Squaring Off Against Islam

[KingBall]

Some people used to refer to Ronald Reagan as the Teflon president because no matter how much mud his political foes threw at him, nothing stuck. That was because he was so much wiser, more principled, charming and charismatic, than his left-wing detractors.

These days, those who seem to come equipped with Teflon are the world’s Islamics. What’s so mystifying about this is that they share none of Reagan’s finer qualities. Theirs is a religion which calls for the domination of all others, and yet the majority of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics, continue treating them with the utmost respect and sensitivity. Frankly, I don’t think it’s even appreciated. Instead, I believe it’s perceived as fear and cowardice.

Although Muslims are committing acts of barbarism all over the globe, our leaders continue paying lip service to the followers of Allah. These people blow up trains, planes and pizza parlors, and the British prime minister orders his cabinet members never to use the term “Islamic terrorists,” while our own president and secretary of state feel compelled to keep reminding us that Islam is a religion of peace. Funny how often they need to keep reminding us. When is the last time that anybody needed to be told that Buddhism, for instance, or Shintoism is a religion of peace? Do we require constant reassurance that the Amish mean to do us no harm? But, then, when’s the last time that a Buddhist blew up a busload of children?

In America, there appear to be far more chowderheads who fear the followers of Christ than of Muhammad. It gives me a headache trying to psychoanalyze the liberals who side with the so-called Palestinians against the Israelis, when Israel is an ally of ours, is a nation of laws and is, unlike all the Islamic tyrannies, a western-style democracy.

I fear that millions of our fellow citizens are as gullible as little kids. But instead of believing in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, these lunkheads choose to believe that what the members of Fatah and Hamas desire is to simply live in freedom in their own homeland. When Yasser Arafat was offered that very thing, he left Camp David in a huff. What the Muslims want is to destroy Israel for no other reason than that it’s inhabited by Jews. Once they finish the job begun by Hitler, the different factions can then get back to doing what Islamists do best -- namely, killing off one another.

Some Americans, the truly befuddled, actually believe that what the rest of us recognize as Islam’s intolerance of all non-Muslims is actually a matter of economics. But, then, that’s what Communists, Socialists and other assorted loonies, always think. Because they have no morals themselves, they like to think that economic deprivation is the basis of all violence. They believe it’s poverty that leads Muslims to be suicide-bombers, but fail to explain how killing innocent civilians cures that particular problem. They don’t seem to find it peculiar that Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat were multi-millionaires, and that those behind the recent plot to set off explosions in London and Glasgow were all a bunch of doctors.

Apologists for Islam will go to any length, no matter how absurd, to spin the truth. They contend, for example, that the initial attack on the Twin Towers and the attack on 9/11 took place because we had waged war against Saddam Hussein, while ignoring the fact that in 1991, we were coming to the defense of Kuwait, a Muslim country under siege by Iraq. Furthermore, when you ask these crazies to explain all the prior Islamic attacks on the U.S., dating back to the Ayatollah Khomeni’s taking hostages in 1979, they suddenly remember they were supposed to be somewhere else half an hour ago.

The fact remains that Muslims hate not only the West, but the five billion non-Muslims on the face of the earth. As for their liberal defenders in this country, the sad truth is that they aren’t really pro-Islam as much as they’re anti-America. Like Muslims, they regard us as the Great Satan. It explains why the same people who openly despise all the symbols of Judaism and Christianity went ballistic over the Korans allegedly being trashed in Guantanamo; and why the ACLU, always so quick to oppose religious displays at Christmas and Chanukah, went to the mat on behalf of the Islamic woman who insisted that her face be veiled on her driver’s license.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/prelutsky/07162007.htm

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Some people used to refer to Ronald Reagan as the Teflon president because no matter how much mud his political foes threw at him, nothing stuck. That was because he was so much wiser, more principled, charming and charismatic, than his left-wing detractors.

These days, those who seem to come equipped with Teflon are the world’s Islamics. What’s so mystifying about this is that they share none of Reagan’s finer qualities. Theirs is a religion which calls for the domination of all others, and yet the majority of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics, continue treating them with the utmost respect and sensitivity. Frankly, I don’t think it’s even appreciated. Instead, I believe it’s perceived as fear and cowardice.

