That it used to be a decent, balanced weblog makes it all the sadder.

Although, I think with all the new press he has received, I don't ever think the weblog will get back to its pre-9/11 ways.

Dan Hartung routinely gets panned in MetaFilter for his thoughts on the war. While I disagree with him more frequently now, but I still read his site almost daily (or when he updates). He tries to write his reasons for his opinions. That is an admirable quality. I respect that. Warblogging has been especially good for Steven Den Beste. He now gets twice as much hits as Kottke, and that too, ever after closing off his message boards. Reading SDB feels like Tom Clancy Lite. Also, without as much actual research.

Charles Johnson made a decision to be frank and open about what's in his mind. Why criticize him for it? I had never read LGF pre-9/11, and still don't read it now. My only thought on him was not too positive. Consider this, what radio people call, a "format change." I have always considered the blog-format to be the textual version of talk-radio. Lot of yapping, but entertaining to those who care. At some point soon after 9/11 Charles Johnson decided that he'd drop his "All Things Considered" format and be "Rush Limbaugh." Why exactly is that so deplorable?

To put it another way, the only success I've ever seen anyone appreciate while maintaining a weblog is when an author writes in a manner that pleases himself. Charles appears to be pandering to an audience that he wouldn't want to be associated with. I find that troubling, and I find it troubling that no one wants to discuss it.

To address your other points, I think this kind of post is the opposite of censoring one's feelings. Too many people are afraid to offend someone by pointing out objectionable behavior or critiquing another's writing. I don't have the luxury of pretending the attacks never happened, and I would be astounded if someone thought I feared my traffic going down or someone's feelings being hurt.

For what it's worth, I've noticed a decided rightward movement in Dan Hartung's writings, too, but I have no problem with that. He's stayed balanced, interesting, and literate. He still clearly writes for himself. Those are the points I'm trying to raise, not the specifics of someone's politics.

I guess it's just like a radio format change, but such a serious one that he might as well be posting in spanish, as I'm never going to read it regularly again.

On being quoted by Mark Steyn:
"Coming from one of our favorite writers, this is quite an honor. Thanks, Mark." - 8/20/2002 @ 9:00 AM PST

On Matt/MetaFilter:
"There was a time when I would have cared what Matt Haughey thought. Now I realize he's just a juvenile know-nothing, with an irrelevant web site frequented by some of the web's most fluorescent idiots." - 8/20/2002 @ 11:03PM PST

"I was laboring under the obviously mistaken assumption that Matt Haughey had a bit of sense. Now I know he’s just another asshole in a crowd of assholes." - 8/21/2002 11:10AM PST

Unfiltered quotes, straight from the horse's mouth. I really don't see where he is "pandering to an audience that he wouldn't want to be associated with". Unless I am reading him wrong, and his site is a satire, I think he speaks what is in his mind and doesn't mind the company of his frequent visitors.

What's interesting to me is that I'm not slighting Charles or his (non-racist) audience, or their beliefs, yet I've no doubt I'd be considered a fluorescent asshole, or whatever the epithet du jour is, by a rather signficant number of those people.

To put it another way: Those who believe, correctly, that contemporary Islam has lost its way in many countries and become a negative influence in its followers' lives, will not be helped by the rhetoric on LGF, and would not be served by being grouped with the extremists that frequently post comments there.

In accepting that audience over a more critical, but more thoughtful and productive audience that he used to have, Charles does himself and his abilities a disservice. And I think he's compromising the intellectual tone of his site in favor of a larger, less critical, more unthinking mass audience.

As for "Now I realize he's just a juvenile know-nothing, with an irrelevant web site frequented by some of the web's most fluorescent idiots." ...isn't that all of us? The difference is that some of us are aware of that fact.

Now it is entirely irrational, he sees everyone who doesn't agree with his extremist point-of-view as "crazy" or an "asshole." He is consigned to the dust-bin of the intelligent blog world, and its too bad.

* As a disclaimer I read and have no problem with any of the other major "warbloggers". I may disagree with their opinions, but don't see the obsession bordering on mania that Charles has for certain racial/religious groups and any detractors.

But what I've noticed is lots of people, on- and off-line have changed too. People who once professed to be liberal, tolerant and open-minded have become chest-beating American patriots. Sometimes they aren't even American.

To those of you who say that LGF is racist, I say that speaking the truth is NEVER racist. Denying the truth in the name of multi-culturalism is ALWAYS racist.

Judging someone on their DNA is ALWAYS wrong. Beliefs are the only valid basis for judging people. What the folks at LGF have found is that Islam is a belief system that teaches hate of all non-muslims. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoarastrians are all targets of Islamic hate and we therefore judge Islam accordingly. Stating this fact is not racist. Denying this fact because most muslims are not white is racist.

So there you have it. You guys are the racist bigots.

Now, please return to your previously scheduled morally and intellectually bancrupt head-nodding.

Nah, too easy.

More on topic, I too remember LGF pre 9-11. Charles' was one of the first weblogs I frequented and taught me a great deal about the medium. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't seem very far from your generic hate site.

I still visit and occasionally post a dissenting view, my posts are quickly drowned in a sea of name calling (idiotarian seems to be a favorite). I had always considered comments being enabled on a weblog as a means of fostering discussion, Mr. Johnson seems to view them as a forum for those he agrees with to post increasingly strident rhetoric. It seems redundant and futile.

Certainly he can put whatever he wants on his site, but I don't have to read the hate filled meanderings of the lunatic fringe and that's exactly what it has turned into, a niche site filled with racist nutcases. I feel that Mr. Johnson *is* responsible for the comments he allows, as is the webmaster for any other such site (including the Islamic extremist sites they are so quick to attack. pot:kettle:black). One is judged by the company he keeps and Charles is keeping some pretty ugly company these days.

You started off well. I actually thought you might rise to the challenge and make a point of substance or argue against my comments.

Alas, I was to be disappointed with a few paragraphs worth of head-nodding about the "racists nutcases." Did you really need to waste the electricity to reiterate this mindless drivel?

One is judged by the company he keeps

Wouldn't you call that profiling? I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King that one should be judged by the "content of his character." I judge yours to be lacking.

If he were, for example, holding up KKK sites as examples of the complete hatefulness of the Christian religions, it'd be easy enough to find other information where they've been condemned and disavowed by the mainstream Christian religions.

But you don't see that condemnation and disavowal in mainstream Islam. You hear an echoing silence - which makes you (or at least me) wonder if they're staying silent because they agree, or because they don't want the wrath of the fundamentalist Islamics coming down on them...

LGF brings up a lot of questions that need answers badly about how Islam operates and believes. Just because we don't like the answers we're expecting to get doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked - it makes it all the more vital that they be looked at.

J.

I'm not arguing that LGF doesn't raise important or valid points, I'm saying that the points are raised in a way that prevents discussion, instead of encouraging it. There's no debate over how these attitudes can be changed, how we can find a solution for fundamentalism of all stripes, or anything like that.

There's a lot of back-slapping congratulatory exhortations about how bad they is and how we oughtta go get 'em. I think it's ridiculous to claim that any religion is peaceful, but I don't see a willingness to call out extremist Christians, Jews, or Hindus, for example.

I've posted some more comments on Charles' site on a related thread.

The KKK groups are pretty well ignored at this point for two reasons - they're exceedingly small subsets of the population, and their message does not strike a popular chord because the ignorance that allows such viewpoints is hard to maintain if someone's been raised with an open mind.

This is not to say that there's possibly mainstream folks and even politicians who believe that crap, but they'd never express it because they know it's a sure way to make themselves social pariahs. Expressing support for KKK ideals these days is sure death for a politician.

Witness Cynthia McKinney here in Atlanta - she started trying to play the race card and religion card, and lost bigtime.

As far as LGF discouraging discussion goes - I'll be honest. I'd LOVE to see some positive stuff on Islam there. Hell, I'd love to see positive stuff on Islam ANYWHERE. But to me, positive stuff isn't "We're a really peaceful religion, honest." It'd be more on the order of "Those nutcases who smashed into the WTC? We condemn them. The folks who insist on second class citzenship for women? That's not Islam."

And anyone who wants to can post info and links - LGF's gotten a fair bit of attention from Islamic sites, as you're likely aware - but there haven't been many who even attempt to refute what is posted.

Does silence = consent? Or, given the apparent tendency of the fundamentalists to label anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretations of Islam apostate, is the majority silent because of fear of their own religion?

The forum asks questions. The answers are lacking..

J.

This is exactly the type of thing that is so frustrating about this medium. After reading your post I can choose to ignore it, I can respond in kind and lower the tone of a productive thread or I can attempt to refute your points.I do admit to finding a certain irony in your beginning your participation by calling others 'racist bigots' and 'intellectually bancrupt (sic)' and then refuting my response with more of the same.

It was my hope to discuss whether one can assume a webmasters concordance with views posted on his site by virtue of their existence, or whether he/she is simply providing a forum. There is some pretty ugly stuff posted on a regular basis and when that is tolerated for a lengthy period of time I have to wonder about the complicity of the owner. I am interested in the distinction between discussion and graffiti scrawled on a wall. If dissent is muted and smothered in a flurry of ad hominum attacks and the recitation of pat buzzwords, I have a difficult time seeing the point of even enabling the feature.

By the way, the folks I invite into my home and offer sustenence to are an accurate reflection on my character. How that is related to profiling I fail to see. We don't choose our DNA, we do choose the people we interact with.

There's no debate over how these attitudes can be changed, how we can find a solution for fundamentalism of all stripes, or anything like that.

Do you extend your condemnation of fundamentalism to postmodern-fundamentalism, multi-cultural-fundamentalism. I define fundamentalism as believing in discredited ideas in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Surely postmodernism and multi-culturalism are discredited.

Your writing here and on LGF indicates that you subscribe to these fundamentalist views. Your basic argument is to draw moral equivalence between Islam and other religions/cultures when all the objective evidence indicates there is no moral equivalence. Is this not fundamentalism?

The reason you got the reaction you did at LGF is not that you proposed alternative ideas for finding solutions. Rather, you waded in with facetious arguments about profiling with the insinuation that the participants on LGF were nothing but racists.

And of course all the head-nodders here agreed with you. They can't get past their indoctrination that if someone disagrees with them they must be racists. What complete nonsense.

So here is your chance. You say you want to find ways to change attitudes. Instead of sauntering in and making baseless accusations of racism, let's hear some of your ideas on how to solve problems. It is much easier to sit back and attack proposals made by others than to create and defend your own.

So how are you going to change attitudes? How do you propose to deal with Islamic terrorism?

And be prepared to defend your ideas.

I remember almost daily jokes about dubya, which, regardless how you feel about the man, served no real purpose.

After 9/11 the dubya jokes stopped and lgf changed in content and scope.

I didn't see anil or anyone else complaining before. Put quite simply, he was preaching to the converted. Now his preachings have changed and no longer subscribe to some readers views.

So A-listers, such as anil and haughey, condemn charles as close minded and no longer worth to read.

Which if fine. It's just too bad that those who disagree with charles make it into some kind of racist deal, though I'm not surprised, at least from this website.

Just because charles maybe more right leaning now, he's described as racist and close minded, and you decide he's not worth listening to anymore. Why? Because you don't share his views.

Now who's close minded?

What you find frustating is that people disagree with you rather than nodding their heads in agreement. Maybe you are frustrated because your ideas are being challenged and failing. Dissonance is frustration.

This isn't Berkeley where debate is about leaving everybody with a warm and fuzzy feeling about how they "respected" everybody else's ideas. This is the real world where bogus ideas are picked apart, shredded, beaten, kicked and stomped. Get used to it.

The problem isn't the medium. The problem is that your message has no merit.

The only problem here is that nothing I've said has been challenged... unless you count some silly name calling as a challenge.

The problem is that your message has no merit.

I wasn't even aware I had a message. By all means if you can find an idea to pick apart, shred or otherwise mutilate feel free. I ask specific questions about the role of discussion on a particular weblog and recieve generalizations that have no bearing on anything I wrote in response.

Your entirely right it's not Berkeley, they have some funny ideas about substance and reason.

In other words, think our way.

You're joking, right? Of all the particular straw men I've seen constructed, that might be among the most ludicrous.

Surely postmodernism and multi-culturalism are discredited.

Uh, what? You're saying that recognition of the fact that multiple cultures must co-exist is something that's been discredited? You stating it's so, or even assigning those names to some extremist goofballs as "proof" of its discredit, does not make it so.
"Come back and join us."
In other words, think our way.

No, I wouldn't want my anyone to agree with me if it weren't true. I would just like to be able to engage in a dialogue without being labelled unamerican or being treated as if I had nothing to contribute.

I wasn't even aware I had a message.

If having a message means proposing ideas for dealing with Islamic terrorism, then no you don't. At least we agree on that.

However by making the statement - and I quote - that LGF is "a niche site filled with racist nutcases", you certainly are sending a message. The message you are sending is that criticising Islam is racist. I challanged your message by pointing out that Islam is a belief system that has nothing to do with race. When you discover the Islamic gene, I'll concede that criticising Islam is racism.

Just about all the arguments you left-wing-fundamentalist-extremists make fail when challenged. In desperation you guys resort to charging those who disagree with you with racism.

Perhaps you should be more judicious about making such charges. If you keep crying wolf you are providing cover for real racists.

Uh, what? You're saying that recognition of the fact that multiple cultures must co-exist is something that's been discredited? You stating it's so, or even assigning those names to some extremist goofballs as "proof" of its discredit, does not make it so.

I'm not falling for your straw man Anil. The basis for postmodernism and multi-culturalism is that there is no objective basis for making value judgements about different cultures. It should be self-evident that this is patently ridiculous.

Let's consider the issue of slavery. You postmodern-multi-cultural-fundamentalists love to criticize America because a segment of our society practiced slavery. However, you fail to point out that as recently as 200 years ago, slavery was practiced and culturally accepted by most societies around the world. Using the concepts of postmodernism and multi-culturalism, right-minded people could not question this culturally accepted practice.

Moving on, let's consider the suttee which was practiced by your ancestors. For some reason, your ancestors thought it was a great idea to burn their widows on their husband's funeral pyres. It was only under British colonial rule that this barbaric practice was stopped in a decidedly non-multi-cultural way. There is a famous incident about a British officer who stopped a suttee. The people engaged in the suttee pleaded that this was part of their culture to which the British officer replied that it was part of his culture to hang people who burned women alive.

In the interest of equal time, it was the culturally accepted practice of my ancestors to burn "witches". Based on postmodernism and multi-culturalism there is no basis to question this hideous practice.

I could go on endlessly about barbaric culturally-accepted practices that could not be challenged based on the principles of postmodernism multi-culturalism. However, I think you get the idea.

Now let's consider your statement about co-existence of multiple cultures. I think this is a great idea as long as the concept of co-existence is reciprocated. However, what do you do if the fundamental concept of one of those co-existent cultures is that it must destroy and displace all other cultures?

That is the problem with Islam. It doesn't allow for the co-existence of other cultures. Unless you equate dhimmi status with co-existence.

Hypothesis: A meme has evolved in a multicultural atmosphere which demands the abolition/destruction of all competing memes/cultures. No competing meme is allowed to exist, according to the internal structure of this meme. To this end, the evolved meme includes internal approval and reward of any acts or methods necessary to eliminate competition to the main meme, and an error-correcting mechanism that discourages drift from the primary focus of spreading the meme and assimilation of other memes.

This meme is rapidly gaining members - to the point where (from a time when the meme was little to no threat) to a point where it actively threatens other memes.

Question 1: If a pre-existing meme emphasizes (or requires) cultural tolerance and acceptance as a part of it's structure, should that meme be allowed or encouraged to change to deal with a destructive meme?

Question 2: If a pre-existing meme explictly rejects the possibility that other memes may be harmful and/or destructive, and explicitly rejects ideas of the defense of the meme, what will the end result be if that meme runs up against a destructive meme?

Question 3: If it is possible for pre-existing tolerant memes to modify the internal structure of the destructive meme so it is no longer a threat, do the existing memes have the right to do so to ensure their own survival?

Question 4: Do memes exist?

Happy Monday!

J.

Your entirely correct, my use of the term racist will poorly considered and a sweeping generalization. I have little doubt based upon reading LGF that there are racists that frequent the site (like there are anyplace else you go) but it was wrong of me to attribute the behavior to everyone. I apologise to anyone offended, especially those who have truly been persecuted on the basis of race.

In my defense I can only say Mr. Johnson and much of his readership paint the terrorist threat with very broad strokes. When Arab becomes a synonym for terrorist, charges of racism is not all that big a stretch. Similar to the all too common assumption that all Jews support Isreali policy and are Zionists.

