Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 06/26/2004 View Fri 06/25/2004 View Thu 06/24/2004 View Wed 06/23/2004 View Tue 06/22/2004 View Mon 06/21/2004 View Sun 06/20/2004
1
2004-06-26 Fifth Column
Beheadings fuel fresh backlash against Muslims
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-06-26 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "If they are throwing empty bottles today, they could be throwing rocks...tomorrow."

Is that like an Intifada? The Orland Park Mosque site is 20 minutes from my home. Now that Muslims are invading my land, does that mean I can start an Intifada under Islamic Rules of Engagement? If I start one, can Peter Jennings come to town and weep for my plight? Maybe Yasser can come to town and be the technical advisor for our Intifida. We would have to make some rubble so he could feel at home. I am sure we could leave some dozers running all night so he would sleep better. It's time to break out my "Mohammed lied, people died" signs.
Posted by Zpaz  2004-06-26 12:30:34 AM||   2004-06-26 12:30:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Slowly, the American body-politic is generating an anti-body response against the Islamicist cancer.

I don't have much doubt that the cancer is going to go into remission.

We're going to feel mighty sick though in the meantime... and not to happy with ourselves afterwords either; but I'm not planning on giving up my freedom of action and freedom from fear so that some Islamicists can exercise their religious right to cut off heads or enslave my women-folk.
Posted by Leigh 2004-06-26 12:33:46 AM||   2004-06-26 12:33:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "Since 9/11, every time there is an incident overseas attributed to Muslims or Arabs, we go on orange alert ourselves," said Sohail Mohammed, a Clifton immigration lawyer. "With the death of Paul Johnson, we were extremely concerned that what happened overseas would have an impact here.

Kinda goes hand-in-hand with that "all Muslims are my brothers and sisters" bullsh*t you constantly spew. Why wouldn't it have an impact here? And I can't believe they actually a "Dar ul-Islam" moskkk in St. Louis. Talk about putting the f*cking cart before the horse.

Now will you start taking the American Street seriously, or do you want to wait for the beheadings?
Posted by BH  2004-06-26 12:44:43 AM||   2004-06-26 12:44:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "an already strong backlash against Arab-Americans and Muslims, who have been persecuted since the 9/11 attacks." WTF???

This article is such an outrageous piece of typical bad contemporary journalism, it's hard to believe it's not an NYT/BBC story on the situation in Iraq or ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Funny, I've been in the US quite a bit since 9/11, and haven't noticed all the persecution of Muslims and Arab-Americans. Nor has same been documented by private groups or the feds. There's been some -- every bit of it stupid and despicable -- but not much, a damn good thing. But this non-fact is just inserted baldly into the lead paragraph. Astonishing.

And it gets better. Note the comments of the immigration lawyer. He talks about fear at the news of any "incident overseas attributed to Muslims or Arabs". Got that -- "attributed"! And he adds that "with the death of Paul Johnson" his community went on alert. "The death" of Johnson! He couldn't even say "killing" of Johnson.

So pulling this all together, the lawyer might have more carefully phrased his remarks thusly: "With the death of Paul Johnson attributed to Muslims overseas, we feared a continuation of the persecution we have suffered since 9/11."

The morons who issue threats against mosques and vandalize property can be handled (and will be, hopefully very roughly) -- but is there any hope for journalism or Muslim community leaders to shake off their hallucinations and get serious?
Posted by Verlaine 2004-06-26 12:48:04 AM||   2004-06-26 12:48:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 It's still important to distinguish between fascist Islamists and muslims who can be allies.

If you radicalise the moderates you will find yourself fighting an army 100 times as big.

Isolate and crush the Islamofascists and use Moderate Muslim allies to change the Islamofascist culture into a moderate religion capable of peaceful co-existence in the secular modern world and we've won.

Having an uneducated, racist backlash against Islam in general and muslims as an undifferentiated whole helps the Islamofascists, it doesn't help us.

Racist attacks just helps Islamofascists unify the muslims against us including those who *could* have been persuaded to help us or be on our side.

"See", they'll say... "the kaffirs are against muslims. They are only interested in crushing us out of existence. The umma must stick together and crush the infidel, follow Osama Bin Laden's holy example it's the only way."

Now those muslims who would ignore this and turn in the terrorists may be persuaded instead that this logic is right if we write racist graffiti all over every mosque and start abusing women just for wearing the abaya.

That is not the smart way to fight an ideological, cultural war.
Posted by Anon1 2004-06-26 12:49:42 AM||   2004-06-26 12:49:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 It's still important to distinguish between fascist Islamists and muslims who can be allies.

If you radicalise the moderates you will find yourself fighting an army 100 times as big.

Isolate and crush the Islamofascists and use Moderate Muslim allies to change the Islamofascist culture into a moderate religion capable of peaceful co-existence in the secular modern world and we've won.

Having an uneducated, racist backlash against Islam in general and muslims as an undifferentiated whole helps the Islamofascists, it doesn't help us.

Racist attacks just helps Islamofascists unify the muslims against us including those who *could* have been persuaded to help us or be on our side.

"See", they'll say... "the kaffirs are against muslims. They are only interested in crushing us out of existence. The umma must stick together and crush the infidel, follow Osama Bin Laden's holy example it's the only way."

Now those muslims who would ignore this and turn in the terrorists may be persuaded instead that this logic is right if we write racist graffiti all over every mosque and start abusing women just for wearing the abaya.

That is not the smart way to fight an ideological, cultural war.
Posted by Anon1 2004-06-26 12:49:43 AM||   2004-06-26 12:49:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 
[W]ho have been persecuted since the 9/11 attacks
Boo hoo. Dollars to donuts that Muslim hate incidents against Jews are still worse and far more frequent.
The day after Johnson’s killing, a coalition of Muslim groups held a rally in Paterson, the heart of New Jersey’s Arab-American community, to condemn the killing, saying such acts are contrary to Islam’s teachings. But apparently, not everyone got the message.
I'll say -- the thousands of local Muslims who didn't show up sure didn't. Nice whitewash by Newsday, omitting the telling fact that less than two dozen people showed up for this "coalition" "rally"...
Posted by someone 2004-06-26 12:49:52 AM||   2004-06-26 12:49:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 So where are all these mythical moderate Muslims?

Outside of Kurdistan, I mean.
Posted by someone 2004-06-26 12:52:21 AM||   2004-06-26 12:52:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Nothing fresh about my backlash.

Zpas, pretty cool! "mahammed lied people died(die?)

I know an overpass that would be a good place to hang such; a goal perhaps! But baby its cold outside.
Posted by Lucky 2004-06-26 12:52:59 AM||   2004-06-26 12:52:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 oops don't know how that went in twice.. sorry!
Posted by Anon1 2004-06-26 12:53:19 AM||   2004-06-26 12:53:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Anon1

I hope that there are as many moderate muslims as you suggest. It would make this war easier.

I keep waiting for them to throng the streets protesting against the horrors perpetrated in the name of their religion ... waiting after 9/11 ... waiting after Daniel Pearl ... waiting after Nick Berg ... waiting after Paul Johnson ... I'm still waiting. Where are they?

Then again, how many moderates can there be in a religion whose chief prophet was a lying, murdering pedophile? How many moderates can there be in a religion whose judicial code accords lower-caste status to non-believers, less weight to a woman's testimony, countenances slavery, etc., etc.

I just don't know if there's anything "moderate" about islam. Period. Convince me otherwise.
Posted by Kirk 2004-06-26 1:07:47 AM||   2004-06-26 1:07:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 If your a mOOslim you are brain washed. Your an idiot and you belong to a Demonic cult that needs to be destroyed. The faster we get the Muslims and there ilk out of the USA the better.
When your religious symbol is based on the sword and your actions represent Satan, you belong to a cult that has you brained washed. This is a fight between good and evil. How can you think other wise.
Posted by Long Hair Republican  2004-06-26 1:17:47 AM||   2004-06-26 1:17:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Kirk, you fool! islam means pieces. I'll convince you. Take Nick Berg, two pieces. Thank you!

Moderate is a relative term. My moderate is less moderate tham my cousins moderate. But my cousins moderte is less/more moderate than my neighbors moderate. It all adds up. Whats important is seething.
Posted by Lucky 2004-06-26 1:22:35 AM||   2004-06-26 1:22:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Uh, Anon1 (#5)...WHAT fucking "moderate Muslims"? The ones working at CAIR - three of whose leaders have been indicted for aiding terrorist organizations? The ones preaching Jihad in their Saudi-funded mosques? Or maybe just the ones who "condemn" Muslim terrorism with the line "yes, it's terrible and against the tenets of the Koran, but..." And there's ALWAYS a "but". Usually having something to do with Jews...

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-06-26 1:37:34 AM||   2004-06-26 1:37:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 If you radicalise the moderates you will find yourself fighting an army 100 times as big.

Let's try a thought experiment: somewhere in the Islamic world, people are having this same conversation, "Ackmed I tell you, we don't need to kill all of the Infidel Americans, most of them are moderates and will recognize the rightness of our ways once we've had a chance to show them. If only we could isolate and destroy those few evil neocons who turn the American masses against us we could prevail with a minimum of bloodshed. The more of them we kill the more they will turn against us, we must kill only the neocons and we must do it quickly."

Let's assume that our hypothetical jihaddis carry out their plan and off every significant Republican elected and appointed official and party member in the US along with the unavoidable collateral damage of, say, xxx,xxx American citizens that they simply couldn't avoid killing in the process.

At that point in time would you: Believe the jihaddis had done you a favor in deposing an evil regime? Be willing to listen to their perfectly reasonable discourse about why you are now better off? Allow the jihaddis to reinvent American society in their own superior image? Feel joy that you were finally free of the oppressive neocon yoke? Worship Allah because your new masters deemed that you should do so (or die of course)? Acknowledge the absolute superiority of Muslim "culture" to our own?

I hope you're answering, "Of course not!" And I hope you get the point: we collectively need to recover from our accute case of rectal-cranial inversion and realize that there is no way to fight "radical Islam" without involving all of Islam. To believe otherwise is naïve in the extreme because when the chips fall, most Muslims will stand with Islam just as most Americans will stand with America.