Although Muslims are committing acts of barbarism all over the globe, our leaders continue paying lip service to the followers of Allah. These people blow up trains, planes and pizza parlors, and the British prime minister orders his cabinet members never to use the term “Islamic terrorists,” while our own president and secretary of state feel compelled to keep reminding us that Islam is a religion of peace. Funny how often they need to keep reminding us. When is the last time that anybody needed to be told that Buddhism, for instance, or Shintoism is a religion of peace? Do we require constant reassurance that the Amish mean to do us no harm? But, then, when’s the last time that a Buddhist blew up a busload of children?

In America, there appear to be far more chowderheads who fear the followers of Christ than of Muhammad. It gives me a headache trying to psychoanalyze the liberals who side with the so-called Palestinians against the Israelis, when Israel is an ally of ours, is a nation of laws and is, unlike all the Islamic tyrannies, a western-style democracy.

I fear that millions of our fellow citizens are as gullible as little kids. But instead of believing in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, these lunkheads choose to believe that what the members of Fatah and Hamas desire is to simply live in freedom in their own homeland. When Yasser Arafat was offered that very thing, he left Camp David in a huff. What the Muslims want is to destroy Israel for no other reason than that it’s inhabited by Jews. Once they finish the job begun by Hitler, the different factions can then get back to doing what Islamists do best -- namely, killing off one another.

Some Americans, the truly befuddled, actually believe that what the rest of us recognize as Islam’s intolerance of all non-Muslims is actually a matter of economics. But, then, that’s what Communists, Socialists and other assorted loonies, always think. Because they have no morals themselves, they like to think that economic deprivation is the basis of all violence. They believe it’s poverty that leads Muslims to be suicide-bombers, but fail to explain how killing innocent civilians cures that particular problem. They don’t seem to find it peculiar that Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat were multi-millionaires, and that those behind the recent plot to set off explosions in London and Glasgow were all a bunch of doctors.

Apologists for Islam will go to any length, no matter how absurd, to spin the truth. They contend, for example, that the initial attack on the Twin Towers and the attack on 9/11 took place because we had waged war against Saddam Hussein, while ignoring the fact that in 1991, we were coming to the defense of Kuwait, a Muslim country under siege by Iraq. Furthermore, when you ask these crazies to explain all the prior Islamic attacks on the U.S., dating back to the Ayatollah Khomeni’s taking hostages in 1979, they suddenly remember they were supposed to be somewhere else half an hour ago.

The fact remains that Muslims hate not only the West, but the five billion non-Muslims on the face of the earth. As for their liberal defenders in this country, the sad truth is that they aren’t really pro-Islam as much as they’re anti-America. Like Muslims, they regard us as the Great Satan. It explains why the same people who openly despise all the symbols of Judaism and Christianity went ballistic over the Korans allegedly being trashed in Guantanamo; and why the ACLU, always so quick to oppose religious displays at Christmas and Chanukah, went to the mat on behalf of the Islamic woman who insisted that her face be veiled on her driver’s license.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/prelutsky/07162007.htm

I just LOVE satire.

 

[9sublime]

This is total stereotyping. Explain this, I know a few Muslims very well and they are some of the nicest people I know who would never blow up a train etc. Why should they have to suffer for what other people are doing in the name of their religion?

 

[palerider]

Why should they have to suffer for what other people are doing in the name of their religion?

It is a simple 9sblime and a very old, and valid, legal principle:


SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT!!!

 

[9sublime]

What do you suggest they do then, to stop themselves from being silent? Walk up to everyone and tell them that they hate terrorism? Just to watch people shrug their shoulders, or give them some racist abuse?

If these Muslims believe terrorism is wrong, why should they have to tell everyone? Why do you need to be convinced by them that they do not support terrorism?

ONCE AGAIN, I DO NOT SEE YOU ACTIVELY GETTING INVOLVED IN ANTI-PEADAPHILIA RALLLIES ETC, THEREFORE ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, YOU ARE A PEADAPHILE!!

 

[KingBall]

I just LOVE satire.