As far as not providing solutions the reason is quite simple, I don't have any.However, I never claimed that I did and in my posts was making an effort to remain on topic; that being the evolution of one given site.

I don't doubt that there were some British soldiers who acted in good conscience to save those religious nuts from themselves, but I'd say the majority of the reason that idiotic practice was stopped was due to the leadership of Hindu priests who forbade it. Or do you think that violently fundamentalist zealots were more willing to listen to the British Christians than to their own religious leaders?

If you're making the argument that religion causes people, especially poor uneducated people, to institutionalize violence and oppression against women, well.... duh. That's one of the few things religion's really good at.

And your halfhearted inclusion of witch burning doesn't mask your xenophobia very well. It's clearly a bone thrown so that you can argue that you've given equal time to both cultures. Next time don't bother; It'd be more honest and would make the debate more compelling.

I think that you're defining postmodern multiculturalism in a way that I never would. I'm certain you could find people who define it as you're trying to, and well, they're idiots. I think that most sensible people recognize there's a balance, and that there is value in seeing a culture through its own perspective rather than an outsider's.

Or do you think that everyone should be an absolutist against some moral code (what, the Bible?) that we all enforce? If so, then I'm glad the barbarians in Ireland have temporarily relented in their mindless violence. Else we'd have to have the Indian army invade those savages and impose some order, saving them from themselves.

Is contemporary Islam intolerant of other cultures? Well, see, that's the thing. There's no monoloithic "contemporary Islam". The contemporary Islam that's the friends my parents would have over for dinner when I was younger, or that's my coworkers who are 5 percenters, or that's the faith that Saima follows in between our transatlantic "swooning at your accent" exchanges don't seem to be intolerant.

But you don't seem to think those exist. And that's why you marginalize yourself. That you're limited to seeing it as a zero sum game is why you're not helping the dialogue. (Could it be that idiotic Hindu extremist practices were stopped due to the efforts of some Indian people and some British people? Perish the thought!)

There are going to be contemporary muslims involved in solving the violence that plagues the world right, along with jews and christians and hindus and those of us who have the sense not to indulge in any of that horseshit. That you're unwilling to differentiate within a group, or to recognize that there are good and bad in any group, is exactly the kind of self-marginalization that I'm trying to rail against.

You'd be surprised to know I don't disagree with most of your ideas. A few weeks ago, Nick Denton posted the assertion that the western world needed to humiliate muslim fundamentalists, I didn't disagree. But I can still carry on a conversation with people who do. And you can't do it without demonizing and antagonizing, and the whole point of my plea to Charles was to have him rise to that level of discourse which he is capable of, where those who disagree on finer points aren't shunned.

QED.

Unfortunately, it seems that Charles is intelligent (great site design, code, and more-or-less well-written) but has a small mind. He has been forced into a box which ignores the complex reality of the world, instead favoring a cartoonish vision which is bound to excite the lowest common denominator.

Thanks for the apology. Likewise, I would also like to apologize for questioning your character. Obviously I was wrong. In any future dialogue with you, I’ll keep the rhetoric at a lower level.

I just want to add something about the consequences of reckless charges of racism. Are you familiar with Pim Fortuyn? In case you’re not, he was the Dutch politician who founded a political party primarily interested in curtailing Islamic immigration into the Netherlands and promoting assimilation of current immigrants. Fortuyn was vehemently attacked in the European press as a racist out of the Jean Marie LePen mold. The problem was this characterization bore no resemblance to reality. Fortuyn was in fact a homosexual libertine. His deputy was a black immigrant. Their concern about Islamic immigration was that it was changing the demographics of the Netherlands to such an extent that it threatened the liberal foundations of Dutch society. He and his deputy would have been among the first victims of such an outcome.

Fortuyn was assassinated by an “animal-rights activist” just before the recent Dutch elections. If I recall correctly, his party’s support was in the 20-25% range. I suspect Fortuyn’s assassination had little to do with his position on animal-rights. Maybe I’m using too broad a brush, but I associate animal-rights activists with the unsavory stew of far-left extremists. It is clear that Fortuyn’s assassination was motivated by the attacks against him from the political left.

Beyond the assassination itself, there are far-reaching consequences. No matter how you characterize Fortuyn, the threat to Dutch society is real. Sooner or later, this threat is going to be confronted by somebody. The Dutch are not going to stand by and become an Islamic state by virtue of demographics. If the left keeps demonizing rational politicians like Fortuyn, the problem will be dealt with by someone like LePen. And then things are going to get real ugly real fast. You’ll see how thin the veneer is between societies like the Serbs and the Dutch. And this time America won’t step in to stop the genocide. We wouldn’t want to be accused of unilaterism. The other European nations won’t step in either. They’ll be joining in.

Boy, I touched a nerve with my suttee comment. Of course that was the intended response. It was gratifying to see you fall for the bait and reply with a xenophobic and nationalistic defense of your cultural heritage. How does it feel to have the tables turned? It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change? And that was just one comment. I can only imagine what your response would have been had I also reminded you of the caste system and sacred cows.

Since you have identified yourself as a Hyphenated-American, bear in mind that being an American brings many benefits. The problem with Hyphenated-Americans is that you want to enjoy the benefits of what comes after the hyphen with none of the baggage and responsibility. Before you impugn those who defend American culture, just remember that the modifer before the hyphen can carry some cultural baggage as well.

As a non-hyphenated American, the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do. In the past it didn't bother me because I happen to agree with you that there are aspects of American culture that could be improved. The problem is that now things have changed, and Americans are dying at the hands of people who justify their actions using the criticisms made by left-wing extremists. Words and ideas have consequences.

And by the way, I won't bother responding to your strawman argument about the British occupation force.

If you're making the argument that religion causes people, especially poor uneducated people, to institutionalize violence and oppression against women, well.... duh. That's one of the few things religion's really good at.

*Sigh*. Yet another strawman. I'll respond in kind. Is it your argument that in the absence of religion that violence and oppression would be eliminated? You've heard of communism haven't you? I hope you agree it's a good thing America saved the world from that form of evil.

And your halfhearted inclusion of witch burning doesn't mask your xenophobia very well. It's clearly a bone thrown so that you can argue that you've given equal time to both cultures. Next time don't bother; It'd be more honest and would make the debate more compelling.

There you go again. I suppose being xenophobic is a step up from being racist. Is this progress? I'll make a deal with you. If you stop hurling ad hominem attacks, I won't dwell on the fact that your moral and intellectual foundation is insufficiently developed to identify causal relationships, draw correct conclusions and make proper value judgements.

At least Al S. had the integrity to apologize for his accusations.

I think that you're defining postmodern multiculturalism in a way that I never would. I'm certain you could find people who define it as you're trying to, and well, they're idiots. I think that most sensible people recognize there's a balance, and that there is value in seeing a culture through its own perspective rather than an outsider's.

At last we get back to the original point. It doesn't really matter how one defines postmodernism and multi-culturalism. What matters is the effect. The effect is that postmodern-multicultural-fundamentalism is like a ball and chain hampering our ability to defend Western and American Civilization. I happen to to think that my civilization is worth defending. I assume you do too since you've adopted it. You appear to agree with me about this left-wing strain of fundamentalism. Yet your arguments are based on it. Can't you recognize this?

Or do you think that everyone should be an absolutist against some moral code (what, the Bible?) that we all enforce? If so, then I'm glad the barbarians in Ireland have temporarily relented in their mindless violence. Else we'd have to have the Indian army invade those savages and impose some order, saving them from themselves.
]
Where'd that come from? Is that xenophobia I see peeking through your cosmopolitan facade? I suppose you see some clever point in this. Further moral equivalence nonsense.

Is contemporary Islam intolerant of other cultures? Well, see, that's the thing. There's no monoloithic "contemporary Islam". The contemporary Islam that's the friends my parents would have over for dinner when I was younger, or that's my coworkers who are 5 percenters, or that's the faith that Saima follows in between our transatlantic "swooning at your accent" exchanges don't seem to be intolerant.

Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief. Next time you are with your presumed moderate muslim friends, ask them which part of the Quran, Hadith or the Sharia they reject in order to achieve their moderate status. Would it be the parts about killing infidels? Stonings? Beheadings? Amputations? Slavery? Gender apartheid? I repeat - which part of Allah's final revelation do they reject?

I hear very few moderate voices coming from muslims. I see some boiler plate condemnations of terrorism that are always accompanied by the insinuation that 9/11 was the result of our foreign policy. Where is the unqualified shame or remorse? I grant you the possiblity that there may be a significant portion of the Islamic community that doesn't speak out due to fear of being labelled apostates. Nothing like the threat of a fatwa to keep your mouth shut.

And that's why you marginalize yourself.

Charles claims he is getting 10,000-15,000 unique visits per day. How many dozens are you getting? Who is being marginalized?

You'd be surprised to know I don't disagree with most of your ideas. A few weeks ago, Nick Denton posted the assertion that the western world needed to humiliate muslim fundamentalists, I didn't disagree. But I can still carry on a conversation with people who do. And you can't do it without demonizing and antagonizing, and the whole point of my plea to Charles was to have him rise to that level of discourse which he is capable of, where those who disagree on finer points aren't shunned.

You aren't interested in conversation without demonizing and antagonizing. If you were, you wouldn't make baseless accusations of racism and xenophobia. Rather you posted on your little blog here and on LGF in order to pick a fight. Well, you got one. Don't play coy now.

Excellent post on memes. Are you playing Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy?

Doesn't seem to have helped much...

J.

Yawn. Scroll up and reread yourself.

You've done nothing here but parrot feel-good jingoist aphorisms cooed daily by attention-starved hacks (retyping part of Mark Steyn's giddy multiculturalism = gangrape fantasy was particularly trite) who flatter themselves and their audience as free thinkers and revolutionaries who taste blood and, um, believe everything their government tells them.

If you must keep grinding this axe, say something new, or at least something that doesn't align you instantly with the legions of disposable chickenhawks.

You just can't resist profiling those who disagree with you as a bunch of racist, redneck hicks. More of the same tired platitudes. Is there any analytical ability in that brain of yours?

All you guys do is sit on the sidelines and criticize those who support decisive action based firmly on historical precedent. You offer no defensible solutions.

So, Foghorn, let's hear your ideas for solving the problem of militant Islam. Or are you too busy making machet puppets to propose and defend your own ideas?

Oh, and if you do, make sure you get your facts straight. I don't believe a lot of things my government says, and I sure as hell don't believe one damn thing you might say. Be prepared to be fact-checked.

At least you've convinced yourself of your own moral superiority you ignorant fool.

I just took a few minutes to look at your blog. What a waste of electricity. Do you think posting your daily minutia is interesting? I do have a guess as to what you're doing from 23:00 onwards - more bong hits.

BTW, since you claim you are residing in France, why don't you take a weekend trip to Normandy.

Go have a look at the graves of better men than you. Go look at the graves of those who were willing to sacrifice so that future generations could live free. Go look at the graves of those who provided you with the freedom you abuse. Go confront your cowardice.

If no men are willing to make that sacrifice today, future generations won't be so fortunate.

Figured as much.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were students of human nature. As such, they had insights into the nature of those that were oppressing their peoples. They knew that Great Britain and America were sinful, yet fundamentally moral and therefore redeemable nations. They knew that non-violent resistance would succeed by holding a mirror up to their oppressors. This mirror triggered the human response of shame and remorse they knew was there. They understood the Christian concept of redemption through shame and remorse and the application of the Golden Rule. I can't read MLK's speeches without getting chills. The scope of his understanding is breathtaking. I recommend you guys read all his speeches, but I especially appreciate his "Promised Land" speech with its sweeping view of Western Civilization.

http://www.mlkonline.com/

Redemption in Islam isn't achieved through shame and remorse. It is achieved through jihad and martyrdom. Islam is a cult of hate and death that dehumanizes its followers. Consequently, it is a far greater challenge to tap into a Muslim's human response of shame and remorse because it is buried under layers of hate of the infidel. Therefore, non-violent resistance alone will not stop militant Islam. A two-tracked approach is needed.

One track is the military response. The other track is the mirror. The mirror is the ideological battle to make Muslims understand the truly ugly aspects of their religion. LGF is one such mirror. It reflects just how ugly Islam is. The only way to achieve a truly moderate variant of Islam is to trigger Muslims' sense of shame and remorse. Only after this trigger has been reached in a critical mass of Muslims can Islam experience its own Reformation and Enlightenment to truly become a great religion of peace and tolerance.

Anil, you don't approve of the mirror that Charles holds up to Islam through LGF. If those who believe in Western Civilization fail to engage in the ideological battle, then the only approach left will be war. War in the 21st century will make the 20th century wars seem civilized. The toll will be measured in the hundreds of millions rather than the tens of millions. The longer we attempt appeasement and defer taking action, the greater the toll will be.

I urge you and your readers to reconsider your criticism of Charles and LGF. I acknowledge the rhetoric gets heated but I truly believe that LGF serves a profound public service.

Oh, you poor baby. How dare such hyphentated people have gall to question and even assault the pristine cultural practices of Europeans. For as well all know, Europeans have been the world leaders for such a long time now in human rights, morality, and treating ones fellow man with respect and kindness.

Islam is a cult of hate and death that dehumanizes its followers.

In that case, it ought to be close to impossible to defeat this army of over 1 billion dehumanized hate-filled followers. It sounds more like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings than with actual people. Out of those billion haters of the infidel, it is astounding that we have just begun to taste their murderous rage. That 99.9% of all Muslims in the world, myself included, have not yet risen up to slaughter all who remain in our path is primarly, obviously, a matter of luck. Sooner or later our evil Lord Allah will call us into battle, unless, somehow, some way we are defeated in our evil quest of evil.

The mirror is the ideological battle to make Muslims understand the truly ugly aspects of their religion. LGF is one such mirror. It reflects just how ugly Islam is.

So is LGF one of the rings of power, or could it be the one true ring? LGF's power to shame Muslims is quite impressive indeed, reflecting back a fringe world that few of us recognize and coupling it with ignorant and uninformed commentary about our way of life and religion is also a dynamite way to expose the truth that we have been blind to for so long. The comments section, with its calls for bloodshed and vengance against innocents is also a welcome respite from the values of Islam, which overwhelmingly teach (a clearly false) peace, love, and tolerance.

Redemption in Islam isn't achieved through shame and remorse. It is achieved through jihad and martyrdom.

Hmm, now I'm confused. Are you saying that in order to redeem ourselves we must attack, kill and be killed? If so, doesn't that mean once the force of the LGF ring of power holds sway over us Orcs, we will be forced to redeem ourselves through more violence? If this is a fundamental aspect of our faith, we are both sore underachievers (you Europeans have a solid lead on spilling blood, especially since your 'reformation' and 'enlightenment', something we must clearly rectify if we are ever to gain parity with Western Civilization) and in need of not just a change, but a wholesale makeover.

It is my proposal that LGF, son of Punditor and heir to the throne of Blogistan, one of the world's leading scholars in Islam and Islamic thought, with almost a year of MEMRI training, and holder of the one true URL of power, be elected Pope of Islam, in order to shame its sub-human followers into a new realm of understanding, free of the hatred of the infidel that lurks so deep in our hearts that virtually all of us are unable to even locate it. Only though the wisdom and power of the learned few, such as yourself, Dr. Charles Luther Johnson, Jr, and other experts on Islam and Muslims will we be able to achieve your level of compassion, understanding, and technologically superior violence. Together we can pave a new road. Remember that Orcs were once Elves. We can get there, but only if we work together using extreme violence to stamp out hatred forever.

Your world is small. Your view is simple. You ask, "It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change?" and, given that my cultural background is American, you're damned right it feels good. It's what I do best, and I'm not as much of a fucking coward as you are, hiding behind an anonymous pair of initials without even so much as an email address. Hiding behind groupthink. Hiding behind meaningless rants against concepts that you don't even know the definition of.

Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief.

Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.

Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures.

Where, indeed, is the unqualified shame or remorse? From you and people of your ilk, who treat my moderation and my convictions as something less than valid, as a danger to America, as a threat to Our Way Of Life.

Understand: This is my country. Mine. I am not wrong. I can see that we disagree, and I can do it without saying you're a danger to the United States. I can do it without saying that you're the reason the terrorists attacked us. It's because I'm a better, kinder, more moral person than you. I don't treat any group as a monolith. I know that any group of a billion people, of a hundred people, of a dozen people, has extremists and moderates, lunatics and geniuses, lovers and fighters.