In fact, the ties that bind Muslims to Islam are probably a good deal stronger than those that bind Americans to America because Muslims are collectively a brainwashed mass of religious zealotry. It's likely that a large majority of them will stand with their ideology until the bitter end. Since we can't win until Islam changes and since Muslims are unwilling to change it (remember that Allah has told them that it's both "absolute" and "perfect"), they leave us with but a single option: delenda est Islamo. Or something very similar.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 1:47:01 AM||   2004-06-26 1:47:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 KIRK:

There are 1 billion muslims in the world.

No they aren't protesting against the beheadings.

Many of them tacitly agree with the Islamofascists, support them with hiding places, money and agreeance with their ideas.

The trick is to drive a wedge between them and the Islamofascists and shunt them onto a path where they are turning them in and regarding them as enemies, instead of leaders.

If you straight out attack their religion and call their prophet a paedophile, then guess what? Those 1 billion muslims are going to hate you and see you as their enemy and side with the Islamofascists.

If you can't see that then you must just be dense, sorry but there it is.

There are plenty of moderate muslims to my north in Indonesia. They are becoming increasingly radicalised. Every time a mosque is vandalised and it hits their nightly news they become more and more radicalised. More violent Islamofascists emerge from the woodwork there and our uneasy alliance comes under strain.

Are you REALLY ready to nuke 1 billion people? That is the only way you can win if you want to fight like boneheads and alienate them all with a racist backlash that doesn't differentiate between Islamism the problem and the moderate solution.

Are you truly ready to nuke simultaneously nothern Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand, Southern Philipines, parts of Nigeria, Chechenya etc etc?

Well if you aren't going to put your nukes where your mouth is you'd better fight smart and not stupid.
Posted by Anon1 2004-06-26 2:49:15 AM||   2004-06-26 2:49:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Are you REALLY ready to nuke 1 billion people?

Well, we would be doing them a huge favor if we did. Y'know, the 72 raisins they get in paradise if they die in battle with the infidels and all that. Seems like a win/win situation to me: they want to die, I'd like to kill them.

Now where'd I put my big red button?
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 3:22:46 AM||   2004-06-26 3:22:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Well if you aren't going to put your nukes where your mouth is you'd better fight smart and not stupid
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, so even with a small percentage of Muslims who are radicals we will reach a point when the sheer numbers of radicals will be too great to "fight smart." Radicals are not being killed fast enough and we infidels are not breeding fast enough.

If I were a moderate Muslim why would I want to throw in my lot with the losing side? As a Muslim, I'm home free. Why chose to align myself with the "infidels?" What's in it for me to stand up for the lives of the infidels, pray tell, #16?
Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:25:13 AM||   2004-06-26 3:25:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Many of them tacitly agree with the Islamofascists, support them with hiding places, money and agreeance with their ideas.

The trick is to drive a wedge between them and the Islamofascists and shunt them onto a path where they are turning them in and regarding them as enemies, instead of leaders.

Sooo.....how do you propose to drive a wedge between Islamofascists and regular Muslims that "tacitly agree" with those evil Islamofascists? Money? Appeasement? Sex on demand? Sounds like a losing proposition to me.

There are plenty of moderate muslims to my north in Indonesia. They are becoming increasingly radicalised. Every time a mosque is vandalised and it hits their nightly news they become more and more radicalised.

Well boo hoo hoo. Churches and synagogues have been vandalized before, and you don't hear of Christians engaging in suicide-bomb attacks on non-Christians, or Jews getting all bent out of shape and declaring "jihad" on goyim, do you?
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-26 3:36:38 AM||   2004-06-26 3:36:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Anon1,

Why do AMERICAN-MUSLIMS have to be convinced? Are they muslim first and then Americans? If that is the case then, they do not belong in the country!
Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-06-26 4:27:25 AM||   2004-06-26 4:27:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Anon1's argument basically comes down to - we must appease them because the alternative is too awefull to contemplate. His argument is correct as far as goes, i.e. there seems no alternative between appeasement and annialation. But he falls into the same trap as most of you, which is to characterize the problem as one of individuals. Its not! The problem is Islam or at least significant streams of Islam.

Once you look at this way the solution is obvious. Destroy all the mosques, kill all the imans and forceable convert the adherents. What you convert them to is a matter of complete indifference to me, since I am an atheist.
Posted by phil_b 2004-06-26 7:18:26 AM||   2004-06-26 7:18:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 phil> "Destroy all the mosques, kill all the imans and forceable convert the adherents."

You correctly identified the way to the annihilation of our culture. Cure the disease by killing the patient? Spare the leg by murdering the victim?

So, what's exactly the difference between doing what you suggest, and actually losing the war? The end-result seems to me to be the same -- the defeat of western civilisation by the forces of religious fanaticism.

I'd choose appeasement a million times over rather than the abject surrender to religious fascism that *your* plan represents.

And you should care very much what religion is picked, since you as an atheist, will be among the first to be converted into it. You can't force-convert people into a religion without changing the whole of society to service *exclusively* that religion.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 8:41:00 AM||   2004-06-26 8:41:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Then again, how many moderates can there be in a religion whose chief prophet was a lying, murdering pedophile?

As many as there can be in Judaism, whose chief prophet, Moses ordered the genocide of all the Midianites with the exception of the underage virgin girls to be used by the Israelites.

How many moderates can there be in a religion whose judicial code accords lower-caste status to non-believers, less weight to a woman's testimony, countenances slavery, etc.,

As many as there could exist in pre-Civil War American South.

Long Hair Republican> If your a mOOslim you are brain washed. Your an idiot and you belong to a Demonic cult that needs to be destroyed.

I'm sure that Nero may well have said the same thing about the Christians.

And I can say the same about the Republicans for that matter.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 8:49:36 AM||   2004-06-26 8:49:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Bomb-a-rama> "Every time a mosque is vandalised and it hits their nightly news they become more and more radicalised." Well boo hoo hoo.

Ofcourse YOU wouldn't care, since ofcourse YOU don't think there's any chance whatsoever we might lose the war.

Those of us lacking your religious conviction in our invincibility are very much interested in whether we'll be in war with a few tens thousands or with a billion. We very much care about how many are our enemies, and how many are our allies. And how many stand neutral, which unlike Bush's moronic comment "You are either with us or against us" can indeed occur. Some people, some *nations*, have no particular interest in the conflict.

I think it's stupid of them, personally, but it exists.

But USA can do it alone, as I've been told in this forum, against the whole of the world. You don't need no stinking europe as allies, you don't need to select your targets wisely. Whenever I've called for the stupidity of the targets chosen, some idiot like B would say "We are determined" as if determination is even near enough when intelligence is lacking.

You think that people becoming radicalized are something that influences only them? It doesn't turn them into victims that your sarcastic "boo-hoo-hoo" should apply, it turns them into *enemies*.

In which case weep, quite non-sarcastically, for us.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 9:04:18 AM||   2004-06-26 9:04:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Bush's moronic comment "You are either with us or against us"

Only in Europe could that statement be misinterpreted. So, let me try to rephrase it: "Are you for flying airplanes into buildings, or are you against it?"
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-26 9:37:01 AM||   2004-06-26 9:37:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Maybe it's time for muslems to learn that
tolerance is a two-way street?
Posted by Anonymous5397 2004-06-26 9:42:10 AM||   2004-06-26 9:42:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Aris, I think you overblow the conversion arguement. The difference is they attacked our civilization and we were forced to destroy their culture. Just as the culture of Nazism and the Empire-worship Bushudo culture of Japan were both destroyed. I choose altering or destroying hostile cultures far and above over appeasement and conquest by Islam.

What they are converted too would be a matter of who and where. In India and Indonesia, with very strong Hindu roots Hinduism would be the natural choice. In Iran with its Zorastorian history that would be the natural choice. In East Turkmenistan I'd go with Bhuddism, in fact when in doubt go with whichever slant of Bhuddism the Dali Lama preaches.

Those that are not Moslems would not be converted to anything, I dont' know where you got that idea. Athiests would remain athiests. Its Mosques and Korans we'd be dumping in the rubble pile and urinating upon.

Cultures live and die every day. Many are not worth saving. This putting every culture up on a pedistool despite a history of mistreating women, killing gays, vile antisemitism, and launching wars against all of their neighbors puts Islam as a religion/culture firmly in the not worth saving catagory. If the moderates within the religion/culture want to save it perhaps they should stand up and prove the radicals do no represent them. OTherwise they take the risks alongside the radicals.

Islamoids started this war, and uprooting the culture (which is entwined with Islam 100%) may very well be the only way to end it. So be it.
Posted by Yank 2004-06-26 9:53:38 AM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-06-26 9:53:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Yank> Those that are not Moslems would not be converted to anything, I dont' know where you got that idea.

From history. I've never seen an example of force-converting people into something without enforcing that religion throughout society.

In the Roman Empire the forced religion was the emperor worship -- which was relatively mild since it only came in conflict with monotheism (Judaism and Christianity). But ofcourse that one conflict was very real -- its result was the destruction of ancient Israel, and the way the Christian were persecuted until they triumphed over Rome and started persecuting the polytheists in turn.

In the Soviet block and China, the state religion was communism. Once again when you try to forbid a religion you need another religion to take its place *exclusively*.

And a tiny little sidenote, Muslim countries already have nukes. So you won't be able to destroy Islam without destroying the whole of the planet.

The only thing you can strive for is to enforce secularism. It's sheerest stupidity to even think you can destroy the religion of more than one billion people.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 10:18:55 AM||   2004-06-26 10:18:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Rafael> "Only in Europe could that statement be misinterpreted."

I think a better way of putting it is "Only in the USA would that statement NOT be misinterpreted."

But since the world was listening, it was stupid of Bush to speak such an easily misunderstandable comment as if he had truly meant the "misunderstanding".

Are you for flying airplanes into buildings, or are you against it?

Personally I'm fully in opposition to terrorism and fully in support of Western civilisation (as long as it remains Western civilisation).

But there are probably hundreds of millions Muslims that don't give a damn to planes falling in the USA when they themselves live in poverty or even under brutal dictatorships which may be friendly to the West. When they may themselves live under secular dictatorship, and an Islamic tyranny wouldn't truly worsen their lives one bit.

Such people are *neutral*. They just don't give a damn about the West. They are *neutral*, they only want to live out their lives. They have nothing to lose irregardless of which side wins the conflict.

Until you attack the entirety of their religions. In which case they will indeed care, because they *will* have things to lose.