Call it what you like. I think the guy hit the nail on the head! Just look at the BBC for example. They are deathly afraid of offending muslims but not Christians, Why? From the BBC: A seminar on staff impartiality held last year is documented, with officials admitting they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away, but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.
Heres a link.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56228

Why is europe telling Briton NOT not to link Islam and terrorism as seen here

Secret EU guidelines have been drawn up warning governments not to link Islam and terrorism.

The politically correct directives are believed to be behind ministers not using words such as “Muslim’’ about Britain’s terrorism crisis.

Yesterday the Daily Express reported how Gordon Brown’s ministers had been told to avoid inflammatory language when speaking about the attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

Neither the Prime Minister in a major interview nor Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the Commons referred to Muslims or Islam.

Last night critics pointed to a classified EU document sent out to all European governments offering “non-offensive’’ phrases to use when discussing terrorism.

Banned terms were said to include “jihad’’, “Islamic’’ or “fundamentalist”.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236
Why are they afraid of telling the truth?

 

[palerider]

What do you suggest they do then, to stop themselves from being silent? Walk up to everyone and tell them that they hate terrorism? Just to watch people shrug their shoulders, or give them some racist abuse?

When some act of violence is committed in the name of Christianity (bombing an abortion clinic for example) Christian leaders are immediately out in front of the cameras denouncing the actions of the bomber stating in no terms that what he has done is not in line with the tenets of Christianity. Such doesn't happen when islamists kill.

If these Muslims believe terrorism is wrong, why should they have to tell everyone? Why do you need to be convinced by them that they do not support terrorism?

Because silence implies concent. If they remain silent on the issue, anyone with a hint of common sense knows that they condone the action.

ONCE AGAIN, I DO NOT SEE YOU ACTIVELY GETTING INVOLVED IN ANTI-PEADAPHILIA RALLLIES ETC, THEREFORE ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, YOU ARE A PEADAPHILE!!

Where exactly have you looked for me in the anti pedophilia campaign?

That analogy is as weak now as when you first put it forward. Pedophilia is illegal and carries very harsh sentences for those who are involved and those who protect those who are involved. Such is not the case with islam as the most visible leaders are the ones who are promoting violence. I don't see them being arrested or even the suggestion that they be arrested.

 

[9sublime]

When some act of violence is committed in the name of Christianity (bombing an abortion clinic for example) Christian leaders are immediately out in front of the cameras denouncing the actions of the bomber stating in no terms that what he has done is not in line with the tenets of Christianity. Such doesn't happen when islamists kill.

Well it does, I've seen it happen plenty of times.

Also, I'll post this article again:

Exploding the myth of Muslim silence
That's the purpose of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam."

In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren't, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.

He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case -- all of it condemning the plot -- that he says got scant coverage.

I didn't follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he's right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims "speak out" against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:

1. They do. All the time. I've cited multiple examples in the past year.

2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don't have AQ's number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.

3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.

Let's expand on that last point for a moment because it's an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.

The underlying logic of the "Muslims must denounce terrorism" goes as follows: The terrorists are Islamic, and therefore Muslims have a particular duty to denounce Islamic terror.

This is reasonable to an extent: disavowing the nutjobs operating under your banner is sometimes necessary.

But where it goes off the rails is when people demand that every Muslim denounce every act of Islamic terror every time one occurs.

This is ridiculous. Every time a Christian commits murder, are Christians obligated to go on television and state the obvious -- that murder is wrong and the offender doesn't represent Christian views?

Of course not. They can simply state once (or occasionally) that murder is wrong and unChristian. Actually, they don't even have to do that; it's considered obvious that murder is wrong, so they aren't required to say anything. Silence is not assent in such cases.

So why are Muslims treated differently? Because groups are always good at pointing out the mote in other groups' eyes, even while giving their own members the benefit of the doubt. Do conservatives regularly call out nutjob conservatives? No. Liberals do that, and conservatives disavow them if necessary. Do liberals regularly call out liberal nutjobs? No; conservatives do that, and then liberals disavow them if necessary.

In this country, who spends time identifying atheist/agnostic misbehavior? Believers. Who are most likely to point out believer wrongdoing? Atheists/agnostics.