You're terrified, and it shows in your rhetoric. You ask if I know what's in the hearts of my friends. Not only do I know it, I know what's in yours. An unwillingness to concede that someone different from you might not be trying to destroy you. You've admitted your fear:

the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do

And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members. I think it's immoral to insult someone for trying to be tolerant. I think it's immoral to present the murder of thousands of innocents as being equivalent to my pleas for nuance and differentiation in the description of groups that consist of hundreds of millions of people.

Let me ask you something: Why do you need to see this as an "us or them" situation? Even if I grant the false assumption that this preposterous monolithic enemy that you've created exists, and that they all, all one billion of them, think that it's an Us vs. Them situation, wouldn't you still want to be the one to say it's not? Isn't that what being an American is? To be a person from a culture that is made of all of the parts of the world?

You're spoiled. You've forgotten why your immigrant ancestors came here. You've forgotten what they went through when they did. I am ashamed of you, but I still know you're an American, I still know you didn't cause the attacks a year ago. I'm still willing to accept you, flawed and flailing though you are.

Actually, orcs weren't elves. They were an attempt to copy elves, but failed - if I recall correctly.

"For as well all know, Europeans have been the world leaders for such a long time now in human rights, morality, and treating ones fellow man with respect and kindness."

Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan and their wonderful (non)tolerance of non-islamic religions. Iran, with it's mullatocracy. Saudi Arabia - with it's sharia and pushing girls back into burning buildings. Honor killings. FGM. Burquas.

Thing is - Europe finally learned better. Do we have to wait while the ME goes through the same learning curve? Where is the Islamic Ghandi or MLK - or even an Arabic Martin Luther?

It doesn't take many to hijack a religion. Threaten those who don't follow with apostasy, and they'll stay silent - even if they disagree. And if the imans say it - it's the truth, is it not?

"That 99.9% of all Muslims in the world, myself included, have not yet risen up to slaughter all who remain in our path is primarly, obviously, a matter of luck. Sooner or later our evil Lord Allah will call us into battle, unless, somehow, some way we are defeated in our evil quest of evil."

Do you condemn those who acted on 9/11? Do you say they weren't Islamic, or acting in the name of Islam? Did you see the wonderful children on ClearGuidance chortling over their snuff films? The happy videos of folks celebrating the US catastrophe?

Those are the things that people remember. Those are the things that form the opinions of Islam. 99.9% may be peaceful, but silent. .1% may be vocal and violent. Which group will influence public opinion more?

Your arguments are fun and quite creative - but they don't address the key issues raised. Guess that's not really the point though, is it? It's a lot easier to bash someone who's saying something is apparently wrong with Islam, than address the issues raised.

J.

O...kay.

(Stepping back out the door and closing it quietly...)

J.

No problem - way I look at it, it's your blog so you can get angry if you want. We're all here as your guests, so to speak, and my parents raised me to be polite to my host... So I try to be a good guest. I'm not too sure how good a guest I'll be in this post, though.

This subject is one that's raising a lot of very strong emotions. And I'm kind of losing track of what the argument IS here among the steam being generated.

Is it that there's a certain subset of Islam that would seem a danger to anyone who isn't Islamic? Is it that there's folks saying a close look needs to be taken, and others are taking offense to that? Or is it that there's folks denying that particular part exists, and/or pointing at stuff that's happened in the past as an excusal or justification of what's being reported? Or is it just that LGF needs to get off the danger drum for a while?

I'm not quite sure where the argument IS at this point, or where the point of it is.

So, if you don't mind, I'd like to say a couple of things here that may be offensive to some.

You call HA terrified. He may be - I know that what I've seen on some of the linked sites from LGF worries the shit out of me and gives me an impression of Islam that's at odds to what I believed. Pre 9/11 I'd been pretty impressed with Islam - it seemed a religion with a lot of good, kind, sensible folks in it.

Oh, there were the occasional splinter groups that were causing problems in Afghanistan and Indonesia, but what family doesn't have it's unsavory characters?

But 9/11 caused me (and millions of others in the US) to take a very close look at Islam. And it got a lot harder (at least for me) to justify the benign view I had of the Islamic religion when looking at how it's practiced in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

And you see things. You see women being shot in Afghanistan by the Taliban - and don't see any protests of it elsewhere in the Islamic world.

You see a site with Islamic teens chortling about how much fun it would be to slit the throats of unbelievers - with nobody at ClearGuidance telling them that's not the way Islam works. I also see them telling each other it's okay to lie to unbelievers.

So I'm faced with a logic problem here. I'm an unbeliever in their eyes, therefore it's apparently okay to lie to me and/or kill me. If a Muslim should tell me his religion is peaceful, I have to determine if he's lying or not. What resources do I have to tell me it's a peaceful religion, full of kindness and love?

The media?

You see girls being pushed back into a burning school because they didn't have on proper clothing.

The papers and the Internet?

I read about what's going on in France with Muslim gangs, and Denmark with the rapes. And I'm sorry to say, but there seems to be a common thread of religion running through this all.

I could go on with other gruesome examples, but why?

And I have to think. Am I seeing the worst of Islam being paraded in the media, (which I very much hope) or is this instead the mainstream? Or is what we consider the worst aspects of it in the Western world, considered the best in Islam?

What's the solution to the puzzle?

Or maybe the question that should be asked is "IS there a solution to the puzzle?"

When I was asking the questions about memes, I was trying to get folks to consider uncomfortable possibilities without feeling that their particular beliefs were being targeted or threatened. People don't take well to having their religion attacked, after all.

Unfortunately, I didn't see much in the way of answers to the meme question. Perhaps there wasn't sufficient emotional baggage tied to it to produce a response...

If you or anyone's got answers to some of the questions I've raised, I'd love to hear them. I may be wrong, but I think we're going to need answers (or reasonable facsimiles) pretty soon now...

And thank you, Anil, for hosting us. I apologize to all if anything I've brought up is offensive - I've tried to keep it to a minimum. And I'm sorry I'm so long-winded here. I tend to ramble as the hour gets late...

Thanks again!

J.

A pleasant evening to you all...

J.

Yeah Anil, it just burns me. I have never been so impressed in my life. Wow, two languages? Now who’s being a child? What the hell…?

“Your world is small. Your view is simple”

As opposed to your world which is grand and your view which is expansive. You don't even know how to debate issues without resorting to personal insults. Judging, judging, judging…

“You ask, "It doesn’t feel so good to have the morality of your own cultural background questioned for a change?" and, given that my cultural background is American, you're damned right it feels good.”

By cultural background, I think they meant Indian.

“It's what I do best, and I'm not as much of a fucking coward as you are, hiding behind an anonymous pair of initials without even so much as an email address. Hiding behind groupthink. Hiding behind meaningless rants against concepts that you don't even know the definition of.”

Very conceited of you, I must say. And who’s ranting now? You’re losing your temper and being crass. Stop it. What’s the big deal with the e-mail addresses? They're cowards because they don't post their e-mail addresses? Grow up.

“Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.”

O-o-o-k-a-y, now you’re really ranting. And you’re losing focus of the discussion at hand.

“Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures.”

Now Usama, there’s a Mensch for you. Now that’s what you call a leader. What do Bush and Sharon know abut leadership? They should learn from The Evil One, shouldn’t they Anil?

Careful Anil, your true feelings are starting to show. The “misogynist doctrine of Orthodox Judaism”? Oh, that’s interesting. Legacy of hatred, bigotry and misogyny belonging to the American culture (that you claim as your own, that you claim to love) and to the Jewish culture!?

What about the Islamic culture? Let’s talk about that, shall we? Let’s talk about ‘honor’ killings, about the mutilation of women, about sending their children out to blow themselves up, about accepting blood money for their homicidal children’s deaths, about shooting a woman and tossing her body onto the street, leaving 7 children orphaned, about driving planes into buildings, murdering thousands of innocent civilians, about beheadings in the public square, about cutting off hands that steal, about throwing men off of cliffs with sacks over their heads, about beatings and maiming and stoning, about dressing their babies up as homicide bombers, about arming their children with AK-47’s, about putting a price on their own children’s heads, about celebrating and throwing candy when hearing about the deaths of innocent Americans and Jews, about banning photographers from taking photos of their despicable masked blood-hungry “militants and their children dressed up as murderers, about Summer Terrorist Training Camp for 12-year old boys . Let’s talk about that, and let’s talk about which culture of hate, bigotry and misogyny we can credit those things to. Yeah, I thought so. You call not posting an e-mail address cowardly. What’s your opinion on wearing a mask at all times to hide your identity? I’m sure you’ll find a way to excuse that one.

“Where, indeed, is the unqualified shame or remorse? From you and people of your ilk, who treat my moderation and my convictions as something less than valid, as a danger to America, as a threat to Our Way Of Life.”

Where is yours Anil? You have no shame at all. Who are you to point fingers when this is the bile that comes out of your poisoned soul? You call yourself a moderate!?!? Are you kidding me? No? Just yourself? Your smugness is annoying me again.

“Understand: This is my country. Mine. I am not wrong.”

It is my country too. And who said you were wrong about that?

“I can see that we disagree, and I can do it without saying you're a danger to the United States. I can do it without saying that you're the reason the terrorists attacked us.”

I don’t think you’re a danger to anyone but yourself. Slowly there or you’ll find smoke coming out of your ears.

“It's because I'm a better, kinder, more moral person than you.”

And that is the problem I have with you. Get over your SMUG, HYPOCRITICAL, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, SNOBBISH JUDGMENTAL self. There, how does that feel?

“ I don't treat any group as a monolith.”

Yes you do, but as with everything else, you don’t see it in yourself, only others.

“I know that any group of a billion people, of a hundred people, of a dozen people, has extremists and moderates, lunatics and geniuses, lovers and fighters.”

Great! Finally, something we can agree on.

“You're terrified, and it shows in your rhetoric. You ask if I know what's in the hearts of my friends. Not only do I know it, I know what's in yours. An unwillingness to concede that someone different from you might not be trying to destroy you. You've admitted your fear:”

Oooh, just terrified! That entire statement is unadulterated bullshit. And maybe a reflection of yourself.

“the morality of my cultural background is under assault day after day, year after year by people who think like you do

And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members. I think it's immoral to insult someone for trying to be tolerant. I think it's immoral to present the murder of thousands of innocents as being equivalent to my pleas for nuance and differentiation in the description of groups that consist of hundreds of millions of people.”

YOU think it’s immoral to judge – that coming from THE most judgmental person I have ever encountered.

Read what you wrote: “It’s because you’re immoral”.
Next sentence: “I think it’s immoral to judge”.

I’ve said this about you before. You do not hold yourself accountable for anything. In one sentence you are being outrageously judgmental, and in the very next sentence you claim to think that it is immoral to judge. You have a lot to learn about yourself Anil. A lot. You have no idea who you are. It’s going to be painful, but you’ll come out of it a better person.

“I think it's immoral to insult someone for trying to be tolerant”.

But look at how intolerant you are. You are in a rabid froth of intolerance right now. And you are the most insulting individual. That makes you immoral too, doesn’t it? Or are you going to apply your usual double standards here too? I thought as much.

“I think it's immoral to present the murder of thousands of innocents as being equivalent to my pleas for nuance and differentiation in the description of groups that consist of hundreds of millions of people.”

But you posted a link to the lone lunatic in Florida under the banner “Let’s not forget what the real face of terrorism looks like”. That was ONE man. But you say that is the “real face of terrorism”. Are you getting me here Anil? Are you starting to see what a hypocrite you really are? What double standards you live by, even though you protest and squeal that you’re fair and non-judgmental and a person with morals? Do you see my point? One man is not a culture you idiot. Get ahold of yourself.

“Let me ask you something: Why do you need to see this as an "us or them" situation?”

Why don’t you ask yourself that question Anil, because no matter what any of us have argued or reasoned, you have, without fail, responded with personal insults and moral judgments about all of us that don’t agree with every word that comes out of your mouth.

“Even if I grant the false assumption that this preposterous monolithic enemy that you've created exists,”

Hold it right there. That WE’VE CREATED!? We’ve created the evil of Radical Islam? Have you been forgetting to take your medication Anil, because you are starting to sound really nutty here.

“and that they all, all one billion of them, think that it's an Us vs. Them situation, wouldn't you still want to be the one to say it's not?”

No Anil, I wouldn’t want to be the one to say it’s not so, and I’ll tell you why. Because it’s not what I believe. I believe it our responsibility to pay attention when there are a whole lotta people out there who keep telling us that they would love nothing more than to see us all dead. When they threaten to kill me, I believe them. You, on the other hand, are burying your head in the sand for the sake of being politically correct. There is no value in being the one to “say” that it’s not Us vs. Them. Why don’t you believe them when they openly call for your blood? What’s the value of being the one to say, “They’re only kidding. They’re loving, kind, moral people just like you and me”.

Here, let me repeat something that you wrote back to you:

““I know that any group of a billion people, of a hundred people, of a dozen people, has extremists and moderates, lunatics and geniuses, lovers and fighters.”

Again, let me say that I agree with that statement 100%. But that still doesn’t mean that there aren’t people out there who have declared ‘Holy Jihad’ on us in the name of Allah. You can twist it any way you want to, they are the ones who have declared that it is Them vs. Us. I don’t know why you find it so offensive that we pay attention to what they’re telling us.

“Isn't that what being an American is? To be a person from a culture that is made of all of the parts of the world?”

Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean that as an American, we have to embrace EVERY culture, especially one that preaches hatred and calls for the destruction of the free world and its freedom-loving citizens. You have taken the concept too far. They HATE us Anil. Don’t you get it? They want to destroy us. They want us dead. Which part of that do you not understand?

“You're spoiled.”

So are you Anil, so are you. You take for granted all the privileges this country gives you, including the ability to have your own site where you can post whatever nasty and judgmental thoughts you like. Being American also allows for different opinions to exist. You are not allowing that. You are resorting, once again, to name-calling and your run-of-the-mill finger pointing. It’s sickening really.

“You've forgotten why your immigrant ancestors came here. You've forgotten what they went through when they did.”

Again Anil, the judging, judging, judging… Speak for yourself.

“I am ashamed of you,”

You ought to be very ashamed of yourself. You have lost any sense of decorum you may have had, and I hope that when you read what you have written, you can judge yourself as harshly as you judge others.

“but I still know you're an American, I still know you didn't cause the attacks a year ago.”

Well I’m grateful that you’ll finally concede that one.

“I'm still willing to accept you”

That’s an absolute lie. You can’t take back all the accusations and insults you just wrote and now go limp and say that you accept us. Be honest with yourself Anil. You are not willing to accept us, not one of us that don’t fall in with your ideas. You hate what we stand for, you think we’re immoral and come from hateful, bigoted, misogynistic cultures. Go on Anil, admit it. I’ll have more respect for you if you can at least me own up to your feelings and be honest about how judgmental you really are about “our ilk”.

“flawed and flailing though you are.”

Couldn’t resist getting in that last little spiteful zig could you Anil? Just couldn’t resist passing that one last judgment.

Now I’m going to judge you and I’m going to be brutally honest.

I think you have your head so far up your ass, I’m not sure you’re ever going to get it out.

But if you do manage to, here are my thoughts:

I think you need to learn what modesty is, and what gratitude is. I think you need to take a course or two on how to debate without being reduced to throwing out petty insults and racist slurs. I think you need to learn to take responsibility for who you are and what you say. I think you need to be a little gentler and take greater care with people’s feelings. I think you need to learn to think before you speak. I think you need to learn to watch the hurtful things you say to others. I think you need to learn your place. I think you need to learn some manners. I think you need to learn how to have a mind of your own and stop being such a sheep in the name of political correctness. I think you need to learn to tell the difference between good and evil. I think need to learn the danger in making assumptions and pinning tags on people you don’t know. I think you need to learn the value in occasionally saying you’re sorry, and actually meaning it. I think you need to learn how to be honest with yourself. I think you need to learn that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I think you should make the effort to grow up a little and stop being so reactionary. I think you need to learn that pointing fingers is impolite. I think you need learn the meaning of tolerance and stop being so judgmental. I think you need to learn that you are not a superior being who has the right to treat people the way you do. I think you need to learn that it is o.k. to disagree with someone without making moral judgments about them. You need to learn that sometimes you are not the authority that you think you are on world events, and that there will always be others differing views. I think you need to learn acceptance. I think you need to take a good look at yourself and ask yourself if you are someone that you like. I think you need to learn that there are ways of getting your point across without abusing others. I little kindness, a little openness, a little forgiveness, a little respect. All those things go a long way towards getting people to listen to what you really want to say. Right now, all I can see are insults, moral judgments, political correctness, and the unwillingness to acknowledge that none of us is perfect, WITHOUT excluding yourself. Whatever your point is, it’s getting lost in the cacophony of your insults. You have revealed your true character.