Yank says that if the moderates want to save the culture they should convince us not all Muslims are radical -- but using that argument Yank once again falls to the same folly: He obviously thinks that our victory is predetermined. That the only decision left to make is how brutal or how lenient we will be against Islam!

WE MAY YET LOSE!!!!

If you force neutrals to pick sides, then you pretty damn well be *sure* you can afford them to take the *other* side. And you pretty damn well give them a reason to pick your side -- other than your belief in their cowardice.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 10:32:16 AM||   2004-06-26 10:32:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 But since the world was listening, it was stupid of Bush to speak such an easily misunderstandable comment

Yeah I know. Next time he speaks at the UN he should strive to bring himself down to the lowest common denominator. That way he can be understood by everyone.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-26 10:44:43 AM||   2004-06-26 10:44:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 I'm still shocked that Aris has never heard of a man being called a "cunt".
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-06-26 10:46:23 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-06-26 10:46:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 Rafael> Next time he speaks at the UN he should strive to bring himself down to the lowest common denominator.

Much better than speaking about crusades.

Much better than using the language that only the people who already support him full-heartedly can correctly interpret.

Robert Crawford> I'm still shocked that Aris has never heard of a man being called a "cunt".

Well most of the times I've been insulted in English, it's been in foreign political forums such as this. And though here I've been called a a troll, a communist, a homo, and a goat-fucker, I've not yet been called a cunt.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 10:51:44 AM||   2004-06-26 10:51:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 If the Muslim community is seen as proactive in the weeding out of the radical elements in their midst than the American people would see them as allies. Where are the patriotic young Muslims lining up to join the Armed Forces and Intelligence services to fight radical Islam?
Posted by Canaveral Dan 2004-06-26 11:08:50 AM||   2004-06-26 11:08:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Dear Long Hair Republican, Your argument might be more convincing if you could at least learn the difference between "your" (possesive as in your house, your car) and "you're" (a contraction of you are).
Posted by Anonymous5398 2004-06-26 11:12:44 AM||   2004-06-26 11:12:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Aris, reread RC's jab yesterday....I think you missed it
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 11:21:00 AM||   2004-06-26 11:21:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Here is more background on the Orland Park saga:
link, link, link, link, link. One piece of delicious irony in all this, Hooters is down the street from the mosque. You can take my land, but for Mohammed's sake, keep your hands off my Hooters.
Posted by Zpaz  2004-06-26 11:24:40 AM||   2004-06-26 11:24:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 Anon 1 -
Are you truly ready to nuke simultaneously nothern Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand, Southern Philipines, parts of Nigeria, Chechenya etc etc? Well if you aren't going to put your nukes where your mouth is you'd better fight smart and not stupid.

Okay, let me say my piece. First, I've worked with nuclear weapons - and I hate the goddamned things. Six years in Strategic Air Command teaches you that to use them is to have FAILED, that you did not do your job and now your family and friends will pay the ultimate price. I quite literally loathe them, and still have the occasional nightmare about them.
The problem is that we are quickly coming up on one indisputable, inescapable conclusion - one third of the world's population has gone renegade, and their stated belief towards the rest is to either enslave them or kill them - and from what I'm seeing, there's a great many Muslims who have no problems with either option. Even the media is having a tougher and tougher time ignoring the obvious, and all it will take is a few more spectacular atrocities in the rest of the world - or one good one here - and all the RoP stories in the world will not save the Muslims who remain silent.
Friend, I hope we will fight hard AND smart. But the bottom line is that we are outnumbered and outgunned. Europe is at most about a decade away from being either neutralized or becoming actively anti-Western. We're going to see something that will look amazingly like WWII, and it's going to involve nuclear weapons, and we won't be the ones using them first. The rest of the world has never, ever, EVER seen this nation with its back to the wall...and when it happens, there will be one of two results - we will either start glassing cities, or we will be defending our own homes.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-26 11:31:16 AM||   2004-06-26 11:31:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Frank G> I didn't miss the jab. But if there was anything more subtle in it than the implication *I* should be called such, I failed to understand it.

Was that a linguistic failing on my part? Is there a different jab in it, one clever enough to be repeated twice?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 11:34:09 AM||   2004-06-26 11:34:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 by assuming you'd already been called it, he as much as did it himself - very Churchillian
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 11:37:52 AM||   2004-06-26 11:37:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Mike> Al Qaeda doesn't have two billion members, so it's not one third of the world's population that has gone renegade and wants to enslave the rest.

Not even the majority of muslim *countries* are such. You can count the state-supporters of Islamic terrorism in the fingers of one hand. Syria, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia. That's it. And the Palestinian Authority, ofcourse. I don't believe I'm forgetting anyone, now that Lybia and Iraq are considered off the list.

You have about as many state-*opponents* of Islamic imperialism among Muslim countries. Turkey. Jordan. Kuwait. Egypt.

The only thing that makes people see this be a war against the whole of Islam is the UTTER UTTER INSANITY that led the Bush administration declare war against a secular Muslim regime whose ties to terrorism were the most peripheral of them all. And ofcourse the stupidity of "you are not with us, you are against us".

Until such time as you start seeing the neutrals, you'll keep on seeing the whole world as against you. In reality, most of that one third of the world simply does not give a damn.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 11:49:01 AM||   2004-06-26 11:49:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 by assuming you'd already been called it, he as much as did it himself

I know. Perhaps that's considered subtlety under his bridge, but I still can't find it nearly clever enough to be worth repeating twice.

But obviously if I'd ignored it in this thread as well RC would keep on repeating it in every thread I participated in until he got a reaction. No reason to stop at twice. Hope he now has his wish and will leave the threads alone.

Churchill used such kinds of insults? Had no idea.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 11:56:29 AM||   2004-06-26 11:56:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 Much better than using the language that only the people who already support him full-heartedly can correctly interpret.

Support him full-heartedly in the fight against terrorism, you mean? Then you're right. Supporters of terrorism probably didn't understand a single word of that statement.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-26 12:01:41 PM||   2004-06-26 12:01:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Aris, you're a cunt.
Not only that, you're a stupid one, too.
The Muslims of the world must choose secularism--that is the point everyone's trying to make.
While the U.S. isn't interested in practicing "religious facism" as a foreign policy, it's becoming clear that all Islam, not just radicalized Islam, poses a very real danger because the Koran contains the very dictates that call their adherents to "kill the infidels" and to take over the world, by force if necessary, for Islam.
I can foresee a day when the practice of being a Muslim is outlawed all over the world for that reason.
Once again, you hijacked the thread--which is about Paul Johnson's community being justifiably outraged by his senseless and brutal beheading in the name of Allan.
Who could blame them?
Katsaris's remarks show that he doesn't know *shit* about what life is like in the United States: since 9/11 there have been remarkably few attacks of any kind on Muslims and they are clearly at total liberty here to worship, wear headscarves and even preach the violent takeover of America for Allan at public meetings.
Rather than putting them in camps the way we did the Japanese in WWII, we go out of our way to respect their religion!
I say the Roosevelt Administration had the right idea.
And we just arrested Zarqawi's closest lieutenant in Minnesota!
Katsaris, why don't you keep your promises to not post here anymore?
Your addition to the conversation is NOT HELPFUL, you cunt.
Posted by Jen  2004-06-26 12:06:42 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-26 12:06:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 As usual, Aris has some good points, such as:

"If you force neutrals to pick sides, then you pretty damn well be *sure* you can afford them to take the *other* side. And you pretty damn well give them a reason to pick your side."

Then things get confusing:

"The only thing you can strive for is to enforce secularism."

How do you do that? How do you enforce secularism, exactly, when the leadership of over one billion people on the planet is opposed to it, and clearly list secularism as an "enemy" of everything they hold to, and the reason for the war in the first place? There is no reason to think for a moment that they would willingly submit to secularism, which they consider a competing religion/culture.

"I'm sure that Nero may well have said the same thing about the Christians. And I can say the same about the Republicans for that matter."

Equating Nero's attitude and actions against the Christians with Republicans? Now that's definitely off the deep end! Besides, Nero was a secularist, and with all of your anti-Christian or anti-"perceived as Christian" sentiments, your statement seems to be contradictory. Sadaam was a secularist too, and it's clear that secularsim doesn't guarantee anything regarding human rights, freedom, and morality.

"You can't force-convert people into a religion without changing the whole of society to service *exclusively* that religion."

Like they do in the moslem world, especially Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran etc.? --countries I NEVER hear you bitch about, Aris. I only hear you bitch about America. I don't hear you talk about the crimes of Islamic societies, and there are plenty of examples on Rantburg every day. Are you not aware that the Islamics are at war with Western civilization and the very things you say you believe in? This has always confused me about you.

"Personally I'm fully in opposition to terrorism and fully in support of Western civilisation (as long as it remains Western civilisation). But there are probably hundreds of millions Muslims that don't give a damn to planes falling in the USA when they themselves live in poverty or even under brutal dictatorships which may be friendly to the West. When they may themselves live under secular dictatorship, and an Islamic tyranny wouldn't truly worsen their lives one bit. Such people are *neutral*. They just don't give a damn about the West. They are *neutral*, they only want to live out their lives. They have nothing to lose irregardless of which side wins the conflict. Until you attack the entirety of their religions. In which case they will indeed care, because they *will* have things to lose."

Glad you oppose terrorism (I just wish you'd say so more often). But about the other point: We may not have a choice but to defend ourselves, and we can put out the message that we are not interested in destroying a religion they believe in--except if that "religion" is the basis for their war of aggression against us in the West. Sure the neutrals are caught in the middle, but neutrals don't have the clout to change things anyway (unless empowered by an outside source). Their very position and situation in the society they're a part of precludes them from being active, change-making players for the most part--although I totally appreciate and agree with the idea you are putting out there--that we need to win the Arab street. If it can be done, I'm all for it, but I'm just not sure that that is not an ethnocentric viewpoint of a Westerner like yourself. In any case, I think it's important to continue to delegitimize "radical" Islam, for the sake of those within the greater structure that either don't fully understand it, or who don't agree with the ones in power (an example of a successful "parting of the ways" that comes to mind is in Iraq--plenty of moslems are fighting the extremist moslems).

I agree with you that it's important to remember that not all moslems are "died-in-the-wool" enemies, per se, but that becomes difficult when moslems here, who have all the civil freedoms they need, and the power, wealth, comfort of life, and protection of law (and the interest of the media) to make a stand--yet they don't and won't speak out against the actions of the moslem extremists overseas and here. Their silence features them as supportive accomplices. There is no other explanation.