Simply put, groups are horrible at policing their own, because doing so requires admitting some kinship between your own beliefs and those of the nutjobs -- admitting that your beliefs can be twisted to bad ends. No one likes doing that.

Beyond that, when you're in the group you know that the extremists are just that -- extremists, a tiny minority that do not represent the group as a whole. They are shunned, dismissed; psychologically, the majority separates themselves from the whackjobs to the point they no longer feel kinship with them -- and thus no particular responsibility to account for their actions. Hence Christians feel no particular need to respond every time a Christian misbehaves, and Muslims feel no particular need to respond every time a member of some fundamentalist sect detonates a car bomb.

This is especially true when the actions cross national and sectarian boundaries. Demanding that a mainstream American Muslim denounce fundamentalist terrorism is like demanding that Lutherans denounce the actions of Baptists -- or, more aptly, Christian Identity adherents. It's actually even sillier than that, because at least in the example above everyone involved is American. In the case of Islamic terror, we're demanding that American Muslims feel responsibility not just for another sect, but for another country and culture. So it's more like demanding that Lutherans apologize for the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army.

Now, political reality is a different matter, and not always fair; in this day and age, there is more political need for Muslims to speak out than there is for Christians. But that doesn't make demands that they do so any less illogical. Nor does it justify the assumptions made about them when they fail to speak up in any given instance.

Because silence implies concent. If they remain silent on the issue, anyone with a hint of common sense knows that they condone the action.

Point 1. Look at the word IMPLIES. It doesnt say SILENCE DEFINETLY MEANS TJHEY SUPPORT IT. So even if they don't speak out, it doesnt neccesarily mean they support terrorism, it just implies it.

Point 2. You do not condone on television to the world every bad deed done by a Christian, do you therefore support what they did? No... just like every average Muslim doesn't either.

Where exactly have you looked for me in the anti pedophilia campaign?

That analogy is as weak now as when you first put it forward. Pedophilia is illegal and carries very harsh sentences for those who are involved and those who protect those who are involved. Such is not the case with islam as the most visible leaders are the ones who are promoting violence. I don't see them being arrested or even the suggestion that they be arrested.

Point 1. Terrorism is illegal and carries harsh sentences for those involved/protecting those involved.

Point 2. Islam is not illegal.

Point 3. SOME leaders are promoting the violence, the ones who are radicals.

You have still not told me why you shouldn't be on TV denouncing every act of peadaphilia that goes on.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

It seems pointless anymore to even argue this but the problem is that once again people are getting Islam and its violent tribal elements mixed up and turning all Muslims into one monolithic enemy.
The truth is if we wish to defeat the Islamic terrorists and their ilk, the only way is to get the regular Muslims to side with us against them and support a system that promotes ways of doing things without violence.
You do not accomplish this by making up wars against Islam itself. All you do is galvanize the support of the radicals against us and ensure we will be at war perpetually.

 

[r0beph]

I used to work at a company with a few muslims, they'd pray during the day on little rugs... in the downtime between coding our lil fingers off, a couple of them from sudan would post n the islamic sudanese forums with rather volatile posts against the terrorists and jihadists. They invited me to join them with my logic on occasion since it was a mixed arabic/english board. Rather interesting discussions ensued as well as my learning tht many muslims hated the violent reaosning of the extremeists...



/don't mind my mispelling I don't feel like screwing with spell check today...I'm lazy.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a simple 9sblime and a very old, and valid, legal principle:


SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT!!!

Muslims are not exactly silent. Try a google search on "muslim condemn terrorism"

 

[9sublime]

Its never enough for Palerider. Apparently every famous Christian condemns bad things in the name of Christianity every time they happen, but only one Muslim condemns a terror act every time. I think its called selective hearing.

 

[JavaBlack]

I agree, 9sublime. I've seen this on every forum. Nothing is ever enough for those who simply need a culture war for whatever emotional reason.
When Muslims protest violence and suicide bombing, they are criticized for not more specifically attacking their own religion.
The mentality is counterproductive. By making it impossible for moderate and progressive Muslims to gain our approval, we push them toward the radicals who accept them.