Heh. You filthy liberal tree-hugging appeaser. You soft-hearted consort of the enemy. You spineless weakling, bowing down before evil. It's us or them, don't you understand? They're trying to kill us! If you extend openness or kindness or understanding, or ever relent from your abuse, they'll kill you and all of your family and friends!

This is a war, don't you understand? A war against not just Islam, but anyone on the left in the United States. Can't you see that anyone who advocates engagement and dialogue with the non-radical parts of Islam is really just admitting they want your daughters and wives to be raped by swarthy men? Whose side are you on?

"Me thinks thou dost protest too much" - William Shakespeare

I began my participation on this thread with the theory that those who cry racism the loudest were in fact the real racists.

To test this theory I posted some provocative statements about what I assumed was your cultural background to see your response. Judging by your response, my theory was correct. It looks like I've smoked you out as the real racist.

Anil, go back and read your own writing. Is it possible to express such vitriol without some deep-seated racial hatred? Do you ever question your own morality? As a racial minority, nobody ever asks you to question yourself. You have the luxury of blaming whitey for your problems.

Am I terrified? Maybe that is not the right word. I would say that I fear the direction the world is heading. You would be too if you could pluck your head out of the sand momentarily and be honest. Because if you and people who think like you don't recognize what his happening then the only solution will be total war. And this war won't be a war between nation-states where everybody goes home afterwards. It will be a war of ethnic cleansing. If this is how things play out, then there will be a time and place for fighting to preserve freedom for my children. I hope I don't have to, but if I do, I'll fight in spite of my fear.

You chastise me for posting under a pseudonym. Are you implying that I should have something to fear by posting under my real name? I thought you guys were supposed to be the peaceful ones.

And Anil, I'm still waiting for your ideas for solving the problem of Islamic terrorism. Perhaps you can tear yourself away from your racist histrionics long enough to come up with some proposals.

I'm a Muslim. If, to you, that means I cut off the hands of thieves and advocate the slaughter of all Americans and Jews, then is it reasonable for me to assume that you fuck your children up the ass and share pictures of it over the internet, as Americans have been known to do? Or is that racist? So confusing.

Toodles!

It would seem to be a lot harder to hold a rational conversation on this subject than I thought.

Misconceptions, misapprehensions, and just plain misunderstandings abound. Maybe if we start talking WITH each other instead of AT each other, some questions might get answered. As it is, tossing crap back and forth really gets the job done, doesn't it? (If you like brown, messy stuff flying through the air, that is...)

It doesn't matter WHO started it - but how it's going to end. It can end with people killing each other because they won't communicate - or sitting down and actually communicating and defusing the anger.

And if you can't do it here on a board like this, where the stakes are so small as to be virtually negligible (aside from ego points for putdowns), how could you rationally expect countries to do it internationally when the stakes are MUCH higher?

J.

Are you offering yourself as the voice of moderation? If so, I suggest you have some soul-searching to do my friend.

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

A couple questions:

What do you think should be the SUPREME law in America - the US Constitution or the Sharia?

Is Osama Bin Laden a good Muslim?

HA --
Bad! Dirty!

Thanks for (not) helping. Lot easier to assign blame - whether it's real, perceived or coerced - than face that there might be a problem.

Because you get ego points from assigning blame, after all. Blame whitey? Where in hell did that come from? Maybe HA is black. Maybe I'm Hispanic. Maybe you're an exceptionally talented aardvark, and I'm a cat wandering across the keyboard. Does it matter what ethnicity or religious background he has? Or I have? He's raising concerns he has, and all you can do in return is trash him?

On the internet you're judged by your IDEAS and how you express them, not by your skin color or ethnicity. All we've got is an exchange of IDEAS here.

Or rather - an exchange of diatribes about how folks raising the questions HA is about Islam are so obviously wrong and racist to be even ASKING the questions. Note that the questions HA raised ARE NOT GETTING ANSWERED, but the questioner is getting slammed for asking the questions. Until finally he asks "What do you think should be the SUPREME law in America - the US Constitution or the Sharia?"

So rack up the score, laugh about how stupid the other side is, and then wonder later why you can't communicate when it's REALLY necessary to do so.

Also, wonder why folks aren't trying to understand the basics behind Islam. They bring up questions, and instead of the questions getting answered, you slam them for racism for daring to have questions. Wonderful way to open a damn dialog, isn't it?

Take this board - write it large for the whole world. The West is asking questions it should have asked years ago. The Islamic world isn't answering them - instead attacking the West for even daring to ask -when they don't keep a deafening silence.

Anil, thanks for the forum. It's been interesting, and... well, 'extremely depressing' is the phrase that comes to mind. As I said, if the 'us' and the 'them' can't communicate rationally on as small a scale as this one, where there's literally NOTHING at stake - I don't have much hope for the world to do better. And you have no idea how much I hope I'm overly pessimistic on that front...

J.

Actually my college thesis (well not actually my thesis but the major paper for a class) was on the Islamic Nature of the US Constitution. With few exceptions (counting blacks as 3/5 of the population would never fly in Islam, for example; the Quran is very very specifically against any form of racism) I believe the US constitution, when coupled with the Declaration of Independence, could easily be considered Islamic. For example the preamble of the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

is a very neat encapsulation of what Islam is all about. Justice, tranquility, defence, and general welfare are all among the most important aspects of Islam. Combined with the Dec. of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" you have a blue-print for a modern Islamic state.

Now the Sharia cannot be changed, the laws are immutable. However the applicatin of such laws are changeable according to the Quran. So I think the Sharia and the US Constitution are in perfect harmony, as the Sharia laws can easily be folded into the COnstitution. The constitution has no overt conflict with Sharia laws, given that their application can change with the times.

So you answer your question, the Supreme law of the land is clearly the constitution, which was written in such a brilliant manner by the founders that it is compatible with Quranic law and moreover shares the fundamental principals of Islam.

Is Osama Bin Laden a good Muslim?

What are you, a retard? Jeez, you really don't know any Muslims, do you?! I don't know a single person (and we Muslims have excellent family ties and this means I know A LOT of people) who think Bin Laden is anything but a fucking asshole who has screwed us over even worse than you. Of course, I don't know very many people who think the CIA is much better, either.

Jlawson:

You see a site with Islamic teens chortling about how much fun it would be to slit the throats of unbelievers - with nobody at ClearGuidance telling them that's not the way Islam works.

I'm sure I could find the same thing at a Christian Identity Movement site, what would that tell me? That all Christians are white-supremacist murderers? And since this is a discussion about LFG.com, I can find many examples of calls to violence against innocents on that site, with no admonitions from the site owner. So what? Does it mean that all web-posters are crazy lunatics???

Yes, you were very creative - but if someone's asking you directions to a particular location, and you regale him with how John McAdam developed macadam roads in Scotland- the story may be very interesting but you're going to lose the attention of the audience because the information isn't apparently relevant.

(Got a friend like that, by the way. Ask him to hand you a can of soda, and he'll start telling you how bauxite is turned into aluminum. Have to remind him you want the soda...)

Mind-numbingly retrograde? Well, I suppose what he's asking for is old news to you, so jazzing up your answer was a fun exercise instead of typing the same old stuff - but there's a lot of folks who worry about the same things he does. And they're supposed to look at your answer, interpret it through Lord of the Rings similies, and be reassured? I'm sorry, and I understand your frustration with what undoubtedly seems great ignorance and obtuseness on our parts, but I didn't see that what you were doing was much different from normal blog-bashing. There was relevant info there, but it was heavily overladen with sarcasm. An entertaining read, but the signal to noise ratio seemed pretty high from my point of view. The info didn't get across.

On the 'ClearGuidance' board - actually, when you consider it was a moderated Islamic board that was supposedly dealing with teen issues and questions - with moderators for the forums, and that the posts stretched over a series of days with no corrective input from the moderators - I'd view that the same way I'd view a, oh, moderated Methodist teen board where some guys are talking about gang-raping some girl at a school party. If the posts continue back for a couple of weeks without the (supposed) moderator stepping in, that would lead me to think that the moderator condoned their plans and actions, and I'd fire off a letter to the board owner/manager complaining about the moderator not doing their job.

If the Methodist owning the board wrote back and told me I didn't understand what they were doing - I'd wonder what he was smoking. And yes, it'd affect how I see Methodism.

LGF is posted to by adults, not teens, tweens, or children. There's stuff on there that I wouldn't want my child to see until he's, oh, 20 or so. Hell, there's stuff there I wish I hadn't seen.

But it's been my experience that if you ignore a problem or potential problem that it doesn't get better. And that sometimes when you get enough info, what you think is a problem turns out to not be one at all. That's what I'm trying to do here - to get as much information as I can.

J.

J.

Do a search for the word "whitey" on this page.

And you want reasoned debate? Long gone, never here, already sucked dry by the dittoheads.

You ain't my friend, pilgrim. But I'll offer wishes of soul-searching to you all the same.

http://www.losers.org/rednecks.html

Also, why are you fucking your children up the ass?

Your own children! Ought to be a law.

I don't doubt you're convinced of that. Maybe even hoping.

You have the luxury of blaming whitey for your problems.

I do? Nah, I love white people. Some of my best friends are white people. I loooove white people -- just ask your mom!

Not even close. Try: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, uttered by the Queen)

Now back to your regularly scheduled idiocy.

What zulubaby said Anil wrote (and then used to form conclusions): Read what you wrote: “It’s because you’re immoral”. Next sentence: “I think it’s immoral to judge”.

What Anil really wrote: "And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members."

Judge for yourselves...

It is a common idea to think that the Islamic ideal laws are the Sharia, while they really aren't.
Imposing the Sharia on an already civilised people, as was done in Afghanistan, is not acting in a true Islamic way, it is torturing your people.

So, to answer HA's question, the US Constitution is more adequate for civilised people, but when you want to eduquate primitive tribes (which is not really likely to happen anymore) it's better to apply the Sharia.
It's still comparing the uncomparable, though.

Is Osama Bin Laden a good muslim ?
Of course he isn't. Distorting the message of the Koran in order to influence weak-minded individuals into committing terrorist acts is against the very nature of what being a Muslim is about.

Thank you for pointing out one of the countless ways that the Constitution is superior to the Sharia. As an evolving document, the Constitution can change as society evolves. Unlike in the Sharia which is frozen in time, slavery has been outlawed in the Constitution by the 13th Amendment. In just 80 years after we achieved independence from England, we outlawed slavery. And we fought a hell of a war to do it. Meanwhile, slavery has been permitted by Islamic law for 1500 years, and it will always be permitted. So here is an overt conflict. The Constitution forbids what Allah permits.

I'll grant you that the Quran recommends that you treat slaves humanely after you've ripped families from their villages and torn them apart. I suppose that depends on how you define humanely though.

So for about 1000 years before the first British colony in North America, Arab Muslims were enslaving black Africans among others. Its even possible some of your ancestors enlsaved or slaughtered some of Anil's ancestors. Fortunately you didn't make it far enough north to enslave my ancestors. You were defeated at the second Siege of Vienna in 1683 and its been downhill for you guys ever since.

Not that you guys ended the practice in colonial times. Arab Muslims were responsible for rounding up millions of slaves in East Africa for sale into the European slave trade. Somehow I doubt you guys were concerned that the Europeans treated the slaves humanely while you were counting your money.

And of course, since the Sharia will always permit slavery, it is still being practiced today. The Sudan is the most notorious example. Millions of black Christians have been slaughtered and enslaved there in full accordance with the Sharia. Furthermore, go over to MEMRI and LGF to read about various mullahs in Saudia Arabia and other countries who are calling for the enslavement of the Jewish women after you guys destroy Israel.

Combined with the Dec. of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" you have a blue-print for a modern Islamic state.

Iran is the blue-print of a modern Islamic state. But I suspect that will not last much longer. The Iranians are beginning to revolt against the mullahs. The Iranian government can't even trust its own security forces, so it is bringing in Arab mercenaries to crack down on its people. People can only take so much Sharia.

Is Osama Bin Laden a good Muslim?

What are you, a retard? Jeez, you really don't know any Muslims, do you?! I don't know a single person (and we Muslims have excellent family ties and this means I know A LOT of people) who think Bin Laden is anything but a fucking asshole who has screwed us over even worse than you.

So I guess the Muslims you hang out with weren't the ones dancing in the streets on 9/11? And they weren't the ones saying America had it coming?

And tell me, if OBL has screwed you guys over so bad, why hasn't anyone issued a fatwa calling for his death? Why does Salman Rushdie have such a fatwa against him for merely exercising his right to free speech?

And by the way, you guys have screwed yourselves up far worse than we ever could. Go read that UN Report on the state of the Arab world.

Oh yeah, "retard" isn't really a politcally correct term anymore. I know as a man of peace and tolerance you wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Arabs are whiteys too, aren't we?

If it make you feel better. We whiteys are a big tent race.

You ain't my friend, pilgrim

I know you "ain't". The Quran does not permit you to be friends with the infidel.

Thanks for falling for the bait though. It is SO EASY to lead you guys where I want.

Is Siri a peaceful and tolerant Muslim?

If all muslims agreed with you, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, I suspect the percentage is extremely small.

I do? Nah, I love white people. Some of my best friends are white people. I loooove white people -- just ask your mom!

I wonder if your white friends would feel the same way if they saw the views you've expressed on this thread?

Were you offended by Siri's comments? I noticed you let it pass without comment. Perhaps as an Indian-American you felt it wasn't directed at you. You're exempted by what comes before the hyphen. However, after all your grand-standing about America being your country, I would think you'd feel compelled to admonish him for his comment.

You still haven't proposed any ideas about solving the problem of Islamic terrorism. I suspect if you did, it would involve "dialogue". However, judging by how you've handled the dialogue on this thread you wouldn't be very successful.

I suspect your are either very young or very inexperienced with dialogue. If not, you would know that two of the basic rules of dialogue are to control your emotions and to understand your counter-party's perspective. You obviously failed to control your emotions. I also gave you an opening to understand my perspective. Rather than taking the opening, you used it to make ad hominem attacks.

You picked this fight by attacking LGF for the viewpoints expressed there. Yet what I've seen here has been far worse.

Anil, I feel like deep down you are probably a good person. I think you should examine your own perspective a little more closely.

It's also quite unfair to ignore the sarcasm in Siri's post. I mean, it's CLEARLY sarcasm to denounce the clichés that american medias carry about the middle east people.

It's immature to expect random people like us to come up with an idea such as "hey guys, I have a solution to islamic terrorism !". It's obviously something that cannot be found by ourselves, it's like saying "but you guys didn't provide a solution to hunger in the world !": as long as the US act like they do they will always have bad reactions against them, it's not rocket science. Thinking that terrorism, or just about any problem on this earth, could find a solution in a matter of days is just dreaming.

"Yet what I've seen here has been far worse."
Please quote which terrible statements you've seen HERE ?

A disclaimer/position statement: although I'm not a frequent participant on this site or on LGF, you'd be more likely to find me here than there.

So, assuming you're still reading, I have a few thoughts to contribute.

I think you haven't adequately responded to people's concerns about you painting all Muslims with the same brush you would use to paint the most extreme ones. You made some mention of statistical significance above as a means of characterizing Dr. Goldstein as an "outlier." I'm sure you realize that when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, the twenty people (of billions of Muslims) on the 9/11 planes are scarcely more significant (statistically) than Mr. Goldstein (of roughly 300 million Americans).

Do you truthfully think that you can not find a roughly equivalent number (percentage-wise) of demented Judeo-Christians? Militia members, IRA members, Israeli settlers, etc? I'm trying to avoid the standard "what about the Crusades" line of reasoning here.

That said, I find that I grudgingly agree with more of what you're saying than I'd like. I think profiling based on background and other characteristics is one of many tools which can and probably should be used. No, it likely won't prevent all attacks, and certainly, terrorists would adapt and conceivably use our myopia against us, but it could be an effective tactic in the short term. I don't like it, but I recognize that there is some validity there.

I think that reasonable special attention - no internment camps, etc - can be given to those who fit a certain ethnic profile (and I say this as someone with relatively dark skin, who's been searched with some frequency by airline employees).

But a question for you: would you "authorize" - were it your decision to make - internment camps, and incarceration based solely on that profiling? I feel too much of that has happened already. What about wiretaps? What is acceptable? What is not?

Two other specific questions I feel you've left unanswered:

2. Why are people here "racists?" Can you explain this in great detail? I've read both threads here and the one on LGF and can not for the life of me figure out that accusation.

3. Do you acknowledge that there *are* good Muslims? If so, what percentage of Muslims do you think qualify as such (do feel free to estimate)? Or, alternately, do you see Islam as a scourge that has beset the earth of which it must be cleansed altogether? I realize that sounds a bit confrontational, but that's not my aim. (And if you finish that question, a bonus: 4. in your clearly educated view, is there any way to sort of... tweak ... Islam to make it more amenable/acceptable to modern society)?