If they, like you seem to, Aris, support a secular type of government such as we have, they would and should be speaking against the atrocities and aims of an opposing group (i.e. the Islamics) that wants to annihilate the government and culture which is providing them with so many benefits. Americans, in general, realize this, and are beginning to react. The sentiment is: "Last night Islamics had a chance to speak up for Paul Johnson, but today it’s too late."

Aris, you are a cunt.

There--now you can feel better that you've been called every name in the book. : ) !


Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-26 12:08:02 PM||   2004-06-26 12:08:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 And what about those billion of Muslims aforementioned that couldn't care about whether Al-Qaeda or the USA are victorious, because they'd be living under a Muslim secular dictatorship (such as most Muslim dictatorships are) one way or another?

What about those that didn't already support him full-heartedly because they didn't know if he'll go and do evil stupid things such as for examples label all Islam an enemy or declare crusades or not? What about the people who didn't know whether he'll authorize torture or not, whether he'll respect human rights or not, whether he'll keep the values of Western civilisation or not, and so their support for Bush could only be CONDITIONAL, because they would NEVER support any politician unconditionally?

Don't those people matter at all?

Can you win the war without the support of the secular muslims that had little to no reason to fully trust a right-winger Texan Christian who speaks about crusades, and many supporters of whom hate Islam as a whole?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:11:11 PM||   2004-06-26 12:11:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Ah, so much stupidity, so little time ... so let's just examine the faulty premise upon which Aris' entire perspective is based:

The only thing you can strive for is to enforce secularism.

Put down the crack pipe and back slowly away because this is simply, completely, and undeniably wrong. You cannot "enforce secularism" on Islamic society because they do not recognize the superiority of secular law to sharia and associated edicts from their local snake charmers.

In a secular western society Islam can only exist in a transient state because it demands of its adherents that they actively transform everything around them according to the model of Islamic perfection. First and foremost this means destroying secular governance and replacing it with a model drawn from Islamic tradition. Thus, it's no more possible for modern secular society to peacefully coexist with Islam than it was for the Jews to peacefully coexist with the Nazis (and Islam bears more than a passing resemblance to German National Socialism).
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 12:14:25 PM||   2004-06-26 12:14:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 AND THE WINNER IS . . . Canaveral Dan:

" If the Muslim community is seen as proactive in the weeding out of the radical elements in their midst, then the American people would see them as allies. Where are the patriotic young Muslims lining up to join the Armed Forces and Intelligence services to fight radical Islam?"

Aris, I liked your post #40 until you featured Iraq as "a secular Muslim regime whose ties to terrorism were the most peripheral of them all." That's just stupid. The war aside, that's just stupid. If you're going to use Iraq as some "wonderful" example of exemplary superiority of admirable secularism, that's just stupid. You've come to the wrong discussion board, or are seriously undereducated about the subject.

I think Aris has had enough attention today.


Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-26 12:18:36 PM||   2004-06-26 12:18:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Answer abroad: take out the Imams and Mullahs spreading the venom. Do it publicly and violently, just as Israel has taken out the heads of Hamas. We need wetwork ops again
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 12:18:42 PM||   2004-06-26 12:18:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Katsaris, you are going to force me to call you the ultimate term of abuse: f*cking cunt.

To answer your own stupid "arguments," are the liberated Afghans and Iraqis still living under a Muslim dictatorship?
Hell, no!
Are they glad to have been liberated? Hell, yes.
And both Iraqis and Afghans were far from indifferent about it even before their liberation; they were miserable and wanted to be freed from bondage to the Taliban and Saddam.

As for all those things you accuse President Bush of being for,
he has come out publicly against all those things and made it clear that the United States doesn't do that and never will!
(Yet you still believe the lies you read about him in the Leftist European press!)
And there's lots of evidence to indicate that Bush is beginning to be admired and respected throughout the Middle East already as the "Liberator" and the "Avenger of the Bones."
If we Bushies hate Islam as a conceptual religion, I think it's safe to say that we have our reasons.
Would you be "multi-culti" if Al Queda had smashed planes into the Parthenon, destroying it and slaughtering 3,000 Greeks who were minding their own business in peacetime?
Posted by Jen  2004-06-26 12:19:15 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-26 12:19:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Whoa, ease up on the name calling! If Aris leaves, then all we're left with is...antiwar, and the NMM goofball.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-26 12:20:12 PM||   2004-06-26 12:20:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 How do you enforce secularism, exactly, when the leadership of over one billion people on the planet is opposed to it,

Oh, what utter utter bull. Pakistan is secular. Turkey is secular. Egypt is secular. Who exactly are the "leadership of over one billion people"? Iran and Sudan and the Taliban?

Get your facts straight.

And Jen, and ex-lib, both of you, we had already determined that Crawford's comment already sufficed to call me "cunt", so really your comments are only helping showing the level of discourse and maturity you advocate in Rantburg.

and clearly list secularism as an "enemy" of everything they hold to, and the reason for the war in the first place?

Osama Bin Laden isn't the leader of over one billion people, so get your facts straight first and come to me later.


Equating Nero's attitude and actions against the Christians with Republicans?

No, I equated the Christians with the Republicans. But ofcourse you are too much of a moron to understand that.

Besides, Nero was a secularist.

The state religion was emperor-worship.

Jen> Once again, you hijacked the thread

Yeah, I put a gun at your heads and forced you to fly it into a skycrape. The thread *wasn't* about Paul Johnson's community at the point when I entered it -- the thread was ALREADY about the forced conversion of more than a billion muslims, and that's the thread I continued.

You may be so stupid that you believe a thread is determined by its title rather than by its content. Why don't you look at the comments preceding my own, rather than just assume that it was I who gave the thread it's new direction?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:23:22 PM||   2004-06-26 12:23:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 The war aside, that's just stupid. If you're going to use Iraq as some "wonderful" example of exemplary superiority of admirable secularism,

I didn't. I only used Iraq as a wonderful example of a country that was borderline *neutral* to the conflict, with only peripheral ties to Islamic terrorism.

There's more than one conflicts in this, and you can't take out all the fascisms in the world in one go.

Iraq was horrible to its citizens, but it was almost neutral in the war between West and Islamofascism. It lent support to the Palestinians, but then again it also lent support to the MEK who were secularists that opposed the mullahs of Iran.

But because you could only see countries as being "either with you or against you", you are almost left at the point where you see every other secular Muslim degree in the region as also being enemies.

That's as stupid as you can get.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:30:33 PM||   2004-06-26 12:30:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Katsaris, it was about the story until you launched in with your "religious fascism" rant--as usual, totally hijacking the thread to argue the contrarian side, no matter what the thread's about.
We Americans are mad that one of our citizens was brutally beheaded by, once again, Islamists.
And Pakistan is NOT secular! Not even close.
It's an Islamic republic.
In fact, it was formed as a nation to be Islamic because they wanted to be "free" of secular India.
The only thing close to a secular nation with a Muslim majority is Turkey and it's "iffy."
And worshipping the Roman emperor as a god wasn't pervasive throughout the whole 500 years of the Roman Empire, but only instituted by a few Caesars like Nero and Caligula.
And you're still a c--t (and believe you me, I have quite an adequate vocabulary, but if the shoe fits...)
Posted by Jen  2004-06-26 12:32:09 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-26 12:32:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 AND THE NEXT WINNER IS . . . Jen:

" Would you be "multi-culti" if Al Queda had smashed planes into the Parthenon, destroying it and slaughtering 3,000 Greeks who were minding their own business in peacetime?"

You gotta comment on that Aris.

AND THE THIRD WINNER IS . . . a real favorite . . . AzCat! : (emphasis added)

"You cannot "enforce secularism" on Islamic society because they do not recognize the superiority of secular law to sharia and associated edicts from their local snake charmers. In a secular western society Islam can only exist in a transient state because it demands of its adherents that they actively transform everything around them according to the model of Islamic perfection. First and foremost this means destroying secular governance and replacing it with a model drawn from Islamic tradition. Thus, it's no more possible for modern secular society to peacefully coexist with Islam than it was for the Jews to peacefully coexist with the Nazis (and Islam bears more than a passing resemblance to German National Socialism).

Aris? We're waiting.

Aris, just because a lot of people in the Islamic world don't know WTF is going on, doesn't mean we can just sit back (which we would rather do, believe me--this conflict is a total pain). But I would also challenge you to think about the truth--that more know what's going on than you would like to think.

Hang in there, Aris.

You cunt. : )

Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-26 12:32:10 PM||   2004-06-26 12:32:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Thanks for everything, ex-lib!
And you are so right: we would rather sit back and this war is a total pain. I hate it.
Many is the day that I've wished I could wake up and it be 9/10/01 again.
Posted by Jen  2004-06-26 12:34:21 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-26 12:34:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 So Aris, seriously, did we give up Western Civ when Arthur Harris and Cutis Lemay fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo respectively?

I think that when you strip away the hyperbole, most people here are calling for decisive action against the Islamists now, so we don't have to slaughter tens of millions later.

You keep pointing out that you could lose this war. I agree with you. I think that if we did lose this war, it would result in the death of hundreds of millions if not billions simply because the Islamists wouldn't bother to maintain the level of transportation, agriculture, and medical infrastructure that keeps six billion people alive today. World-wide famine? Inshallah. How many deaths would you be willing to tolerate to prevent that?

A very smart person said (I don't want to reveal his name since the remarks weren't made in an open forum) in regards to Central America, "80% of the people just want to live their lives. 15% are fence sitters and will follow whoever is strongest. 5% are marxist fanatics and simply have to be killed." I'm guessing that the numbers are somewhat skewed in the Middle East. They might be 50%, 40%, 10%. To get to the 10%, I have to kill most of the 40% and a lot of the 50% are going to get caught in the crossfire.

Every modern confict begins with a series of tenuous steps. Feints and jabs proceed the heavy hitting and grappling. Finally, someone has to get out the lead pipe and stave in the skull of the other guy. I'd rather just sucker punch the Islamists now and end this damn thing. I have no faith that's going to happen, but I wish it would. "Punch them. Don't tickle them." Guderian understood that. So did Lemay, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Most people here at Rantburg understand that intuitively, if not intellectually.
Posted by 11A5S 2004-06-26 12:36:50 PM||   2004-06-26 12:36:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 To answer your own stupid "arguments," are the liberated Afghans and Iraqis still living under a Muslim dictatorship?

