Dianne at January 30, 2011 12:01 PM (RPC8g)

336 We lived for several years in Qatar.  When we first arrived, we had mass in houses, with rotating times and only gave information via word-of-mouth.  Eventually, the influx of westerners forced the government to "give" us a church.  We still had to pass information via word-of-mouth, and had to deal with "youths" graffiting the walls and slashing tires, and screaming and yelling as we left.  It was getting better when we left Qatar, but it wasn't great.  I had men at the grocery refuse to take money from my hand - i had to give it to my 9 year old son to hand to the cashier.  I toured Hamad hospital and was shown the brand new outpatient surgery center solely for female clitorectomies.  I and my sons witnessed a man older than my father beat his young (maybe 14-15 year old) wife in the parking garage at City Center.  These are just a few things.  As a woman, I learned to despise islam and its practioners.

Posted by: Katy Beth at January 30, 2011 12:20 PM (MS9hn)

337 Islam is designed to conquer and subdue its enemies.

Indeed.  Both external and internal enemies.  The whole Koran as literal word of god concept with dictates to kill apostates pretty much assures a hermetically sealed "reform proof" environment.

This is the fundamental difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam.  The Bible/Torah generally don't make any claims that every single word is the literal word of god, while the Koran does.

Any "Reform" attempts trying to soften Koran language, will by definition be apostate.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2011 12:46 PM (k7a/R)

338 Fuck Islam. Islam is not the way 1 billion+ talk to God. Allah is not God. The Muslims claim they worship the same god as Christians. This is a lie. This is an attempt by muzzie-scum to claim God as their own and to say, see, we came later and therefore supercede Christianity.

Islam and Christianity cannot co-exist. Islam denies Jesus was the Son of God. They cannot both be true. They can both be false, but they cannot both be true.

Islam is the most evil religion on the planet. It cannot be reasoned with, it can only be destroyed like a rabid dog.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 30, 2011 01:00 PM (QcFbt)

339

Apparently, VDH never shared a hookah with garret at the University of Arizona so his world view is invalid. And since he basically said what I did, I guess he's just a fucking dhimmi.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 04:13 PM (TMB3S)

From now on I call you 'Dancing Boy'.

Your argument is now valid based on the agreement of VDH. 

Well played, chump.

 

Posted by: garrett at January 30, 2011 01:42 PM (lJQmo)

340 Islam is the most evil religion on the planet.

What am I, chopped liver?
They had a 1230 year head start but I made #2 on murderers row.

Posted by: Karl Marx at January 30, 2011 01:56 PM (dxXO1)

341 Theocide is the last option.  1300 years, >50 countries & >1 billion people aren't going to become Canada overnight.  Be patient & keep working, we'll still be here if you need us.

Posted by: A dozen SSBNs full of D5s at January 30, 2011 02:03 PM (dxXO1)

342 See, funny, realistic, wont scare too many moderates.  That's what the moronosphere can do. 

Ranting gets you a couple of more yellers on this site.  The forward offense of freedom could win the whole solar system for mankind.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2011 02:12 PM (dxXO1)

343 garrett at January 30, 2011 06:42 PM (lJQmo) You're pathetic. You lose every argument and all you can do is toss insults. You have no first hand knowledge of anything accept get bitch slapped in college. And you think that makes you an internet tough guy? Get your shinebox.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 30, 2011 05:21 PM (TMB3S)

344

" The Confederates possessed a moral code that allowed them to buy and sell human beings like donkeys.  To destroy families.  Murder people at will and live off the fruits of their labors like parasites.  Is this the moral code that helped them escape extermination by the North?"-eman

This is the most stupid post I've ever read on this site.  eman, "Roots" was not real.  Read a fucking book.

Posted by: Case at January 31, 2011 01:31 AM (0K+Kw)

345 eman:The Confederates possessed a moral code that allowed them to buy and sell human beings like donkeys. To destroy families. Murder people at will and live off the fruits of their labors like parasites. Buy and sell human beings, yes. Live off the fruits of their labors, yes. Destroy families, not so much. It was allowed, but it was looked down on, and many slaveowners would never sell slaves away from their spouses or minor children. Murder people at will, no. Killing a slave was, legally, murder, and slaveowners were punished for it at least some times. OTOH, rape of a slave woman was not a crime, and any sort of flogging or other punishment was entirely at the owner's discretion.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom at February 01, 2011 07:51 AM (7YiAj)

Posted by: hyde at February 05, 2011 12:36 AM (45SgX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
322kb generated in CPU 0.18, elapsed 0.2424 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0751 seconds, 533 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.