Thanks,

D

"We whiteys are a big tent race."

Nice of HA to turn over all cards at once. Busted!

I just had to jump in to bring attention to what I think may be the most egregious display of selective quotation I've seen in this thread:

What zulubaby said Anil wrote (and then used to form conclusions): Read what you wrote: “It’s because you’re immoral”. Next sentence: “I think it’s immoral to judge”.

What Anil really wrote: "And, well, you're right. It's because you're immoral. I think it's immoral to judge a group by its most extreme members."

Judge for yourselves...

Posted by: Jason on August 28, 2002 07:46 PM

Jason, I did in fact quote the whole sentence. In fact I quoted the entire paragraph. You have quoted me out of context. Just wanted to jump in and bring your attention to that.

Judge for yourselves...

HA, you obviously aren't showing any will to debate.

If by this you mean that I have made up my mind about these issues, then yes I am unwilling to debate. However, I am willing to point out to those who disagree with me where they are wrong.

It's also far-fetched to see Palestinians cheering the destruction in the US and then extrapole that all Muslims in the world were cheering. You've got to be blind to ignore the resentment that Palestinians have against the US, who have always been arming their Israelian buddies while asking both sides to come to a peace agreement (can you spot the error ?).

Since the establishment of the state of Israel, the goal of the Arabs has been to destroy it. They want all or nothing and this hasn't changed. If the Palestinians were willing to compromise and had followed the path of Gandhi and MLK they would have had their state already. Israel tried to give the West Bank to the Palestinians in the aftermath of the 1967 war. This has been documented in Michael Oren's book "Six Days of War". They tried to give it away in 2000 and Arafat responded with suicide bombings and shooting children in their beds.

If the US and in the past the Europeans didn't support Israel, it is quite likely that the Arab world would have destroyed Israel by now. If they ever succeed, I believe you will see a genocide on par with what happened to Uganda, Cambodia, and the Armenians. I won't compare it to the Holocaust because that is in a class by itself. It would be immoral not to support Israel.

Truly peaceful Palestinians should not resent US support of Israel. They should resent Arafat for leading them down the path of hatred and death.

It's also quite unfair to ignore the sarcasm in Siri's post. I mean, it's CLEARLY sarcasm to denounce the clichés that american medias carry about the middle east people.

I know sarcasm. Sarcasm is a friend of mine. Siri's post was not sarcasm. In my opinion, such a filth-laden rant can only be explained by deep-seated hatred. Whether his hatred is racism or xenophobia I cannot say.

BTW, the only person on this thread who can't recognize sarcasm is Dave Parks.

It's immature to expect random people like us to come up with an idea such as "hey guys, I have a solution to islamic terrorism !". ... as long as the US act like they do they will always have bad reactions against them

It is immature to have true evil staring you in the face and not recognize it.

It is immature to criticize others' proposed responses without offering alternatives.

It is immature to assume that if the US does what terrorists want that terrorism will end.

You raise a number of excellent questions which require a worthy response. Given what I've posted so far on this thread, I feel I have an obligation to respond. I don't have the time at this moment, but I'll get back over the weekend.

Just to let you know, I'm still reading, and quite interested to hear what you - as an LGF representative - have to say. I'll keep my eye on this page.

"Do you know what was in their hearts? Demeanor has no correlation with belief."

Does Anil know what's in my heart? What exactly are you saying? That though I adore the guy and believe myself to be a good person that he should be suspicious of me because I am a Muslim? Unless you extend this sort of distrust to everyone you ever encounter you are blindly prejudiced. Why? Because you don't know me. And apparently you do not know Islam either. Parts about killing infidels? Stonings? Beheadings? Amputations? Slavery? Gender apartheid? Please point me towards the parts in the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sharia'ah that you have presumably fully studied and understood, that condone these things.

I come from a rather religious Islamic family. And we are good people. And hey, I'm a Muslim woman. Oppressed? Uneducated? Silenced? No freedom to express my opinion? Is that what I should be? Well in fact I am the opposite because my parents instilled good Islamic morals within me and pushed me to be the best I can be. They did this because from what they have studied of Islam, both in Pakistan and in Britain, it was their duty to educate us and raise good Muslims who are as good a member of British society as anyone.

See I have a problem with these arguments that people are putting forward. Not because they condemn Islam, you are entitled to believe what you want, but because you paint all Muslims with the same brush. Much like all Catholics and Protestants are terrorists? Oh I see, it only applies to Muslims. Occasionally there will be a "I meant radical Muslims only" but generally there are blanket statements. You are not even willing to consider us as individuals. This is why I choose normally not to give you the time of day. This is why I choose not to bother shouting out loud why I condemn Osama Bin Laden. Why should I have to? He's not me. He is not even family. He doesn't share my views. So why am I associated with him? Because we both happen to call ourselves Muslims?

Oh and enough of this bullshit about us not raising our voices against terrorism in the name of Islam. Here's an idea, maybe you just choose to ignore it when we do say something.

Of course I believe individuals can only speak for themselves so here are times I have spoken out. Not that it would satisfy those of you who are hell bent on looking at this problem in such a two dimensional way. Muslims bad, end of story?

1, 2, 3 and 4. Even pre-September 11th.

And here's another link showing our "silence".

It's interesting how Anil's comments were totally ignored when he said:

"Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.

Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures."

No responses to this? No explanations? The silence is indeed deafening.

It's interesting how Anil's comments were totally ignored when he said:

"Fuck that. Ask George Bush whether he still believes that black people in this country who are descended from slaves should obey their masters, as the Book of Ephesians that he claims to believe in commands them to do. He hasn't disavowed it, ever. Not once has he said the Bible is wrong in preaching subjugation of other humans as slaves.

Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures."

No responses to this? No explanations? The silence is indeed deafening.

I did respond to that outrageous rant by Anil. Maybe others didn't respond because the bullshit content in that statement is so high that it shouldn't be dignified by a response.

Holy poo! That was the funniest, most caroming, line by line idiot response to anything Ive ever seen, here or on lgf or anywhere. You set some kind of record for rhetorical emptiness tand agenga-working there.

Seriously, it was like watching a child crit someone elses drawing in kindergarten.

O-o-o-k-a-y, now you’re really ranting. And you’re losing focus of the discussion at hand.

“Sharon? Never once has he disavowed the misogynist doctrine of orthodox Judaism. And these examples are men who are supposed to be leaders. Let alone the vast masses of people who support them, all of whom refuse to disavow the legacy of hatred, bigotry, and misogyny in their cultures.”

Now Usama, there’s a Mensch for you. Now that’s what you call a leader. What do Bush and Sharon know abut leadership? They should learn from The Evil One, shouldn’t they Anil?

Careful Anil, your true feelings are starting to show. The “misogynist doctrine of Orthodox Judaism”? Oh, that’s interesting. Legacy of hatred, bigotry and misogyny belonging to the American culture (that you claim as your own, that you claim to love) and to the Jewish culture!?

What about the Islamic culture?

Your amazing response was in fact a complete dodge. Instead of answering Anil's question, you make a feeble try to turn it around and pretend that Anil was saying that Bin Laden is a good leader. Instead of answering his question about the lack of people standing up against bigotry and misogyny in American and Orthodox Jewish culture, you say "what about Islamic culture"? Another dodge.

Until you are ready to specifically answer his question "Why don't people from other cultures stand up and and disavow the problems in that culture?" you cannot claim that you have truly responded. If the "bullshit" level is so high, why are you unable to refute the simple position that other cultures (including American and Orthodox Jewish) have problems which are not addressed by their leaders?

Where did I say that Anil thinks Bin Laden is a good leader? The thought hasn't crossed my mind, so I'm quite sure I didn't write that. Don't twist what I wrote to suit your own purposes please. I highly doubt Anil considers Bin Laden a good leader.

Yvonne:

"You set some kind of record for rhetorical emptiness tand agenga-working there.

Seriously, it was like watching a child crit someone elses drawing in kindergarten."

"Kindergarten" seems the appropriate level of intelligence on this blog, don't you think?

Looks like every time you quote what someone else wrote, it comes up blank. Interesting...

Funnily the level of intelligence at Anil's blog has always been rather high except for some contributions on this particular post.

In order to give an adequate response to your questions, I'll first have to give you my thoughts on human nature. I won't be treading new ground with this stuff, but it will help with context. Unfortunately this is gonna take a while.

I believe human nature is universal. Humans have traits that we characterize as good or evil because we needed these traits to survive during our period of evolution. Some traits we recognize as good such as duty, honor, self-sacrifice, altruism and empathy. Other traits we recognize as evil such as hate, anger, greed and vengeance. Others are more neutral such as fear. Humans are also social creatures, so we have a strong desire for group identity. Each of these traits can vary over a wide range. These traits are tuned to specific levels for each individual human depending on the environment in which that individual is immersed.

Obviously, human beings needed to form groups to survive in our evolutionary environment. Group identity can take primitive forms such as tribe or race. It can also take more abstract forms such as religion or even something as superficial as sports rivalries. In order to function in these groups, we need social constructs to govern interactions between members of the same group and across groups. As society evolves, social constructs that were effective in one environment become ineffective in another. For example, the social constructs that would enable one nomadic hunter-gatherer group to survive in an environment where they are in competition with other such groups would not be appropriate for a settled agricultural/commercial society with farmers, craftsmen and merchants.

The evil traits are not something we can discard. It may seem counter-intuitive, but we need evil traits for society to function. Consider a tribal nomadic hunter-gatherer society where different tribal groups are in competition for resources. Such a society is essentially a zero-sum game. In order for one tribe to survive, it has to secure scarce resources that are then unavailable to the competing tribe. Such a society would have to be highly war-like to survive. Those tribal groups that most successfully summon their evil traits are more likely to succeed in war. Thus every able-bodied male in such a society must be a warrior.

The good traits are also essential in the tribal nomadic hunter-gatherer societies. When I am fighting against the competing tribe, I need to know that those in my group will not turn and flee. I also need to know that my cousin isn't back at the camp sleeping with my wife and stealing my sheep.

In a settled agricultural/commercial society, the same good and evil traits are needed just at different levels. Due to specialization, farmers, craftsmen and merchants could produce more than they needed and trade between one another. This creates an abundance of resources. This kind of society is no longer zero-sum. In this kind of society, group wide war-like characteristics are no longer as advantageous. On the contrary, war can cause the break down of society and threaten its survival.

Of course this doesn't eliminate the need for war-like characteristics because such societies can be attacked by other societies. Due to the abundance of materials from the specialized farmers, craftsmen and merchants, a special class of warriors can be created to protect the society. They can fight the wars while the farmers, craftsmen and merchants produce and distribute the required materials.

As an athiest, I believe that man invented god rather than the reverse. A religion is nothing more than a social construct in which its practitioners presume divine sanction. Therefore, a religion based on the social constructs of a nomadic hunter-gatherer society will reflect the pervasive war-like characteristics needed to survive in that environment. This religion will be balanced toward the evil side of human nature. A religion based on the social constructs of an agricultural/commercial society will be more balanced toward the good side of human nature.

I think you know where I'm heading with this. Judaism and Christianity originated in settled agricultral/commercial societies and are thus in balance good. Islam originated in a nomadic hunter-gatherer society and is thus in balance evil. This is not to say that Judeo-Christianity is all good and that Islam is all evil. Furthermore, individual Judeo-Christians can be in evil in spite of their religion and individual Muslims can be good in spite of Islam. However, the proportion that defy the conventions of their group will be small due to the penalties for deviating from their group identity.

There is a common misconception about Islam. Islam is not derivative of Judeo-Christianity. Islamic social constructs evolved independently of Judeo-Christianity in the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula. Judeo-Christian constructs were sort of aggregated with pre-Islamic Arab social constructs to form Islam. This is evidenced by the Hajj which is centered around the Kaaba. The Kaaba is a pre-Islamic religious relic. This is further evidenced by the Satanic Verses of the Quran which are controversial because they grant divinity to pre-Islamic polytheistic deities. This is why Salman Rushdie's book was so controversial in the Islamic world. It undermines the monotheistic assumption of Islam and is thus blasphemous.

Moving on to the concept evil. I think there are three forms of evil. The first form is transparent evil. In this form, the perpetrator of evil makes no effort to conceal his evil. He knows he is evil and makes no effort to disguise it. This evil maintains itself through brute power. Saddam Hussein falls into this category. The second form of evil is aware of its own evil nature and attempts to disguise it. This evil maintains itself through charisma and and the selective exercise of power. I think Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden fall into this category. The third form of evil is where the perpetrator thinks it is good when in fact it is actually evil. This evil maintains itself by suppressing competing ideas. This third form is more abstract and ideological. Examples of this are Marxism and its derivatives of Socialism and Communism.

Let's consider the third form a little more closely. Evil that thinks it is good is the most insidious form of evil because it is harder to recognize and fight. This form of evil happens by accident rather than design. It is the by-product of good-intentions. Socialism is the obvious example of this. Postmodernism and its cousin multi-culturalism are additional examples because they teach that it is virtuous to fail to distinguish good from evil. I believe that Islam started in the second category during the life of Mohammed and transitioned into the third category after his death. Certainly most Muslims believe that Islam is good. In this sense, most Muslims are good because their intentions are good. However, if the outcome of their good intentions is evil, are they not in fact tools of evil?

What evil traits do socialism, postmodernism/multi-culturalism and Islam share? Each of these ideologies promote group rights and subordinates individual liberty. These ideologies want to guarantee equality of outcomes for groups. This shared evil trait is why the Islamists - violent as well as peaceful - draw their support in the West from the political left. This evil trait is in direct conflict with the US Constitution which promotes individual liberty as long as its exercise doesn't harm others. The US Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity for individuals.

So there is the fundamental ideological conflict. Equality of outcomes for groups versus equality of opportunity for individuals. I believe that equality of outcomes for groups is impossible to achieve and is evil because it suppresses individual liberty. Ideologies such as Islam, Socialism and Postmodernism/Multi-culturalism are dehumanizing because they subordinate the individual.

The heart of the criticism of Western values by Islamists is that promotion of the individual fosters greed. However, there is one illustrative exception to the notion that Islam promotes the group over the individual. Islam permits individual males to greedily hoard reproductive resources. Men are allowed 4 wives and any number of concubines. A man who hoards women prevents access for other men to reproductive resources. Is this not the ultimate form of greed?

Ideologies based on strong group identities have harsh penalties for violating group norms. The communist strain of socialism had its reeducation camps. Islam punishes apostasy and blasphemy with death. Postmodernism and multi-culturalism punishes by accusing its ideological opponents of racism and xenophobia.

False charges of racism and xenophobia are insidious. These false charges are in fact racism. They are based on the premise that white cannot criticize non-whites. Christians cannot criticize non-Christians. Merits of the criticism are of no consequence. Of course criticism of white and Christian by brown or non-Christian is perfectly acceptable. That is the oppressed criticizing the oppressor. Deep down, these people believe that white and Christian is bad while brown and non-Christian is good. This is blatant racism.

What makes false charges so insidious is that they are in fact an attempt to deny the right of free speech. These charges are not based on merit. They are intended to protect an ideology from criticism. An ideology that is free from criticism can only be defeated if it collapses under its own inherent contradictions or by war. Plus, there is the "crying wolf" effect of making charges against people merely because you don't like their ideas.

I think you haven't adequately responded to people's concerns about you painting all Muslims with the same brush you would use to paint the most extreme ones.

I distinguish between Islam (the sin) and Muslims (the sinner). If the majority of Muslims accepted that the Quran was a work of man rather than a revelation by God, then they could accept the good parts and reject the evil parts. As it stands now, most of the good parts are abrogated by the evil parts. It is the good parts that are taken out of context. I dismiss any Muslim that tells me the evil parts are taken out of context.

I also dismiss any Muslim who insinuates that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, or that we have "screwed" the Muslim world as Hasan said. Hasan didn't say that OBL was a bad Muslim because he directed the murder of 3000 people. He condemned OBL for making Muslims look bad. He's upset about the PR disaster.

I dismiss any Muslim that says suicide bombings against innocent civilians are justified.

I dismiss any Muslim that resists all of our efforts to respond to terrorism. They say don't use sanctions against Iraq, don't attack Iraq, don't attack Afghanistan, don't detain Al Quaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo, don't profile, don't restrict immigration, don't track visa holders, and don't criticize Islam or Muslims. In other words, don't fight back in any way.

I dismiss any Muslim that says do what the terrorists want.