Iraqis never lived under an Islamist dictatorship. And neither Iraqis nor Afghanis are yet living in a democracy, that's for sure, they're living in an anarchy. And they might never live in a democracy.

And for all those things you accuse President Bush of being for,

I didn't accuse him of being for such things. Once again you are too stupid, Jen, to actually read my words.

he has come out publicly against all those things and made it clear that the United States doesn't do that and never will!

And people that didn't already trust him, had a reason to trust him because....?

Because he has a ton of supporters that want him to advocate the forced convertions of Muslims into Christianity or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism. Yeah, you are making Bush's job *tons* easier in convincing the Islamic world that America doesn't see the whole of Islam as its enemy.

But then again Bush didn't make the job any easier either when he chose Iraq to attack, whose connection to terrorism was as I said flimsy at best.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:40:51 PM||   2004-06-26 12:40:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 ex-lib> You gotta comment on that Aris.

I would comment "Yes", but then ofcourse you would say "No you wouldn't be, you are just saying that because it hasn't happened yet." That's the problem with discussing hypotheticals isn't it?

So, *yes* I would still advocate freedom of religion if 3000 Greeks had lost their lives in an act of Islamic terrorism.

And ofcourse, quite predictably you won't accept that response as true.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:46:43 PM||   2004-06-26 12:46:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 I believe it, I just think it's naive
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 12:47:52 PM||   2004-06-26 12:47:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Frank G> As you wish. But even if you are right, I'm not sure that using the trauma of mass murder as the reason for holding a belief, makes the arguments for that belief stronger.

So Aris, seriously, did we give up Western Civ when Arthur Harris and Cutis Lemay fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo respectively?

Those, horrible as they were, were *momentary*. Force-converting a billion people is more akin to reinstituting slavery. You'll have to keep on doing it for a century for such conversions to last, at which point there won't be much of a western civilisation left.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 12:55:34 PM||   2004-06-26 12:55:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Force-converting a billion people is more akin to reinstituting slavery. You'll have to keep on doing it for a century for such conversions to last, at which point there won't be much of a western civilisation left.

Good point. Better a short sharp application of force that once and for all eliminates the problem than a long and protracted war.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 12:59:12 PM||   2004-06-26 12:59:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Forced conversions don't work, and I think the Islamists will find that out soon enough. Back to Johnson and the backlash: 'Americans first, muslims second' would stop all backlash. 'Muslims first' and you get what you get, and whining will only make it worse
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 1:00:42 PM||   2004-06-26 1:00:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 AzCat> And once you have a culture that accepts global genocide (if I'm reading your words correctly), how would you stop this policy from continuing?

No, genocide is definitely not better from forced convertions.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 1:04:45 PM||   2004-06-26 1:04:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 rex: Don't buy the Muslim propaganda. Christianity is the world's fastest-growing religion, esp. in the developing world.
Posted by someone 2004-06-26 1:07:20 PM||   2004-06-26 1:07:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 And once you have a culture that accepts global genocide (if I'm reading your words correctly), how would you stop this policy from continuing?

You mean like supporting the destruction of the Jewish people? We haven't reached this point yet, Islam has.

Iraqis never lived under an Islamist dictatorship

You're right about that. Saddam never gave a damn for Islam, he was just a plain out dictator. The worst since Stalin died, and now he's powerless. And if you argue it was a secular government that Saddam headed, then Jen's juevenile remarks about you being a "cunt" are true.

Posted by Charles  2004-06-26 1:13:54 PM||   2004-06-26 1:13:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world

Evangelical Christianity growing rapidly in many parts of the southern hemisphere, even where Muslims are resorting to legal and illegal violence against them. And the BJP in India has a pretty large consituency too.

I'd rather have a model in which the government is secular and individuals are free to pursue whatever religion they like -- so long as they stop short of attempting to impose it on others by force or by highjacking the laws (and using the force of the state).

I sure as hell won't accept Islam growing that way.
Posted by too true 2004-06-26 1:14:10 PM||   2004-06-26 1:14:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Things would be going a lot differently in these Muslim areas of the US if there had been voices of real patriotism after 9/11. Even now they can't even talk the talk: everything they say is in the words of victimization.
Posted by someone 2004-06-26 1:14:24 PM||   2004-06-26 1:14:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 That's it Aris.

I was joking with you-- : ) that's a joke sign (smiley face)--when I called you a cunt. You take yourself too seriously, and I thought you could handle it, but you can't. Jen is calling you a cunt as an insult.

But you have insulted me, so I'm going to say this and say nothing more to you on Rantburg today. I don't care what you say or do from here on out--I leave you to your own devices, and to the conversations of the others. Your psychology is like a basketball, and Rantburg is the backboard you bounce it off of. I'm not going to play anymore.

So here's the last of it:

Nero was the supreme secularist--demanding worship of himself as the secular ruler of Rome--not unlike Sadaam did.

More moslems than Bin Laden consider secularism the enemy of everything they hold to. Read up on it. You have plenty of opportunity here every day.

Phil B had said: "If your a mOOslim you are brain washed. You're an idiot and you belong to a Demonic cult that needs to be destroyed." To which you responded: "I'm sure that Nero may well have said the same thing about the Christians (that they belonged ot a Demonic cult that needs to be destroyed). And I can say the same about the Republicans (that they belong to a Demonic cult that needs to be destroyed) . . ." You were NOT in fact equating the Christians with Republicans, as you claim in #51-- you were using the condemnation of Christians by Nero to be as bad and the same as Americans condemning Islamic terrorists. And then you went on to condemn Republicans for actually being what you said Nero said about the Christians, and what you said Americans say about the Islamic terrorists. I am NOT, as you said, "too much of a moron to understand." I think you can't keep what you're saying straight.

You say about Iraq: "I only used Iraq as a wonderful example of a country that was borderline *neutral* to the conflict, with only peripheral ties to Islamic terrorism . . . almost neutral in the war between West and Islamofascism." On the surface, Aris. On the surface. Your adherence secularism as the savior of mankind is blinding you to the truth. To my question: "How do you enforce secularism, exactly, when the leadership of over one billion people on the planet is opposed to it?" you replied: "Oh, what utter utter bull. Pakistan is secular. Turkey is secular. Egypt is secular." Yes Aris. They are. But only to a point. Hopefully they can continue to enforce and expand their present forms of government. (But radical Islam is bubbling up all around them as you must know).


BTW Aris: I don't see all moslems as enemies. That has been clear in every single one of my posts today. But I think you see all Republicans as enemies, according to your own words, and I won't even get into the Christian thing with you.

Aris, you like to argue.

And you have an undying religious faith in secularism, supporting Western civilization only inasmuch as it serves your personal secular fundamentalist religion.

My interest today in responding to the sometimes worthwhile posts of Aris Katsaris is concluded.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-26 1:17:15 PM||   2004-06-26 1:17:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Charles> And if you argue it was a secular government that Saddam headed, then Jen's juevenile remarks about you being a "cunt" are true.

Do you know the meaning of secular?

Saddam headed a secular dictatorship. If you don't accept that, then your problem's not with me, it's with Reality. Take it up with her.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 1:20:34 PM||   2004-06-26 1:20:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Saddam used Islam whenever it was useful and convenient.

By the way, Paul Johnson's memorial service is going on right now. His body hasn't been recovered from Saudi. Whack an Imam for Paul today!
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 1:29:55 PM||   2004-06-26 1:29:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 ex-lib> I don't have "undying religious faith in secularism". There are tons and tons of secular dictatorships that are bitter enemies to the West.

They just don't have anything to do with the war against Islamofascism.

Once again -- see the pathology of the stupid "you are either with us or against us"? As if there are no degrees of hostility, as if there are no countries that may be against you in *that* struggle, but not necessarily against you in *this* struggle?

Yes, secular Iraq was an enemy to democracy and freedom. So is secular Belarus. And attacking Iraq wasn't significantly more intelligent in the war against Islamofascism than attacking Belarus would have been.

Because both these countries were borderline *neutral* in this conflict.

And then you went on to condemn Republicans for actually being what you said Nero said about the Christians,

Belonging to a demonic cult that needs to be destroyed?

I don't believe in demons.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 1:31:17 PM||   2004-06-26 1:31:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 see the pathology of the stupid "you are either with us or against us"?

No. Primarily because the context was terrorism, not some other "struggle".
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-26 1:39:59 PM||   2004-06-26 1:39:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Paul Johnson was a great guy. He will be missed. His death is a wake-up call to us all.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-06-26 1:41:30 PM||   2004-06-26 1:41:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 wetwork ops on the ulema--gawd-that so kewl--it rivals blitzkreig for a shortform expression of a winning strategy--as the monkees said--i'm a believer
Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2004-06-26 1:51:31 PM||   2004-06-26 1:51:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 And once you have a culture that accepts global genocide (if I'm reading your words correctly), how would you stop this policy from continuing?

I accept that Islam is forcing us to choose between the survival of western civilization and their own. Muslims have forced upon us all a choice none of us want to make, I've merely chosen my own civilization over the one they would impose upon me. It's only a matter of time, and not much time at that, until Muslims possess the ability to follow through on their insane rants and then we're all going to have to choose one side or the other with no equivocation and no qualifications. I wonder, which side will you be on then?

The fact is that Islam can stop this war any time it wishes but throughout fourteen centuries of the world's experience with Islam the war has raged on unabated. It's ironic in the extreme that you're fond of citing to historical precedent yet this most simple and unarguable truism utterly escapes you: there's nothing in the history of Islam to suggest that they will stop this war short of their total victory. Nothing. Islam has never, nor will it ever, retreat from its goal of global domination.

The salient difference between my perspective on this and that of Islam is that should Islam choose to stop the war, I would be happy to allow them to continue the longstanding Islamic tradition of wading through their sandboxes in rivers of their own blood without external interference. However should western civilzation eschew fighting this war, Islam will demand our complete and total submission to their will as a precondition to the cessation of hostilities. Thus by definition I'm far more moderate than is Islam.

Sadly, Islam is speeding towards the crossroads at which we all will be forced to make the ultimate decision between "us" and "them". Unlike "them" I find no joy in the decision and seek no glory in the slaughter that is about to unfold. But as dark, tragic, and terrible as the days Islam is forcing upon us will be, humanity will emerge stronger and more resolute once the Islamic cancer has burned from our collective body.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 2:01:04 PM||   2004-06-26 2:01:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 I don't believe in demons.
This is such a long thread that to give my personal reactions - which I'm *sure* everyone *wants* to hear - would take too long, so I'm just going to hit that.

Aris, I do believe in demons. I look around and I see what man is capable of. At the moment, what I see is that the worst traits of humanity are the ones that these Islamic terrorists are personifying, and that frightens me. Monsters may not exist, but evil surely does - and while we can all fall prey to it, right now those "men" are the closest thing to demons I can find.

I forget who said that there is no greater evil than that which goes in the guise of good, and while I suppose you *could* apply that to the US, and no doubt a lot of people do, the terrorists are the ones claiming they're fighting for Allah, for their god, for piety and virtue and all of that. Personally, I think theirs are the more grandiose claims, and all the more chilling because of it.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-26 2:03:42 PM||   2004-06-26 2:03:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 [Radical] Muslims are nothing but Nazis with a turban."

Which is something I've been saying here for some time. This may be the one single critical distinction that is required to properly polarize the world community, including moderate Muslims, against militant Islam.

#5 If you radicalise the moderates you will find yourself fighting an army 100 times as big.

Having an uneducated, racist backlash against Islam in general and muslims as an undifferentiated whole helps the Islamofascists, it doesn't help us.

This may not be as bad as it sounds. If the moderates refuse to assist in decontaminating Islam, then they need to be given the opportunity to forever link themselves to the real enemy.

#16 The trick is to drive a wedge between them and the Islamofascists and shunt them onto a path where they are turning them in and regarding them as enemies, instead of leaders.

That "wedge" may turn out to be simple death. If moderate Islam does not begin martyring itself in the effort to pursuade its radical component away from militancy, then death is the only alternative.

#19 Sooo.....how do you propose to drive a wedge between Islamofascists and regular Muslims that "tacitly agree" with those evil Islamofascists? Money? Appeasement? Sex on demand? Sounds like a losing proposition to me.

I agree, Bomb-a-rama, this is why I mention "death" as a functional wedge.

#22 And you should care very much what religion is picked, since you as an atheist, will be among the first to be converted into it. You can't force-convert people into a religion without changing the whole of society to service *exclusively* that religion.

Which is why the notion of "forced conversion" always has been and always shall be idiotic at best.

#24 You think that people becoming radicalized are something that influences only them? It doesn't turn them into victims that your sarcastic "boo-hoo-hoo" should apply, it turns them into *enemies*.

Sadly, this may be required in order to sort out our targeting priorities. Enemies of secularism are the avowed enemies of the West and we cannot kill them fast enough.

#25 So, let me try to rephrase it: "Are you for flying airplanes into buildings, or are you against it?"

Bingo, Raphael.

#27 If the moderates within the religion/culture want to save it perhaps they should stand up and prove the radicals do no represent them. OTherwise they take the risks alongside the radicals.

Islamoids started this war, and uprooting the culture (which is entwined with Islam 100%) may very well be the only way to end it. So be it.

Well said, Yank. I've been saying the same thing for some time now. Where are the moderate Muslims eager to gloriously martyr themselves attempting to persuade Islamists away from terrorist jihad in the regions of militant Islam?

#29 Such people are *neutral*. They just don't give a damn about the West. They are *neutral*, they only want to live out their lives. They have nothing to lose irregardless of which side wins the conflict.

Sadly, a lack of world view may well no longer serve as adequate excuse for so-called "neutrality." Like Nazism, there really cannot be any sort of neutral stance regarding jihadist terrorism.

#33 If the Muslim community is seen as proactive in the weeding out of the radical elements in their midst than the American people would see them as allies. Where are the patriotic young Muslims lining up to join the Armed Forces and Intelligence services to fight radical Islam?

There you have it, Canaveral Dan. Where are the valiant defenders of their "peaceful" religion? They had better show up to the party soon or the doorman will receive instructions that they shall all be turned away at the gate.

#37 The problem is that we are quickly coming up on one indisputable, inescapable conclusion - one third of the world's population has gone renegade, and their stated belief towards the rest is to either enslave them or kill them - and from what I'm seeing, there's a great many Muslims who have no problems with either option. Even the media is having a tougher and tougher time ignoring the obvious, and all it will take is a few more spectacular atrocities in the rest of the world - or one good one here - and all the RoP stories in the world will not save the Muslims who remain silent.

This is exactly why I have been forced to anticipate possible nuclear scenarios as well, Mike Kozlowski. All opponents to secularism represent candidates for terrorism. Very soon, I may be forced to accept this one simple notion as a fact.

#40 Until such time as you start seeing the neutrals, you'll keep on seeing the whole world as against you. In reality, most of that one third of the world simply does not give a damn.

And it is their neutrality about the value of secularism that may well damn them. Willing acceptance of elements that seek to destroy secularism, and by extension the West, may have outlived their useful lifespan on this earth.

#44 How do you do that? How do you enforce secularism, exactly, when the leadership of over one billion people on the planet is opposed to it, and clearly list secularism as an "enemy" of everything they hold to, and the reason for the war in the first place? There is no reason to think for a moment that they would willingly submit to secularism, which they consider a competing religion/culture.

Secularism is "enforced" by declaring elected representation and democracy basic human rights and overthrowing any and all governments opposed to such a notion.

Agreed, Canaveral Dan is the winner.

Canaveral Dan's simple question must continue to resonate within the skulls of moderate Muslims until they purchase a clue. Their entire religion's future hinges upon it.

#46 How do you do that? How do you enforce secularism, exactly, when the leadership of over one billion people on the planet is opposed to it, and clearly list secularism as an "enemy" of everything they hold to, and the reason for the war in the first place? There is no reason to think for a moment that they would willingly submit to secularism, which they consider a competing religion/culture.

By forcefully eliminating those who advocate the destruction of secularism. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is no other choice in the matter.

#51 And Jen, and ex-lib, both of you, we had already determined that Crawford's comment already sufficed to call me "cunt", so really your comments are only helping showing the level of discourse and maturity you advocate in Rantburg.

While ex-lib may have been jesting, others were not and I could not agree with you on this one point any more than I have already, Aris. Kindergarten name-calling conveys all the class and sophistication of a thug.

#52 I didn't. I only used Iraq as a wonderful example of a country that was borderline *neutral* to the conflict, with only peripheral ties to Islamic terrorism.

Iraq was not "borderline *neutral*" to terrorism. They actively promoted the Intifada and thereby sealed their doom. The stated reasons for going into Iraq were all wrong, but its liberation was a moral obligation. I feel that Iran or North Korea were higher priorities, but the cards did not fall that way. In the long run, quelling terror's support in the Middle East may well prove to be a linchpin in dismantling militant Islam so I have always been obliged to support our presence in Iraq.

#56 I think that if we did lose this war, it would result in the death of hundreds of millions if not billions simply because the Islamists wouldn't bother to maintain the level of transportation, agriculture, and medical infrastructure that keeps six billion people alive today. World-wide famine? Inshallah. How many deaths would you be willing to tolerate to prevent that?

This is one of the only other points on a par with Canaveral Dan's observation, 11A5S. Theocratic Islam represents global cultural genocide and mass murder through technological regression. Neither are acceptable, and I will sooner advocate nuclear war against Islam than countenance such a return to savagery.

#65 And once you have a culture that accepts global genocide (if I'm reading your words correctly), how would you stop this policy from continuing?

You mean like supporting the destruction of the Jewish people? We haven't reached this point yet, Islam has.

Excellent point, AzCat. This pretty well sums things up.

#76 Personally, I think theirs are the more grandiose claims, and all the more chilling because of it.

Agree, The Doctor. The level of self-delusion that Islam aspires to makes possible any atrocity imaginable. This is its own disproof and is precisely what must be disavowed or such fanaticism will indict Islam as a whole.
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-26 2:56:38 PM||   2004-06-26 2:56:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#78  I have to get out of here, but before I leave, I do want to say to Aris Katsaris thanks for fighting the good fight. Without your penetrating insight Rantburg would be such a dull place. You have forced many people and regulars to think and think hard...everyone is better for this. So thank you.

I pretty much agree with Zenster, above, but then I usually do. My disagreement is with the idea that there is even a Nuclear option to be played. I don't see how it can be done w/o poisoning the planet and us in the bargain.

If the Nuclear option is off the table, then what? I recognize that it is not as easy to kill people as many here think. People die hard. The will to live is fierce and a true death wound is a difficult proposition.

But it is doable. Difficult, but it can be done...but in sufficient numbers? Generally, 8 to 10% of the warring population must be killed before the other side throws in the towel and surrenders, (see the US Civil War, WWI & II and other conflicts).

So this becomes a problem of numbers. At least a billion Muslims ='s 100 million dead. This is difficult by conventional means, but again with sufficient will, doable. However, let's through out the Asian Muslims, (though I acknowledge that the Muslims in Souther Thailand are becoming a real concern), and maybe we are down to 300 million Muslims across the Middle East.

Okay, that is clearly more manageable. We are talking 30 million deaths...not an easy task, but doable in a Total War. Here Nazi Germany may form a good example...it was not necessary or even desirable to kill all Germans, and we didn't. A contrary example would be Chechnya...God knows the Russians have been going at it a while without much success. In light of the Russian experience it may be necessary to well up the 10% number.

Given the above, I am not comfortable with killing even the minimum 30 million living and breathing human beings, though I recognize that it may be necessary.

Therefore, using the Muslim example of the World Trade Center as a Symbol, maybe it is time to start swapping Symbols. First the Ka’ba in Mecca, this need not entail the loss of much life at all but should get the Muslim’s attention. Second, the Mosque in Medina and lastly, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

If this doesn’t instill a certain reflective introspection with Dar a Islam, then let the killing begin.