I accept any Muslim who is honorable enough to admit that the Islamic world is responsible for evil acts of terrorism and that it is responsible for its own condition. Where is the outrage? Where are the Muslims who say America has the right and even the duty to fight back?

The silence of moderate Muslims is deafening.

You made some mention of statistical significance above as a means of characterizing Dr. Goldstein as an "outlier." I'm sure you realize that when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, the twenty people (of billions of Muslims) on the 9/11 planes are scarcely more significant (statistically) than Mr. Goldstein (of roughly 300 million Americans). ... Do you truthfully think that you can not find a roughly equivalent number (percentage-wise) of demented Judeo-Christians? Militia members, IRA members, Israeli settlers, etc? I'm trying to avoid the standard "what about the Crusades" line of reasoning here.

Clearly Judeo-Christian terrorists are in the fringe. They have no support in society. The real question is if Islamic terrorists are the fringe or if moderate muslims are the fringe.

There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that Islamic societies are thoroughly corrupted. Go to LGF and read the Friday sermons from state sponsored mullahs on state sponsored media calling for the destruction of Israel, an death to Jews, Christians and Americans. It is the same hatred every week.

If you want some statistical evidence, check this link:

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=13420

One fact in particular stands out - 53.1% is Palestinians do not believe that 9/11 is an act of terrorism. I have no reason to believe these numbers are not representative of the entire Arab world.

As an analogy consider that very few KKK actually lynched someone or bombed a church. Does that mean that that the society that supported the Klan is not also guilty? Of course the are. All of the Old South society was evil, not just the specific individuals that murdured people.

Also consider that most Christian terrorists are sectarian. It is rarely directed Muslims. Islamic terrorism is partly sectarian of course. But the terrorism I'm mainly concerned with is inter-civilization terrorism which is the near-exclusive domain of Islamists.

You imply that Israeli settlers are terrorists. I don't see buying an unoccupied piece of land and building a village on it to be terrorism. It may be stupid, but it isn't terrorism. It is possible that I'm wrong on this one. I have problems with settlements myself.

As for domestic militia groups, aren't you profiling them based on the act of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols?

As for the Crusades, these were a backlash against 400 years of Arab/Islamic imperialism. Remember that the Holy Lands were populated by non-Arab Christians for 600 years before Islam. Jews lived their for millenia.

Also, don't forget that Islam is the religion of Arab imperialism. Take a look at the Islamic parts of the globe and ask yourself how they became Islamic and what happened to the cultures and civilizations that existed before Islam. For example, Egyptians are not Arabs. They speak Arabic but they are Egyptians and had a great civilization for millenia before Islam. Ask Anil why the remaining Zorastrians in this world are based in India when they originated in Iran. Why are there so few Christians in the birth-place of their religion?

But a question for you: would you "authorize" - were it your decision to make - internment camps, and incarceration based solely on that profiling? I feel too much of that has happened already. What about wiretaps? What is acceptable? What is not?

I fully support profiling Muslims for security and investigation purposes. Try this thought experiment. Suppose you were boarding a plane with a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu and Buddhist. Now you are told that one of those people had a bomb and you could save your own life and all those on the plane by having one of them removed from the plane. Which one would you choose? Remember, it is your own life on the line this time, not some anonymous other traveller.

Muslims should be in favor of profiling. It may have saved the lives of those who shared a flight on the Swedish airline with that guy who tried to get a gun on the plane.

I also think we should restrict all immigration and visas from Muslim countries until they have their version of a Reformation and demonstrate that they can establish and maintain constitutional liberal democratic governments. I would exempt Turkey from this. If all Muslim countries were like Turkey there wouldn't be a problem.

I think we should relentlessly criticize Islam. They won't change if nobody forces them to confront their own morality.

I would have an internment camp for Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Robert Fisk and Stanley Fish and Susan Sontag (hint to Dave Park - think sarcasm).

Two other specific questions I feel you've left unanswered:
2. Why are people here "racists?" Can you explain this in great detail? I've read both threads here and the one on LGF and can not for the life of me figure out that accusation.

False charges of racism are in fact racist. I covered this in detail above. They are also an effort to deny me my right to free speech. On the internet, I can't be shouted down. In a college class or on the street I would be.

3. Do you acknowledge that there *are* good Muslims? If so, what percentage of Muslims do you think qualify as such (do feel free to estimate)?

Based on the poll above I linked above I would say that 50-80% of Palestinians are corrupted by terrorism. Obviously the percentage of those engaged in direct acts of terror are much smaller. I think this number is consistent with the rest of the Arab world. I think the numbers are probably smaller in the non-Arab Muslim world. Here is where my KKK analogy applies.

I think most Muslims believe they are good. In some way that makes them good. The outcome of their intention is bad. Very few see this.

Or, alternately, do you see Islam as a scourge that has beset the earth of which it must be cleansed altogether? I realize that sounds a bit confrontational, but that's not my aim. (And if you finish that question, a bonus: 4. in your clearly educated view, is there any way to sort of... tweak ... Islam to make it more amenable/acceptable to modern society)?

Islam is an ideology that can be reformed. I believe it is possible to reform Islam by secularizing it as has been done in Turkey. Of course Turkey was secularized under extreme circumstances. Kemal Ataturk saved the Turkish state and thus had complete authority to shape it the way he wanted to. Ideologies can only change if people are free to speak out against them or in moments of crisis. If people don't speak out against Islam because of fear of being labelled racist or xenophic, then Islam won't change.
I see no evidence that Islam will reform from within. The world can't wait for this to happen anymore.

As long as this post has been, there are many issues I've over-simplified. Here are some books that helped me form my thoughts on these issues:

"The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright
"What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer
"Why I Am Not A Muslim" by Ibn Warraq
"The Rushdie Affair" by Daniel Pipes

Its easy to criticize my ideas without submitting your own to criticism.

I liked HA better before, when the neverending stream touched on hilarious holy crusades like protecting “American culture”

WHATEVER THAT MEANS

But now the revisionist drone has taken over, and HA can be sent off to stand, bare-chested and proud, battling terror by boring it to death.

(Hopefully it will work).

"zulubaby, that was hardly a reply. More of a dismissal and unfortunately rather an immature one. Resorting to personal attacks is also on the same level and shouldn't take the place of a serious discussion if that is indeed what you hope to achieve. Discussion with hopes to an eventual resolution or name calling? I know what I hoped for.

Funnily the level of intelligence at Anil's blog has always been rather high except for some contributions on this particular post.

Posted by: Saima on August 31, 2002 01:37 PM

Saima,

I was insulted and personally attacked but you only see that I did that? What would you like me to respond to exactly? Read what you wrote to me. It's insulting and unwarranted. And slyly insinuating that the intelligence level of this site has been compromised by the likes of me? Why would I want to even bother engaging in discussion with someone who just wrote what you did. I'm immature? That's funny. You're being hostile and as far as I can tell, looking for an opportunity to insult me. I have no interest in getting into any kind of discussion with you. I also don't have the time. You just dismissed me too. Quite frankly I find most of the responses on this site incredibly immature (although there has been attempts at real debate).

"Discussion with hopes to an eventual resolution or name calling? I know what I hoped for."

Yeah, I know what you hoped for too.

Sorry, no dice. Go insult someone else if it makes you feel better.

Contrary to Infidel's post, I don't see your comments as the same old same old (although I do agree with his/her points about misguided US foreign policy having contributed to the motivations of the 9/11 attackers - though they are still ultimately responsible, of course). Like you, I don't have anywhere near the requisite time to fully respond at this time, but I fear it would be a waste regardless.

It seems that the crux of your argument lies in this statement:

"I think you know where I'm heading with this. Judaism and Christianity originated in settled agricultral/commercial societies and are thus in balance good. Islam originated in a nomadic hunter-gatherer society and is thus in balance evil."

If I'm not mistaken, everything else essentially flows from this relatively simplistic statement. I don't see any other support for this statement that Islam is inherently evil beyond the nomadic heritage = predisposition towards evil argument. To put it bluntly, I am unwilling to grant this premise and so we have a fundamental disagreement. There are a number of more picayune disagreements (and, yes, some agreements as well), but this statement of yours dooms any real potential for debate between us, which is a shame in itself.

What next?

Can something be done about it all?

With utmost reservations I'm voicing an idea that has been eating away at me for a while now.

Maybe what we understand as terrorism is just a symptomatic display, an outburst of something that is deep rooted and has beginnings that have yet to be defined/categorized. The more I think about what constitutes "terrorism" the more it is clear to me that we are tagging the symptom and regarding it as the disease.

For every time that you see/read/talk about terrorism try saying "intolerence" instead and I feel that one will be tackling the moot point in this debate. INTOLERENCE is TERRORISM. In any form. However ordinary. However trivial. If we try and take notice and make conscious choices of "how not to be a terrorist and foster terrorism" we would be slapping ourselves silly every time we have displayed intolerence in any form. The BIG KABLOOIE on 911 is the end result of people who have chosen not to slap themselves at the right time because maybe the world dosen't even recognize terrorism as such. When we understand intolerence as being the disease and cure it quickly, with all our faculty or reason, with judicious intent we will never see a 911 again.

I start with me.

No responses to this? No explanations? The silence is indeed deafening.

I don't respond to arguments based on moral equivalence because there is no equivalence. To argue on such a basis is a waste of time. The implication is that everybody is equally bad so let's do nothing. Is that the best argument you have?

At least Hasan's Orcs/Elves attempt to draw moral equivalence was creative and entertaining.

This is probably the first period in your life where your cultural heritage has been systematically challenged. Have you responded with any kind of introspection? You expect us (Americans) to evaluate ourselves, so why are you unwilling to do the same?

Do you truly believe Islam is perfect and is beyond criticism?

I have no doubt my understanding of Islam is not as complex as yours. However, my understanding perfectly predicts Islamic terrorism. It is also consistent with what folks like OBL and Ayatollah Khomeni say it is. I presume they have studied Islam at least as much as you have. Are they not true Muslims?

What basis do I have to say that your intepretation is correct and theirs isn't - besides wishful thinking?

I don't see any other support for this statement that Islam is inherently evil beyond the nomadic heritage = predisposition towards evil argument. To put it bluntly, I am unwilling to grant this premise and so we have a fundamental disagreement.

Why? I can think of two reasons. First, you think my arguments are incorrect. In this case you should at least provide a couter-argument. Failure to do so is irresponsible. Second, you acknowledge my arguments have merit but your won't grant them at this time because you prefer to see the glass as half-full. Which is it? If there are other options feel free to explore them.

but this statement of yours dooms any real potential for debate between us

We haven't had a debate. You posed some legitimate questions. I responded and you withdrew. That is not a debate.

is there any way to sort of... tweak ... Islam to make it more amenable/acceptable to modern society

I submit to you your own question.

At least your insults are humorous. Care to deconstruct my arguments with some poly-syllabic-postmodern-multi-cultural-fundamentalist intellectual bulimia? I'm sure such entertainment will keep eyeballs firmly glued to monitors.

This thread has ended up where I thought it would. You guys offer nothing except moral equivalence. When the IRA is slamming jets into Mecca and the Pope is calling for death to Islam and death to Arabs every Sunday and 80-90% of Westerners say Baruch Goldstein is NOT a terrorist, I'll grant moral equivalence. Until then, its just escapist BS. If we ever reach the point of true equivalence we're all in trouble.

Due to the absence of any other counter-arguments, I stand here "bare-chested" and declare victory.

Now go back to your head-nodding.

HA, all I ever argued was that all Muslims should not be considered in the same way. I only drew a comparison so as to ask why other groups of people are not judged on the actions of their members and not asked to constantly publicly denounce horrendous acts. Is this what I should revaluate myself about? As for the unfair assumption you make that this is the first time my cultural heritage has been systematically challenged...try since the age of about 7!

I at no point asked Americans to evaluate themselves. What for? Every American must apologise for the prejudices that a minority hold? I don't want that and have never asked for that because it is clearly wrong. I do however think that those who hold prejudiced views need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask where the hatred inside them is coming from be they American, British, Pakistani, Lithuanian etc. I make no apologies for wanting this. And I make no apologies for the fact that I stopped reading LGF because of the negativity that is perpetuated there by the host and the comments left by some of the readers. Reading things like a poem about how Palestinian homes should be bulldozed isn't my cup of tea. What a great solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict! Where's the humanity in that? And I am also very glad that I am not the only person that feels this way about the site. It gives me hope.

If you want to reach your own conclusions about Islam (not Muslims, there's a difference) then please do so. Not by my interpretation, not by Bin Laden's but your own fully informed decision.

There's no point in my doing so because the argument will inevitably boil down to your insistence that Islam is inherently evil as a consequence of its nomadic origins. Your proof for this was not remotely convincing, and poisons the rest of your argument, much as an illegally obtained confession or murder weapon, even if true and compelling, poisons a case and is hence inadmissible in court. I don't think you can make your case in another way, once that "murder weapon" is stripped from it.

Your entire argument flows from this false preposition, and I therefore disagree with you at the root and see no point in wasting time on the branches.

I will look back through your original post and see if I can find any internally consistent points which don't rest on the flawed supposition above, and see if I can respond to them. But I'm not going to try any sort of point-by-point refutation of a perspective that I consider hopelessly wrong-headed.

HA: "Second, you acknowledge my arguments have merit but your won't grant them at this time because you prefer to see the glass as half-full."

I don't know what you're talking about? What is the "glass," in this context?

HA: "Which is it? If there are other options feel free to explore them."

"Other" options? Other than what?

DJ: but this statement of yours dooms any real potential for debate between us

HA: "We haven't had a debate. You posed some legitimate questions. I responded and you withdrew. That is not a debate."

That's why I said "potential."

DJ: is there any way to sort of... tweak ... Islam to make it more amenable/acceptable to modern society

HA: I submit to you your own question.

Since I don't believe Islam is fundamentally evil, much less so for the reasons you've posited, I don't think there is any need for the religion as a whole to be tweaked.

I agree that this can be the case. I also think that there are in fact times when whites can say things that are racist. My problem with your charge here is that it is just as insidious as that to which it is supposed to be a reaction. You can brandish this reverse-racism card almost ad hominem at any opportunity without actually having to respond to perfectly valid criticisms.

HA:"Deep down, these people believe that white and Christian is bad while brown and non-Christian is good. This is blatant racism. "

This is just as knee-jerk a supposition as everything you're swearing to disagree with.

HA: "What makes false charges so insidious is that they are in fact an attempt to deny the right of free speech. These charges are not based on merit. They are intended to protect an ideology from criticism. An ideology that is free from criticism can only be defeated if it collapses under its own inherent contradictions or by war."

Exactly. But I consider your charge of reverse-racism to be be equally non-compelling to me, and a similar attempt of removing your ideology from the fray.

HA: "I distinguish between Islam (the sin) and Muslims (the sinner)."

That you - as an atheist, no less - chose to refer to all Muslims as "sinners" and their religion as a "sin" is troubling.

HA: "If the majority of Muslims accepted that the Quran was a work of man rather than a revelation by God, then they could accept the good parts and reject the evil parts."

Sorry, more of that moral relativism here, but religion is religion. I don't know that the the majority of Christians "accept" that the Bible is a work of man. Belief in these texts is a necessary component of religion. What you're saying here is almost "I'd accept Islam as a religion if it wasn't a religion."

HA: "It is the good parts that are taken out of context. I dismiss any Muslim that tells me the evil parts are taken out of context."

I will leave that to a scholar better versed in the Quran than myself to respond. My suspicion is that you, like me, have not read the Quran in its entirety, but excerpts here and there which were shoehorned into supported whatever conclusions the author(s)you were reading wished them to support.

HA: I also dismiss any Muslim who insinuates that we brought 9/11 on ourselves,

I'm not a Muslim, but I disagree with you here. First, phrasing it as "we brought 9/11 on ourselves" is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's reduction ad absurdem. Basically, you're trying to ascribe to me/Muslims the belief that the US government thought "I am willing to trade 3000 lives for this oil/that puppet regime." Of course not.

However, I fully believe that misguided US foreign policy in the Middle East has contributed to their hatred of us. Your points here haven't really been political. You're dipping your toe in it here, but not really anywhere else. Do you really think that we as a nation are completely benevolent and altruistic and that none of our policies can have negative repercussions?

HA: "Hasan didn't say that OBL was a bad Muslim because he directed the murder of 3000 people. He condemned OBL for making Muslims look bad. He's upset about the PR disaster."

This is ridiculous. It was clearly implicit in his statement that "Bin Laden is ... a fucking asshole who has screwed us over even worse than you," that Bin Laden is such for the 9/11 attacks, among other things. While he may not have said it explicitly, it is unfair of you to assume the opposite.

HA: "I dismiss any Muslim that says suicide bombings against innocent civilians are justified."