(Oh, and Aris, you are not a Cunt...lol)

Best Wishes,

Posted by Traveller 2004-06-26 4:11:02 PM||   2004-06-26 4:11:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 So Aris, wheres that secular Islamic government example we gotta look at? I'll just point out here that the Quran doesnt allow for secular governments and Islam to exist side by side. The ONLY way to ENFORCE SECULARISM is to kill enough people to make THEM realize that they will never ever gain control over the world or many other countries. Destroy their delusions of grandeur and rewrite their religion. THATS the only way you can enforce secularism on a religion. You discarded the idea nuking a billion people. Fine, but note that if even 1% of that population remains comitted to the goal of wiping out western civilization and establishing a sharia/islamic type rule over the entire world thats 10 million people who you cannot reason with and eventually either have to be killed or have their delusions removed. So how do you provide to remove their delusions? Provide group therapy? Appeasement? Well that never works in the end. Appeasement is little better than giving in to extortionists. The more you give the more the extorters want to take. You ask why should 1 billion people think about changing their religion. I say to you why should the rest of the damn world think about changing THEIR beliefs to appease the 1 billion?

Oh and one last thing Aris, you're right about us Americans being stark raving mad in one sense. We'd rather destroy the world than be enslaved by anyone or any religion. So yes death is better slavery. Go ahead and call us insane anyway we don't much care, for the rest of the world, those who know just how much liberty is worth are those who have tasted the tyranny of societies and relgions and found it little better than slavery. So go ahead and call us Americans idiots and crazy. Our crazy idea has been around for almost 230 years and its still going strong.
Posted by Valentine 2004-06-26 9:54:16 PM||   2004-06-26 9:54:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 So go ahead and call us Americans idiots and crazy.

Personally I've always found it rather entertaining that persons from insular inbred societies persist in calling Americans crazy. We are the rest of the world because we're almost completely a nation of immigrants.

Yep, America's a horrible place, that's why the world continues to clamor to find a way in.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 10:06:54 PM||   2004-06-26 10:06:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 The big populations killers are starvation, exposure (thirst in a dessert env) and disease. The Arabs are extremely vulnerable on all three accounts.
Posted by ed 2004-06-26 10:17:33 PM||   2004-06-26 10:17:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 Good observations, #81, but...you need to expand on on your comments... ie. how can the West take advantage of these 3 vulnerabilities? Are you suggesting we hold back foreign aid when these eventualities occur or what???
Posted by rex 2004-06-26 10:22:03 PM||   2004-06-26 10:22:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 crazy - I'll answer to, unless under subpoena;
Idiot? - heh heh don't think so....
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-26 10:23:17 PM||   2004-06-26 10:23:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Valentine> So Aris, wheres that secular Islamic government example we gotta look at?

Never heard of Turkey? Or of Albania for that matter?

And as a sidenote, better to use the word Muslim when we mean Muslim because "Islamic" is too often confused with the word and meaning of "Islamist" or even "Islamofascist".

I'll just point out here that the Quran doesnt allow for secular governments and Islam to exist side by side.

And the Hebrew Scriptures don't tolerate adulterers (or witches) to live, but nonetheless I'm pretty sure that in modern-day Israel, adulterers aren't stoned to death. Not by the Israelis anyway.

So how do you provide to remove their delusions?

I've detailed my own preferred War on Terror strategy way too often to bother to repeat again in full. But the main point is that it would see Syria and Iran as the main foes to be dealt with rather than Saddam Hussein, and it'd use the defeat of Syria as a lever of solving once and for all the Palestinian homeland issue. From there it'd proceed depending on how it went that far.

As for the rest of your post, it's sheer babble, accusing me of saying things I never said.

"you're right about us Americans being stark raving mad"

I never said that. I think I only accused the Bush administration of utter insanity.

"I say to you why should the rest of the damn world think about changing THEIR beliefs to appease the 1 billion? "

I never said that either.

But by all means, go on assuming stuff about my claims.

Yep, America's a horrible place, that's why the world continues to clamor to find a way in.

Europe probably has even more immigrants, but people in this forum never see that a sign of Europe being not so horrible a place.

And as a sidenote, I never said, nor do I believe, that America was horrible, either. That's yet again one of your erroneous assumptions made while trying to pigeonhole me into the anti-American category.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 10:33:26 PM||   2004-06-26 10:33:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 And as a sidenote, better to use the word Muslim when we mean Muslim because "Islamic" is too often confused with the word and meaning of "Islamist" or even "Islamofascist".

LOL - as if there were a difference.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-26 10:55:34 PM||   2004-06-26 10:55:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#86  Ofcourse YOU wouldn't care, since ofcourse YOU don't think there's any chance whatsoever we might lose the war. Those of us lacking your religious conviction in our invincibility are very much interested in whether we'll be in war with a few tens thousands or with a billion. We very much care about how many are our enemies, and how many are our allies.

It has nothing to do with losing the war, Aris. It has everything to do with Muslims crying like spoiled little children over the teensiest little slight, as if they are entitled to the kid glove treatment, while "infidels" of every other religious stripe suffer similar indignities without managing to soil their underwear to a similar excessive degree.

It doesn't turn them into victims that your sarcastic "boo-hoo-hoo" should apply, it turns them into *enemies*.

Over stupid little things that members of other religions often times shrug off? Please. If these types can't get over themselves, well, that's too damn bad. Their radicalized compatriots are engaging in barbarism, and few of these supposed "moderates" are speaking up loudly and vigorously against it. That silence, Aris, is what is causing this backlash, however undeserved you might think it is.

In which case weep, quite non-sarcastically, for us.

Actually, I'm weeping for you, because instead of seeing Muslim hypersensitivity for the pile of crap that it is and admonishing such childish behavior, all you're worried about is possibly creating more enemies.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-26 11:25:07 PM||   2004-06-26 11:25:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 If this conflict does go to total war with the remaining terrorist states, we can inflict far too much damage on them without nukes for them to have a chance at winning. If it's total war, that means we'll start hitting their complete infrastucture. Bridges, dams, factories, powr plants, ports, trains, airports, etc. If we want to get truly mean, we can blockade their ports, sinking any shipping attempting to reach them as well as destroying any convoys trying to come in. Once that's done, they'll be hard pressed to carry their war to us, given they have to reach our shores by ship or plane while their nations begin to starve and sit in the dark. They simply don't have the logistics to carry out more than irritant attacks on us if we smash their infrastructure to rubble.
Posted by Silentbrick  2004-06-26 11:42:22 PM||   2004-06-26 11:42:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 AzCat> The only reason you don't see the difference, is because you are deaf, dumb and blind. And willfully so.

Bomb-a-rama> It is childish. Religious fanaticism is always childish. Nazism was also childish.

"Admonish it" as childish all you want, if you think "admonishing it" will make a difference. But if we don't at the same time worry about whether we are making enemies or friends, then we're done for.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-26 11:46:14 PM||   2004-06-26 11:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 And I've said it before Aris, how do you plan on getting to Syria and Iran? You cant land forces in Syria without going through either Turkey or Iraq. Especially with a Turkey that has proven itself to be inimical to the US? Turkey won't let itself be embroiled in a war with Syria without serious civilian consequences. If you thought Iraq riled the population hitting Syria THROUGH Turkey and exposing it to further attacks from terrorists or even outright military forces would send them pushing to kick us out ASAP. As for a secular government, that isn't exactly true, the current government of Turkey has been Islamic (been that way for quite a while). Its the MILITARY thats secular and they are the ones that safeguard the country from an ISLAMIC government taking over and instituing radical laws like those we see in Sharia (hint hint here Aris). And again if Turkey is the best example we can hope for from Islam that is indeed a sad goal to achieve and quite possibly inherently bigoted as you assume these people can't possibly achieve much more.

I do love how you change the topic though of my questions And the Hebrew Scriptures don't tolerate adulterers (or witches) to live, but nonetheless I'm pretty sure that in modern-day Israel, adulterers aren't stoned to death. Not by the Israelis anyway. No points given for not answering the question Aris, namely where is that valid example of secular government. I still raise the question of how you want to enforce secularism in a religion as fanatic as islam seems to be. You say hitting Syria and Iran will solve it, yet we got Saudi Arabia funding a lot of these current interpretations, Iran and Syria being a safe haven for the terrorists to carry out training, Indonesia and Malaysia preaching from their very governments that Christians and any other minorities be sidelined. You have islamic terror in virtually every country from Africa to Thailand to the US and Canada and even South America to an extent now. EXACTLY HOW IS THIS A NOT A PROBLEM WHEN THE REST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE RELIGION SHOW APATHY TO THESE EXTREMISTS?!?!

You've pointed out to us how we shouldn't be making members of islam hate us, so I've pointed out why they do hate us, namely that they expect Islam to take over the world and have a world under an Islamic government. You believed that in order to get the world to like us we should be paying more attention to appeasing their wants or needs. Well thats one of their needs, that we turn ourselves over to their rule and their advice. And I asked you a simple question on that too which you in turn just merely stated that you never said it, I really dont care whether or not you said it, I just wanted an answer to the question "Why should the rest of the world change their beliefs to appease 1 billiom members of Islam?" A simple question that you can answer by saying "They shouldn't" or "They should because...(whatever)". Aris simply put the logic that you put forward in this thread today is quite flawed. You worry about making enemies of a people that are neutral towards fascism and fanaticism, yet you don't seem to worry about stamping it out.


One last thing. When you accuse the Bush Administration of insanity you also accuse US americans of it too. You see Aris we don't just simply vote to get a new president in office, but if he ever thought he was overstepping his bounds he'd be impeached and kicked out so fast your head would spin. It's the american's people's choice to keep Bush and his admin in office just as it will be to decide whether or not to keep him in Novemeber.
Posted by Valentine 2004-06-27 12:29:25 AM||   2004-06-27 12:29:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#90 The only reason you don't see the difference, is because you are deaf, dumb and blind. And willfully so.

I neither see nor hear differences that do not exist Aris. Your artificial distinctions are nothing more than a matter of degree and the objects of them would tell you that there is only one Islam.
Posted by AzCat 2004-06-27 12:36:12 AM||   2004-06-27 12:36:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#91 But if we don't at the same time worry about whether we are making enemies or friends, then we're done for.

What's this "we" stuff? YOU might worry about it, but I don't. We are going to protect our friends and kill our enemies, simple as that. If more people want to be enemies of the U.S., then it's not our problem when more of them get mowed down.

All these backlash incidents aside, "moderate" Muslims are going to have to make a choice; they need to wash their hands completely of Islamofascist clerics and their toxic notions (and lose the Jew-hating crap), or they are going to end up being tarred with the Islamofascist label for better or worse (VERY likely worse). There's no middle ground here where they can say, "we reject the words of so-and-so, but..." There's no "but" here.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-27 5:32:25 AM||   2004-06-27 5:32:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#92 AzCat> If you don't see a difference between this and that, then you have some *really* big issues.

Bomb-a-rama> We are going to protect our friends and kill our enemies, simple as that.

Yeah, simple like that you think you've got your victory in your pocket, that's why you don't give a damn about how many enemies will be facing you. Exactly what I said.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-27 8:22:03 AM||   2004-06-27 8:22:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#93 Last link I posted should have been this instead: http://www.cemener.net/guzeller/demet/demet32.jpg

Anyone blames me when Azcat sees no difference between the above and the mullahs?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-27 8:25:29 AM||   2004-06-27 8:25:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#94 Good Lord, Katsaris--Mookie vs. porn?
You are the Mohammed Atta of RB, completely hijacking the thread and slitting the throats of everyone on board.
Only in this case we pray for death because you're so tiresome!
If young Middle Easterners are smart, they'll choose the porn everytime!
President Bush said on Sept. 22, 2001, "You are either with us or with the terrorists."
This thread was about the fact that the beheading of Paul Johnson galvanized a lot of people to realize that they are now very much against the terrorists.
It's almost Year 3 of the war and you're still practicing sophistry (from the Greek) about who, how and why America and her allies fight...
if you don't "get it" by now, well--doesn't that say which side you're on?
As for Syria and Iran, I very much believe that Bush will take care of them in his second term and in fact, we're already engaged with both in a big way.
And he's meeting with Turkey's Erdogan right now about problems in the region.
The time for sophistry and argument over why is long past.
Time to choose.
Posted by Jen  2004-06-27 10:04:16 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-27 10:04:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#95 Crikey this is getting as long as an LGF thread.

Phil B: I NEVER contended that either appeasement is the answer (ín fact I've maintained EXACTLY the opposite since 9/11 to be precise) or that the fight against islamofascism was a problem of individuals. I've consistantly maintained it is a cultural war against a religious movement - islamofascism! Also, do not assume I am a HE when in fact I am a SHE.

Ricky Bin Ricardo: Who are the moderate muslims? Well for a start the ones that co-operated with Australian Federal Police in finding the Bali Bombers.

Long Hair Republican: you are just an idiotarian. Please don't align yourselves with republicans you'll just lose them votes.

AzCat: The difference between Islamofascists and moderate muslims is that Islamofascists take the Koran to be a political and military doctrine of expansion, and a legal code (sharia) to be dutifully followed to the letter. Moderate muslims are happy to pray at a mosque, refrain from eating pork, perform fasting ceremonies but live in a western, modern democracy and tolerate other cultures and religions without forcing them to convert or die.

That is a pretty huge fucking difference.

If you can't see the difference I feel sorry for your parents since you are dead from the neck up.

Have you never met a muslim who doesn't wear the hijab? I have! Nice lady, too. I still keep in email contact with her.

Bye the way you CAN enforce secular law on muslim countries. uhhhh Egypt? Turkey anyone? And the modern rise of Islamofascism has swept away previously secular rules in Iran and Afghanistan (which in the 80's had female lawyers and doctors and a westernised society).

Bomb-a-rama: yeah it matters that they don't get radicalised. I far prefer a moderate indonesia to my north than one in which churches are getting razed, christians attacked and killed or Islamic hordes heading over my northern border to bring the Dar-ul-Islam to Sydney.

I am quite happy they co-operated in the Bali investigations. Don't want them radicalised into not helping anymore.


The WAY you drive a wedge between them is by exactly what we are doing now. Fighting the Islamofascists but be seen to be nice to moderate muslims. Publicly show solidarity with muslim figures, countenance the ROP game even if it isn't 100% true.

Bush tours Turkey, says thanks for being an ally, shakes hands. Looks good. Moderates follow.

Islamofascists take Moderate Turks in Iraq, behead them. We make a fucking 5 course dinner out of the propaganda opportunity that presents and drip feed it from the horn of Africa to Iceland and make sure every bit of the muslim Ummah knows that we LIKE moderates but we KILL Islamofascists.

Bomb-a-rama, was it you who asked why should we tiptoe around the muslims in america? I agree. I pay that point. We shouldn't. It is THEY who are in a foriegn country and THEY should like it or go back to where they came from.

I make the point though, and stick to it, that we STILL have to fight smart and keep as many neutrals on our side as we can by NOT being overly racist and lumping all muslims in the same boat like a bunch of redneck dumb dumbs which lets face it , some of us are. See AzCat above.

Mike Koslowski That is extremely interesting. YES yes yes, I agree that it may turn nuke and we won't be the first to use it.

If the Islamofascists get a nuke there is zero deterrence factor. They don't care if they die or lose a million of their own if they can get a million of ours and (in their minds) win for Allah.

scary stuff indeed.

But you are demonstrably wrong that 1/3 of the worlds population are renegade. It is a big number but not that big. 1 billion muslims. 1% Islamofascist jihadis, 10% strong sympathisers. Comes to some hundreds of thousands of active fighters, few millions of strong sympathisers and vast bulk of passive sympathisers who can be swayed to neutrality/moderation.

Traveller: I LIKE your suggestion of swapping symbols. That is a new alternative that hasn't been tried.

Next big bombing of westerners, drop a huge big conventional bomb on the holy site at Medina. Inform them the next Islamic terrorist act to strike on Western soil will ensure the bombing of Mecca.

I think that should ceasate hostilities nicely.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-27 10:15:32 AM||   2004-06-27 10:15:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#96 Jen> Didn't mean it to be porn. It seems that though placing "http://www.cemener.net/guzeller/demet/demet32.jpg" in the address bar takes you to the kind of Muslim I was talking about:



the site redirects you elsewhere when you attempt to put it in a link instead.

And as for your accusations of me hijacking the thread and claims that it was about Paul Johnson -- the last time his name was mentioned was in post #11 -- I first participated in post #22 when the thread had ALREADY turned to matters of forced conversion and genocide.

Since you like swearing at people so much: Do you know how to count, you STUPID LITTLE BITCH? Do you know how to read, you IMBECILIC LITTLE SHIT?

if you don't "get it" by now, well--doesn't that say which side you're on?

Once again, I rest my case, about the way that Bush's moronic words are understood EVEN inside AMerica.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-27 10:36:16 AM||   2004-06-27 10:36:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#97 Wrong again, you stupid ****.
Johnson was mentioned as lately as post #73 until I brought it up again.

Not only are you a vagina, but you are evil.
And evil people LIE as you do often.
Posted by Jen  2004-06-27 10:45:54 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-27 10:45:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#98 When you already chose the path of crude swearing now you are being a fucking wimp and use fucking asterisks instead of real words. If you are not prepared for me to match you word for word, insult for insult, don't go down that path, you dick.

Johnson was mentioned as lately as post #73

Yeah, you moron, my point was that he hadn't been mentioned for many posts *before* I made my own contributions to this thread. I didn't take the thread anywhere where it hadn't already been before me -- aka religious conversions, mass murder, forbidding Islam and the like.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-27 10:52:38 AM||   2004-06-27 10:52:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#99 Again you lie--you hijacked it to discuss the wrongness of "American theocratic fascism."
Posted by Jen  2004-06-27 10:58:46 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-27 10:58:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#100 you hijacked it to discuss the wrongness of "American theocratic fascism."

While several other people were discussing its rightness. That's not diverting the thread, you moron, that's *participating* in it.

If you want to see people that tried to divert the thread, then look at Robert Crawford's and Frank G.'s posts about "cunt".
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-27 11:39:10 AM||   2004-06-27 11:39:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#101 Hey! I'm just Vagina-Friendly™ :-)
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-27 11:51:47 AM||   2004-06-27 11:51:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#102 #78 Therefore, using the Muslim example of the World Trade Center as a Symbol, maybe it is time to start swapping Symbols. First the Ka’ba in Mecca, this need not entail the loss of much life at all but should get the Muslim’s attention. Second, the Mosque in Medina and lastly, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

If this doesn’t instill a certain reflective introspection with Dar a Islam, then let the killing begin.

#95 Next big bombing of westerners, drop a huge big conventional bomb on the holy site at Medina. Inform them the next Islamic terrorist act to strike on Western soil will ensure the bombing of Mecca.

I think that should ceasate hostilities nicely.

Since this thread has not quite died yet ...

Traveller and Anon1, permit me to direct your attention towards my own posting from May 4th of this year, Simulation Gives Glimpse of Nuke Terror. In my post I carefully spell out an approach to establishing a credible deterrent to terrorism.

Some people participating in this thread have not uttered a peep to either of you about how ill considered they think your ideas are in spite of cheerfully attacking my presentation of the exact same notions.

I too think the Islamic shrines should be held hostage in a relatively peaceful attempt to show jihadists the error of their ways.
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-27 10:02:27 PM||   2004-06-27 10:02:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 Yeah, simple like that you think you've got your victory in your pocket, that's why you don't give a damn about how many enemies will be facing you. Exactly what I said.

It's almost hilarious that you get your underwear all up in a knot over supposed "moderates" being turned into extremists over silly little things. As I already said, anyone that would become "radicalized" over trivial stuff probably isn't even worth bothering with. These people are BEYOND any reason.

So what if I don't care about how many enemies I'm going to have? Since I have the heftiest stick and can inflict quite a substantial amount of damage on my foes, the issue with those that are going to be my friends is quality, not quantity. I'd rather have five quality allies either at my side or behind me than ten that only have outward appearances of being allies/friends.

Put another way, the regular posters to Rantburg from the UK fall into former category, while you fall into the latter.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-28 2:36:27 PM||   2004-06-28 2:36:27 PM|| Front Page Top

17:53 Frank G
17:47 Mrs. Davis
17:32 lex
17:25 Mrs. Davis
17:23 Anonymous6473
14:36 Bomb-a-rama
22:02 Zenster
14:16 .com
13:59 Aris Katsaris
11:51 Frank G
11:39 Aris Katsaris
11:12 Anon1
10:58 Jen
10:52 Aris Katsaris
10:45 Jen
10:36 Aris Katsaris
10:15 Anon1
10:08 Larry Everett
10:05 Shipman
10:04 Jen
08:25 Aris Katsaris
08:22 Aris Katsaris
05:32 Bomb-a-rama
04:06 Anon1









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com