I am not a Muslim and am pro-Israel. However, if I were a Palestinean, I probably also would be hopeless, uneducated, and unable to resist in any other way. Justified? No. Understandable, no. Personally, my admittedly unattainable hope is that the UN (lacking another more respected organization) take over a large part of the Middle East, kick out all the lunatics on both sides, and maintain it as a sort of heavily policed international Holy Land where no one can live, but anyone can visit. Point being, I see the Palestineans and the Israelis as locked into a death spiral where neither can do anything but fight the other and in that context, suicide bombings are horrible, but understandable tools of war. And if you disapprove of killing civilians in wartime, as I'm sure you will, please explain how Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasaki were any different?

HA: "I dismiss any Muslim that resists all of our efforts to respond to terrorism."

"All" or "any?" In order for a Muslim to be anointed with your holy oils, do they need to go through a point-by-point checklist of every one of your points of view?

HA: "They say don't use sanctions against Iraq, don't attack Iraq, don't attack Afghanistan, don't detain Al Quaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo, don't profile, don't restrict immigration, don't track visa holders, and don't criticize Islam or Muslims. In other words, don't fight back in any way."

Well, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I do think that sanctions against Iraq are more of the same crap that helped get us in this mess. But that's just more America-hating, right? Actually, I would have supported an attack on Saddam a few years ago as an alternative to sanctions. I don't necessarily not support acting against Iraq now, but I think it's disingenous PR flacking on the part of the US government: "well, we need to win *something.*" If anyone, we should be pressuring Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we? Iraq is a latecomer to this particular party.

To your points about Guantanamo (protests about which have been relatively mild for quite some time now), profiling (which I've said I accept in moderation), immigration and visa tracking but are rooted in a little document called our Constitution. The concern is that this venerable document is being ignored in the interest of expediency after 200 years of proving itself quite effective. My concern is that those changes being made can not be undone. Healthy debate is what will hopefully restrain our government a bit in its zeal to imprison people.

There are no easy answers to these questions. Is it fair to track millions of Middle Eastern people, subject them to harassment and treat them as inferior to Americans and other immigrants because of the slim possibility that it might aid our information-gathering (which, as you know worked just fine before 9/11 - it was law enforcement that just didn't act in time)?

I think people who are here illegally should be removed from the country. That's why we have laws.

My problem with your viewpoint is that you treat hard questions as easy ones, and a very grey world as black and white.

HA: "I dismiss any Muslim that says do what the terrorists want."

And do they just say "do what the terrorists want?" Just like that? Or are they saying something specific that you disagree with. Because I'll join in the chorus of people who say "hey, ho, terrorists have got to go."

HA: "I accept any Muslim who is honorable enough to admit that the Islamic world is responsible for evil acts of terrorism and that it is responsible for its own condition."

These blanket accusations are exactly why I didn't want to respond before. Your statements are deplorable, the words of someone who has dug deep enough to find reasons to hate Muslims.

"The Islamic world is responsible for acts of terrorism?" All of it? Don't you mean members of it? Or are you actually implicating a billion-plus people for the acts a relative few? I know, I know. They're inherently evil, sub-human troglodytes.

"Responsible for its own condition?" What does that even mean?

Where is the outrage? Where are the Muslims who say America has the right and even the duty to fight back?

In such broad terms? What does that mean? Carpet-bomb the entire Middle East? Nuke the fuckers? What? You keep saying how "head-nodders" don't provide any answers, and yet all you offer is "fight back." How about operationalizing that term, before you blame others for not supporting it?

HA: "The silence of moderate Muslims is deafening."

To you, maybe. We've seen a number of Muslims on this board alone who agree that the US should respond. That they won't give blanket approval for any and all actions does not make them "silent."

HA: "There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that Islamic societies are thoroughly corrupted."

Where? From exactly which unimpeachably unbiased source?

HA:"Go to LGF and..."

Ah-hah.

HA: "read the Friday sermons from state sponsored mullahs on state sponsored media calling for the destruction of Israel, an death to Jews, Christians and Americans. It is the same hatred every week."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. These are bad Muslims, fine. I've also read probably dozens of accounts from peaceful imams who refute what those mullahs say. And of course there the Muslims I actually know, who are also peace-loving good people.

HA: "One fact in particular stands out - 53.1% is Palestinians do not believe that 9/11 is an act of terrorism. I have no reason to believe these numbers are not representative of the entire Arab world. "

I have no reason to believe that they are. In fact, since the poll was of people living in an area where the Palestineans are in an unofficial war with Israel and us, their benefactor, I have reason to believe that they are not representative.

HA: "As an analogy consider that very few KKK actually lynched someone or bombed a church. Does that mean that that the society that supported the Klan is not also guilty?"

The Klan is a voluntarily-joined organization with very specific goals and aims and was (and remains) dedicated to them. The shared guilt to be held by a KKK member who voluntarily joined an organization which knowingly supported lynchings, bombings, etc, is infinitely higher than someone born into Islam, a religion with a billion "members," with nowhere near the homogeneity of beliefs the Klan had. For example, yes, all al-Qaeda members are guilty by association. Similarly so with Hamas, Al-Aqsa, etc.

But not all Muslims. Again, here's where we'll just return to your initial flawed supposition that Islam is inherently evil, and I haven't the time, energy nor inclination to even bother trying to prove to you that 2+2=4 when you're entirely convinced that it equals five.

You imply that Israeli settlers are terrorists.

This was not my intention. I don't think they're terrorists. I think they're bad people doing bad things in the name of religion. And I don't think their actions implicated Judaism is a whole.

HA: "I don't see buying an unoccupied piece of land and building a village on it to be terrorism. It may be stupid, but it isn't terrorism. It is possible that I'm wrong on this one. I have problems with settlements myself."

Stupid, to me, is an understatement, if not a miscategorization.

HA: "As for domestic militia groups, aren't you profiling them based on the act of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols?"

Haven't I already expressed my (admittedly grudging) support for profiling? What's your point? Again, though, the militas like the Klan, like Al-Aqsa, like Hamas, are volunaterily-joined organizations whose members share a belief system that is necessarily more homogenous than is a religion. But I may have lost the original point from my original post in here and am too tired to search for it again.

HA: "As for the Crusades, these were a backlash against 400 years of Arab/Islamic imperialism. "

So in this case, the Arabs contributed to their own downfall through imperialism and therefore deserved the Crusades? Explain to me why that rubric couldn't be applied in the present-day? Is it only Arabs whose actions have repercussions?

HA: "Remember that the Holy Lands were populated by non-Arab Christians for 600 years before Islam. Jews lived their for millenia."

OK, and?

DJ: "But a question for you: would you "authorize" - were it your decision to make - internment camps, and incarceration based solely on that profiling? I feel too much of that has happened already. What about wiretaps? What is acceptable? What is not?"

HA: "I fully support profiling Muslims for security and investigation purposes. Try this thought experiment. Suppose you were boarding a plane with a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu and Buddhist. Now you are told that one of those people had a bomb and you could save your own life and all those on the plane by having one of them removed from the plane. Which one would you choose? Remember, it is your own life on the line this time, not some anonymous other traveller."

First, you didn't answer my question. I've already supported profiling several times. But your silly little "thought experiment" asks my question for me. My question was not about information gathering, it was about how that information can be applied.

So, on to the big "experiment." Well, if someone told me someone on my flight had a bomb and had to removed, I would take another flight. That, I'm sure is not a choice I can make, given the answer you're looking for.

I think your question is really, "who would you throw out of the moving plane to certain death if you had to just choose one of them?" I won't accept your premise and won't indulge you any further on this until you respond to my initial question of "would you 'authorize' - were it your decision to make - internment camps, and incarceration based solely on that profiling?"

HA: "Muslims should be in favor of profiling. It may have saved the lives of those who shared a flight on the Swedish airline with that guy who tried to get a gun on the plane."

You seem very fond of saying what Muslims should and should not do. I don't think it's up to you.

HA: "I also think we should restrict all immigration and visas from Muslim countries until they have their version of a Reformation and demonstrate that they can establish and maintain constitutional liberal democratic governments. "

Do we remove those Muslims already here?

Do we also remove ourselves from their countries and stop buying their oil? Because otherwise, I think that doing so would breed greater and greater hatred for the US and ultimately perpetuate this "war." Further, I think you would find profiling would then become much, much harder. But that's useless speculation on my part.

HA: "I think we should relentlessly criticize Islam. They won't change if nobody forces them to confront their own morality."

First, again, I don't grant you the "morality which needs to be confronted" supposition.

Second, what about us? We are completely blameless and removed from the fray? We are not at all a party to the reactions other nations and people have to our policies?

HA: "Based on the poll above I linked above I would say that 50-80% of Palestinians are corrupted by terrorism. Obviously the percentage of those engaged in direct acts of terror are much smaller. I think this number is consistent with the rest of the Arab world."

I'll grant you your unfounded 50-80% guess about Palestinians because they are living in a war zone daily and seeing things daily that I hope you and I will never see. I would also remind you that you could probably say that an equally large number of Israeli Jews have what I would consider an unhealthy, unacceptable level of hatred for Muslims/Palestinians due to the exact same conflict. Extrapolating from one of the most volatile hostile areas in the world to the rest of it is an exercise in sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

HA: "I think most Muslims believe they are good. In some way that makes them good. The outcome of their intention is bad. Very few see this."

What you have proven to me through this lengthy treatise is that you have found some very fancy, but largely unsatisfying and insufficent ways to hate Muslims without using the word "hate."

I apologize if I have missed anything, but after an hour and a half of typing, I simply must stop.

I think "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" makes more contextual sense (to this post)than all this shit put together.

Regards
boid

Thanks for your reply. Believe it or not, I appreciate your perspective.

I at no point asked Americans to evaluate themselves.

Maybe you haven't, but many others have. In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were asked "why do they hate us" and "what did we do". When I approached this problem, I looked at other hate movements like the Nazis and the KKK. What I identified is that the Nazis didn't hate Jews for anything the Jews did, and the KKK didn't hate blacks, Jews and Catholics for anything they did. The Nazis and KKK hated because of who they were and what they were taught rather than what their victims did.

So when I looked at Islam, I arrived at the same conclusion. Muslims hate Americans and Jews not because of anything we did, but because of who Muslims are. The motivation behind contemporary Islamic terrorism and 1500 years of Jihad is clearly explained in the Quran. I know there are many Muslims that do not have hate in their hearts, but I believe they have to ignore much of the teachings of the Quran to be so. It is quite possible for the practice of Islam to evolve. Judaism and Christianity have, so why not Islam?

And I also believe it is the duty of the Muslims, especially the leaders of the Muslim countries, to be the first to pull their thumbs out of their arses and make the change. Start the dialogue. I'll be the first to say that the Muslim world is messed up and corrupt. I've experienced it. But I also know there are Muslims out there trying to make a difference, banning the extremists from their mosques, teaching their kids that Bin Laden is a bad person. And I hate to see them, and myself lumped in with the bad lot. Any reasonable and intelligent person does not squeeze us all into one category. Is it too much to ask?

That is not too much to ask. This is the key to everything. I think there is a case to be made that the characterizations I have made of Islam are accurate concerning the Wahabi strain only. However, whenever I see Muslims making this distinction, it is always coupled with a tirade against America. Here is a good example:

http://www.shia-network.com/featured-article/terrorism.shtml

It is basically boiler-plate criticism of Wahabism coupled with lengthy and severe criticisms of America. Invariably, the types of criticisms that are included against America, can also be made against ALL of Islam itself based on 1500 years of Jihad and contemporary violence committed by Muslims. Expressions of remorse coupled with attacks on the victims don't persuade me at all. So I always end up back at the same place. The problem is Islam itself.

These are truly historic times. There is a battle going on for the soul of Islam. Muslims who think like you need to seize this moment and lead Islam into modernity. There may be a Muslim today who to posterity will be the Muslim Martin Luther. But right now, it is the Wahabis who appear to be winning the battle to keep Islam firmly planted in 7th century Arabia. If they continue to have the upper hand, then the world is heading towards the bloodiest chapter in its bloody history.

I think "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" makes more contextual sense (to this post)than all this shit put together.

And I suppose you arrived at your conclusion about the books I referenced after reading them?

Buzz off gnat.

I haven't had a chance to evaluate your post, let alone if and how I'll respond. If I haven't responded by the weekend, assume I won't at all.

On the one hand, given that your last post to me pretty much demanded that I write ("Why? I can think of two reasons. First, you think my arguments are incorrect. In this case you should at least provide a couter-argument. Failure to do so is irresponsible. Second, you acknowledge my arguments have merit but your won't grant them at this time because you prefer to see the glass as half-full. Which is it? If there are other options feel free to explore them."), I would be disappointed to not hear/read a response.

On the other, I can offer no guarantee that I would respond to your response three days from now.

DJ: There's no point in my doing so because the argument will inevitably boil down to your insistence that Islam is inherently evil as a consequence of its nomadic origins. Your proof for this was not remotely convincing, and poisons the rest of your argument, much as an illegally obtained confession or murder weapon, even if true and compelling, poisons a case and is hence inadmissible in court. I don't think you can make your case in another way, once that "murder weapon" is stripped from it.
Your entire argument flows from this false preposition, and I therefore disagree with you at the root and see no point in wasting time on the branches.

I don't know how you transition from "not remotely convincing" to poisoning my argument. That is a giant leap that betrays your own bias. I started with a set of facts and data points from contemporary events, historical precedent and the teachings of the Quran and came up with a theory that was consistent with these data. I could have also offered the suggestion that Mohammed was an evil genius and his followers were a bunch of dupes. All of your arguments boil down to your insistence that you are right I am wrong. You offer no evidence or theoretical framework to back your assertions.

Please explain one thing to me. At what point does a cult that is worthy of criticism transform to a religion that is beyond criticism? Why is the People's Temple (remember Jim Jones of Jonestown suicide fame) a cult whereas Islam a religion? Is it simply a matter of time and number of followers? What would we think of the People's Temple if it had started 1500 years ago and had a billion followers? What about other cults like the Branch Davidians?

HA: "Second, you acknowledge my arguments have merit but your won't grant them at this time because you prefer to see the glass as half-full."
DJ: I don't know what you're talking about? What is the "glass," in this context?

I didn't put this well. My point is that you are being polyannish about human nature and Islam.

DJ: is there any way to sort of... tweak ... Islam to make it more amenable/acceptable to modern society
HA: I submit to you your own question.
DJ: Since I don't believe Islam is fundamentally evil, much less so for the reasons you've posited, I don't think there is any need for the religion as a whole to be tweaked.

What a cop out. Your question implies that you think Islam could use some tweaking. Why else would you ask?

HA:"False charges of racism and xenophobia are insidious. These false charges are in fact racism. They are based on the premise that white cannot criticize non-whites. Christians cannot criticize non-Christians."
DJ: I agree that this can be the case..... But I consider your charge of reverse-racism to be be equally non-compelling to me, and a similar attempt of removing your ideology from the fray.

I think we are close to agreement on this issue with some subtle differences. The distinction that I would make is that charges of racism against whites are presumed to be true and thus must be disproved, while charges of reverse-racism are presumed to be false and must be proved.

The vast majority of racism charges in debates are made by left-wingers who are losing their arguments based on merit. Consider the controversy about the NEA lesson plans. The NEA defenders dismiss the criticism of their lesson plans as racism. Once they make this charge, no further defense is needed. It is presumed that their critics are racists so all their arguments are impeached.

Charges of racism are like a strain of left-wing Tourette's Syndrome. They are an intolerant uncontrollable knee-jerk response to any criticism.

HA: "I distinguish between Islam (the sin) and Muslims (the sinner)."
DJ: That you - as an atheist, no less - chose to refer to all Muslims as "sinners" and their religion as a "sin" is troubling.

Why is this troubling? Should we not use religious metaphors in our discourse?

First, phrasing it as "we brought 9/11 on ourselves" is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's reduction ad absurdem.

It's not my phrasing. It is the phrasing of America's critics - domestic and foreign. Take your concerns up with them.

However, I fully believe that misguided US foreign policy in the Middle East has contributed to their hatred of us.

Please elaborate.

HA: "Hasan didn't say that OBL was a bad Muslim because he directed the murder of 3000 people. He condemned OBL for making Muslims look bad. He's upset about the PR disaster."
DJ: This is ridiculous. It was clearly implicit in his statement that "Bin Laden is ... a fucking asshole who has screwed us over even worse than you," that Bin Laden is such for the 9/11 attacks, among other things. While he may not have said it explicitly, it is unfair of you to assume the opposite.

The only thing he stated explicitly is that we have screwed his people over. After such a statement I'll assume the worst.

HA: "I dismiss any Muslim that says suicide bombings against innocent civilians are justified."
DJ: I am not a Muslim and am pro-Israel. However, if I were a Palestinean, I probably also would be hopeless, uneducated, and unable to resist in any other way. Justified? No. Understandable, no.

Here you say their tactics ARE NOT understandable...

Point being, I see the Palestineans and the Israelis as locked into a death spiral where neither can do anything but fight the other and in that context, suicide bombings are horrible, but understandable tools of war. And if you disapprove of killing civilians in wartime, as I'm sure you will, please explain how Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasaki were any different?

Here you say they ARE understandable. Which is it? You seem to want it both ways.

As for Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the lesson is that if you launch unprovoked attacks on America, we are going to destroy you. If you don't launch unprovoked attacks against America you have nothing to fear. I disapprove of war. I also disapprove of appeasement. If someone wages war against us, we should use all means at our disposal to win that war. If Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasaki ended WWII one day sooner and saved a single American life, then these events are fully justified. That's war. Its hell. Would you have been willing to sacrifice your own life in an invasion of the Japanese mainland to have saved the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Don't sit back in your safety today and moralize against those who made those decisions. Nations that choose war shouldn't do so if they aren't prepared to suffer the consequences.

Personally, my admittedly unattainable hope is that the UN (lacking another more respected organization) take over a large part of the Middle East, kick out all the lunatics on both sides, and maintain it as a sort of heavily policed international Holy Land where no one can live, but anyone can visit.

What have you been smoking? At least you admit it is unattainable. Given the corruption at the UN, I would add undesirable. Who would you put in charge? Noted human rights icons like Syria or Khaddafi? Gotta love the UN.

HA: "I dismiss any Muslim that resists all of our efforts to respond to terrorism.... They say don't use sanctions against Iraq, don't attack Iraq, don't attack Afghanistan, don't detain Al Quaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo, don't profile, don't restrict immigration, don't track visa holders, and don't criticize Islam or Muslims. In other words, don't fight back in any way"
DJ: "All" or "any?"

The vast majority of representatives of domestic Islamic or Arab groups have opposed all actions we have taken. That is because these groups are anti-American. Would you characterize CAIR or the American Muslim Council differently?

Actually, I would have supported an attack on Saddam a few years ago as an alternative to sanctions. I don't necessarily not support acting against Iraq now, but I think it's disingenous PR flacking on the part of the US government: "well, we need to win *something.*" If anyone, we should be pressuring Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we? Iraq is a latecomer to this particular party.

Why would you support attacking Saddam a few years ago but now now? That doesn't make any sense. The case is even stronger now. We should have taken him out after we discovered his plot to assassinate George Bush Sr. That was an act of war in my book. That alone justifies invading Iraq. Do you think the Statute of Limitations applies?

Just like your opinion on the issue of whether Palestinian suicide bombers are justified, you seem to want to have it both ways.

Do you think we are not pressuring Saudi Arabia? You and I are not privy to everything going on. Invading Iraq certainly pressures the Saudis. One of the benefits of invading Iraq is that we can secure our oil supply and then de-stabilize the Saudis, Iranians and Syrians.

To your points about Guantanamo (protests about which have been relatively mild for quite some time now), profiling (which I've said I accept in moderation), immigration and visa tracking but are rooted in a little document called our Constitution. The concern is that this venerable document is being ignored in the interest of expediency after 200 years of proving itself quite effective. My concern is that those changes being made can not be undone. Healthy debate is what will hopefully restrain our government a bit in its zeal to imprison people.
There are no easy answers to these questions. Is it fair to track millions of Middle Eastern people, subject them to harassment and treat them as inferior to Americans and other immigrants because of the slim possibility that it might aid our information-gathering (which, as you know worked just fine before 9/11 - it was law enforcement that just didn't act in time)?

This is one area where the administration has really stumbled. I can't see why they would put Moussaui on trial but not Jose Padilla. This is troubling and we are at least in partial agreement on this issue. Where I disagree is that these steps can be undone. We've undone them before.

I think people who are here illegally should be removed from the country. That's why we have laws.

Agreed.

My problem with your viewpoint is that you treat hard questions as easy ones, and a very grey world as black and white.

What a tired cliche. I'm disappointed that you resort to this. My problem with your viewpoint is that you see everything as one undifferentiated shade of grey. You seem unable to make distinctions and draw conclusions.

"Responsible for its own condition?" What does that even mean?

The Arab and Muslim world except for Turkey is a cess pool. This is the inevitable outcome of their cultural and moral values. It has nothing to do with us.

HA: Where is the outrage? Where are the Muslims who say America has the right and even the duty to fight back?
DJ: In such broad terms? What does that mean? Carpet-bomb the entire Middle East? Nuke the fuckers? What? You keep saying how "head-nodders" don't provide any answers, and yet all you offer is "fight back." How about operationalizing that term, before you blame others for not supporting it?

I've explained this above. I would do all the things Muslims say not to do except for internment camps.

HA: "One fact in particular stands out - 53.1% is Palestinians do not believe that 9/11 is an act of terrorism. I have no reason to believe these numbers are not representative of the entire Arab world. "
DJ: I have no reason to believe that they are. In fact, since the poll was of people living in an area where the Palestineans are in an unofficial war with Israel and us, their benefactor,...I have reason to believe that they are not representative.

Let's see your reasons.

The shared guilt to be held by a KKK member who voluntarily joined an organization which knowingly supported lynchings, bombings, etc, is infinitely higher than someone born into Islam, a religion with a billion "members," with nowhere near the homogeneity of beliefs the Klan had. For example, yes, all al-Qaeda members are guilty by association. Similarly so with Hamas, Al-Aqsa, etc.

You missed my point here. The guilt is not only shared by those who voluntarily join these groups, but also the host societies that nurture and support these groups. You don't seem to agree that Islamic society supports and nurtures terrorist groups, but you have to ignore a great deal of evidence to do so.

Haven't I already expressed my (admittedly grudging) support for profiling?

Again, we agree. Why the grudging admission? It seems like you want to avoid being painted as a polyanninsh mushy-headed left-winger by people like me, while also avoiding being painted as a racist by people like Anil. You can't have it both ways.

But I may have lost the original point from my original post in here and am too tired to search for it again.

Amen. Been there done that.

HA: "As for the Crusades, these were a backlash against 400 years of Arab/Islamic imperialism. "
DJ: So in this case, the Arabs contributed to their own downfall through imperialism and therefore deserved the Crusades? Explain to me why that rubric couldn't be applied in the present-day? Is it only Arabs whose actions have repercussions?
HA: "Remember that the Holy Lands were populated by non-Arab Christians for 600 years before Islam. Jews lived their for millenia."
OK, and?

The point is that Muslims characterize the Crusades as the height of Christian evil. What they fail to mention is that if Arab/Islamic imperialists hadn't driven Christians out of their holy lands or forced their conversion to Islam, the Crusades would not have happened. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic aggression.

Don't get me wrong, the Crusaders were bloody evil. However, the Muslims don't get off on this score. Try reading Steven Runciman's book "The Fall of Constantinople 1453" for one of many examples of Islamic blood lust.

So, on to the big "experiment." Well, if someone told me someone on my flight had a bomb and had to removed, I would take another flight.

Another cop out.

I won't accept your premise and won't indulge you any further on this until you respond to my initial question of "would you 'authorize' - were it your decision to make - internment camps, and incarceration based solely on that profiling?"

Who has ever advocated internment camps and incarceration solely based on profiling? These are just left-wing scare tactics. What a stupid insinuation.

HA: "Muslims should be in favor of profiling. It may have saved the lives of those who shared a flight on the Swedish airline with that guy who tried to get a gun on the plane." ... You seem very fond of saying what Muslims should and should not do. I don't think it's up to you.

What I say is up to me unless you left-wingers want to reverse the First Amendment all together. What Muslims do is up to them. How we respond is up to us. You following the cause and effect here?

For example, we have every right to say the Palestinians should get rid of Arafat. They have every right not to. We have every right not to deal with the Palestinians should they choose not to get rid of Arafat.

Do we remove those Muslims already here?

Yes if they break our laws. Even minor ones. There is no right to be an American citizen. Immigrants should be considered to be on a probationary period during which the protections of the Constitution do not fully apply. If we judge that some fail their probation and are thus not worthy of citizenship and the protections that go with it, we should kick them out.

Do we also remove ourselves from their countries and stop buying their oil?

No. Absolutely not. Are you going for the "its all about oil" canard? If so, I hope you have purged all oil-based products and their direct/indirect economic benefits from your lifestyle.

What you have proven to me through this lengthy treatise is that you have found some very fancy, but largely unsatisfying and insufficent ways to hate Muslims without using the word "hate."

There you go with the left-wing Tourette's. Those who disagree with you are racist, bigoted, xenophobic hate-mongers. Couldn't be more black and white then that.

If you do not plan to respond, please post to that effect so I know not to check back.

I will respond to a few of your points, but not right now. Possibly over the next few days. The one point I do have time to make right now is in regards to this:

I don't know how you transition from "not remotely convincing" to poisoning my argument. That is a giant leap that betrays your own bias. I started with a set of facts and data points from contemporary events, historical precedent and the teachings of the Quran and came up with a theory that was consistent with these data. I could have also offered the suggestion that Mohammed was an evil genius and his followers were a bunch of dupes. All of your arguments boil down to your insistence that you are right I am wrong. You offer no evidence or theoretical framework to back your assertions.

The onus is not on me to disprove that Islam is "fundamentally evil." The causal relationship you've defined between Islam's origins as a nomadic society is completely faulty. I don't need to offer evidence that your logic is flawed, because your argument is illogical. I wouldn't know where to begin trying to dismantle it.

Your statement doesn't becomes true simply because you've stated it and I haven't bothered to counter. I realize this part of the argument is going nowhere and am trying to save both of us the time. I'm sure this is a cop-out to you, but I've better things to do with my life, and in fact, in my first post I said that we had a fundamental disagreement on this matter and it was probably not worth our time to continue. It was you who asked for a response, which I've since given.

I recognize how convinced you are of your perspective on this topic, and I am equally convinced of the contrary. I would suggest that we simply abandon this part of the discussion and move on to those things where there's some possibility of discussion. If you're incapable of or unwilling to do so, please let me know in advance and save me the trouble of responding to the rest.

I'm sure this is a cop-out to you, but I've better things to do with my life

Agreed on both counts. It IS a cop out, but I understand there are other priorities in life. Heck, I haven't read DenBeste in a 2 weeks.

I would suggest that we simply abandon this part of the discussion and move on to those things where there's some possibility of discussion.

I agree with one exception. I'm willing to set aside the specific discussion of the nature Islam. However, I would like an adequate explanation as to why Islam - or any religion for that matter - should be beyond criticism. Why should Islam be viewed any differently than the People's Temple?

You see, there is a difference between ciriticism and sheer, unrivaled idiocy. Were you to only say things like "Islam, as Christianity did, needs a reformation and re-examination by its own people", or something about the treatemtn and stature of women under strict shari'a, then that would be criticism.

But when you add stuff about how Mohammed was evil, Islam is fundamentally evil because it evolved from a nomadic culture (what the fuck?), assuming that a person loves Osama bin Laden merely because s/he is Muslim when you know NO other facts about them, claiming that "99.9%" of all Muslims are racist and evil and offering as "proof" the celebrations of palestinians or Pakistanians on 9/11 (statistical sampling methods motherfucker, DO YOU SPEAK THEM?), calling everyone "left-wing" as if it were the most damagin insult in the world -- that isn't criticism, that is being a waste of human flesh, sucking up precious oxygen.

See, AHA, you aren't a bigoted, xenophobic racist because you disagree, nor is it "lefty Tourettes" or whatever your little circle-jerk has come up with to describe liberals now. It's because you hate an entire religion and race of peoples for flawed or nonexistent reasons, because you have no conception of statistical significance nor do you care, because you used flawed logic and constant unbalanced ah-hom attacks to defend your positions instead of posting rational reasons why you arrived at them, seem to be psychotic and paranoid, accuse all who don't agree with YOU to be the "loony Left", and appear to me to be incapable of rational thought.

I checked in on this thread to see of DJ had posted more compelling yet flawed arguments. Imagine my disappoint to see your crap. Have you stopped taking your pills?

Just for shits and giggles, I'd love to see your thoughts on dealing with Islamic terrorism.

"""Responsible for its own condition?" What does that even mean?""

"The Arab and Muslim world except for Turkey is a cess pool. This is the inevitable outcome of their cultural and moral values. It has nothing to do with us."

Visited the Maldives lately?

""The shared guilt to be held by a KKK member who voluntarily joined an organization which knowingly supported lynchings, bombings, etc, is infinitely higher than someone born into Islam, a religion with a billion "members," with nowhere near the homogeneity of beliefs the Klan had. For example, yes, all al-Qaeda members are guilty by association. Similarly so with Hamas, Al-Aqsa, etc.""

"You missed my point here. The guilt is not only shared by those who voluntarily join these groups, but also the host societies that nurture and support these groups. You don't seem to agree that Islamic society supports and nurtures terrorist groups, but you have to ignore a great deal of evidence to do so. "

Are people from the West in general (including Australians like myself), and Americans in particular, personally responsible for the actions of the KKK? We are, after all, part of the society that unwittingly allowed such an evil organisation to come into existance.

Am I responsible for the remarks made by Charles Johnson, and the various commentors on Little Green Footballs, even though I inherently disagree with them?

I mean, Australian culture may be different to that of America, but it's not that different.

"Well, except Turkey, because it's... um... Turkey isn't evil because... Hey, look over there!"

You can't handle the implications of the possiblity that the majority of Arab Muslims do in fact hate America, secularism, and democracy, but it may very well be the truth.

Supressing the information that LGF brings to the examination of this question is not the path to progress, and it's not going to prevail.

You should try to get your own fascist instincts under control.

Anil is not a fascist. You are an idiot.

Anil's writing on this subject indicates that he doesn't appreciate this difference. When we talk about religious extremism in the US, we can safely assume we're talking about a small minority which lacks the ability to sway national policy. In the Mid-East, unfortunately, religious extremism is the dominant paradigm, which you see when polls indicate 80% of Egyptians to this day deny Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

We aren't just dealing with a small bunch of wackos, we're dealing with an entire culture that hates everything we stand for, and everything Anil professes to believe in.

It's really a very serious issue, Mookie, and name-calling doesn't help us understand it.

What demented mental condition would lead you to believe you've asked the kind of question that deserves a straight answer?

The bomb full of sow piss comment was made in the thread about that one Muslim dude giving the finger to the camera -- "A Show Of Support" I believe the title was. I also saw stuff about using Mecca for pork storage, but we should exclude those from the results because they were in response to me trolling.

Now, ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. How is what Anil is doing "fascist" and what LGF is doing "legitimate criticism"?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4191#c0027
Zam Zam soda? Ha. I dumped 50 gallons of female hog urine into their tanks a month ago. Here's mud in your eye.

I still want to know how calling a website racist is "fascist" while what LGF does is "legitimate criticism". Such a simple question shouldn't take too much time out of your schedule of doing Very Important Things to answer.

You are absolutly no better than the so called "Islamic extremists"
During WWII our GrandParents & Great GrandParents fought your kind that based hatred on race and the color of the skin, now we are fighting against religious hatred, but dont think for a minute that this is your chance to rise up again, we are watching, my suggestion to you is to crawl back under the rock you came from, You worm...

Still its not to late for you, even a wretch like you can be saved if you repent your sins to God and change your evil ways, its up to you.

I suggest you decide soon...

this is our halabja ..and this week has shown that just as saddam ruthlessly put down the uprising in 1991 we will do the same. saddam was the pupil .. why should we expect different from the teacher?

little green footballs is curious too, yes it is full of irrational and petty prejudices, it is bigotry and is hateful .. but would i want to have it banned?

the answer is no.. because the world has to see that just as we demonise muslims and islam for being callous ,evil and uncaring .. for being in denial about their ills .. little green footballs shows us that these traits are are alive and well in those that demonise islam and muslims.

i think charles doesnt get it .. yes he has a vibrant community of bigots .. but that is all it is .. it is a window into our lack of humanity, humility and an insight into our lack of compassion and our hypocrisy..

i have to make a confession, i went there and tried to have a debate , to discuss to provide the counter argument .. but i was met with an overwhelming tide of insult and abuse .. i did not succumb to their level rudeness.. i argued the facts the context .. and was rewarded with being banned .

it would appear that if there is a coherent contextual point of view it is not to be found on little green footballs website.

i say we need to promote it .. we need to also make our concerns be known .. most of all we have to educate people to recognise that evil exists as much within us as it does with them.