Once one gets beyond the polemics and clichés, there is a huge amount that could be learned from an honest discussion about the mass murders in Norway. Let’s look at some of them.
An editorial in the New York Daily News contains both valid points and dangerous silliness. It begins:
In his ravings, Anders Behring Breivik, confessed to having murdered 76 people, repeats a familiar refrain: He killed to save his country, his continent and Western civilization itself from an attempted takeover by Islam.
Advertisement
The trouble with a 1500-page manifesto is that one can find almost anything in it. For example, people, groups, and sites who have been cited once or twice in that manifesto are now being called complicit with the murders. In the case of one group in that position, Breivik actually attacked them for being non-violent! Another author in the United Kingdom had two articles footnoted by the killer that didn’t even deal with Islam. Now people are being incited to go after her in revenge.
Of course, Breivik did see Islam as a threat, but he didn’t attack mosques, he attacked two government targets: a camp of the ruling party and a government building. Thus, the main target was not an “Islamic takeover” but his view that the country was being destroyed by left-wing policies, of which unlimited immigration is one. I have no agenda in making that point, but it is surprising that this hasn’t been a bigger focus of the discussion. Breivik was not a single-issue guy.
A second question is whether his violent action “proves” that there is no such problem regarding Islam. Radical Islamist violence is not mindless. It is a response to a problem. Many view this problem as the oppression of Muslims. My opinion is that it is a strategy for revolutionary takeover, a radical Islamist government, and the fundamental transformation of society. Of course, this is far more likely in Muslim-majority societies.
The Daily News continues:
Breivik’s belief is the photo negative of al-Qaeda’s contention that the United States and its allies are hell-bent on destroying Islam.
That’s a clever point and has some merit. But after studying Islamism for 30 years, I’d say that equally or more important — and certainly the one used more in inner and sophisticated Islamist circles — is the idea that the real crime of the West is “preventing” Islamist revolutions by supporting existing regimes. On this one, they are right generally. The first argument is propaganda; the second is programmatic.
To argue that Western governments want the Islamists to win and take over their societies is paranoid. To argue, though, that Western governments follow bad policies that make it look that way has a lot of merit. Left-wing movements — as in Norway — hope that the Islamists will benefit them. They are wrong. An analogy here is the Communist Party in Germany (at Stalin’s orders, of course) arguing that the growth of the Nazis would benefit them at a certain point. They were dead — literally — wrong. That doesn’t mean the Communists were pro-Nazi, it meant that they were disastrously stupid.
But the next contention of the editorial is more questionable:
The belief, that Islam at large conspires to triumph over all Judeo-Christian society, is a delusion.
Of course, the trick here is to say “Islam at large,” that is all the Muslims, everywhere and all the time. So yes the extremists on the Breivik channel do help the people who say that the threat is a “delusion.” But if radical Islamism gains hegemony and then largely controls the dominant devision of contemporary “Islam,” then it will be no illusion at all.
Okay, I’ll bite. First, to amplify what journalists can do to spin a story, the following article was posted by a person who received a bit of attention a while back in the Journolistgate. My intention is not to pick a fight or accuse Mr. Ackerman of using the very same tactics below that he suggested in emails to his associates should be used against the GOP. I just want to analyze the editorial effect of his artistry. I did ask him why on his next article’s comment thread that there wasn’t a comment section for the “thousands-accused” to take issue with his journalist manipulation. He didn’t post that comment and so far refused to open “thousands-accused” to comments. See for yourself: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/thousands-accused/
It sums up the spin you are taking about, which in my example, seeks to discredit the information presented on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups associated with Hamas, the PLO and Hizb’Allah, in a backhanded way. He could have even added “witch-hunt”.
We see that the intention appears to downplay serious security concerns and instead question the messenger using the back drop of Norway. I would suggest McCarthyism in reverse.
As for your smart inspection above, I would add that the religious texts of all three major Monotheistic religions has Divine statements that run counter to modern norms. I believe ‘Slaughter every man, woman and child is in Deuteronomy 20. The literal interpretation of the New Testament includes rejecting evolution, gay marriage, many women rights and believing that the entire universe and all its as yet undiscovered life will be destroyed and owes its existence simply as a means for human immaterial souls to enter Heaven and live out eternity. And I suppose any house pet is excluded.
While I won’t deny there are a series of statements in the Koran that perhaps exceeds these examples above, it is how one interprets their religious texts that counts. In Iran Ahmadinejad tries to usurp power from Khamenei by telling the people they can have a relation with Allah beyond the third party Mullahs. With the brief exception of perhaps Turkey some years back, parts of Jordan, Tunisia and pre-Mullah Iran, an absence of a reformation movement characterizes Islam. Most clerics believe in the literal and unerring interpretation of the Koran and are quite willing to kill each other over it. Muslim regimes support this religious fundamentalism and add to the dysfunctional mental conditioning with hysteria of their own, usually directed at their neighbors, infidels and Israel.
I know “normal” Palestinians in NYC as well as Egyptians, Lebanese, Saudis, Pakistanis, etc well beyond this mindset. Of course they are here enjoying liberality and have no desire to return. In many ways they are relatively nonreligious and bond more with their national identity. “Religion has destroyed the ME” is their general point. They don’t necessarily identify most with being an American (in the case they are more than permanent residents or Visa holders). Few fit the character of Larry David’s latest creation.
Despite my experience, I understand that the majority of those I meet in NYC are not necessary typical of Muslims, but I think it correct that the majority in the US do not mean harm to America or even our freedoms. They often give donations with little knowledge of the final point of deposit. Others know full well the attitudes of more radical clerics and speakers. But many more are as patriotic and law abiding as non Muslim Americans. Still, one would be foolish to consider only a small number of Muslim “activists” and “agents” are residents with more illiberal intentions.
Liberals try to spin this concern as racist as they tried to call those questioning Obama’s associations in Chicago. Gees, even the Clintons were racist as some point. At colleges Muslim vitriol and activism fits well into the general liberal meme. Mixing America and Islamist aspiration creates new meanings for the word freedom and liberty. Many would like to be free to be slaves and have the liberty to surrender liberty. Obviously, the Left is where they can find common dislike with all that is wrong with America, no matter Sharia and Socialist Utopias and mutually exclusive end points.
I think your analysis of the paper I rarely read – and there are others…. is spot on. The Left is drawn to Islamists because they are the thorn in the West’s side besides China. It doesn’t matter where this will lead for them as long as Liberal Democracy is slapped down and Western Domination ends. The Islamists love the media exposure and support from the Liberals. When they get close up to each other as they do in Tahrir Square, Liberals have second thoughts. When Liberals see the blood in Syria or watch women beaten in Iran, they step away. They finally have a terror attack to celebrate as their cause is more important than casualty numbers.
So in short, I think it is fair to say that while many millions in Muslim countries have no desire to become religious fanatics or go to war, there is no reformation that allows most Muslim government and economies to grow apart from their religious clerics and imams. This is more the fundamental problem along with cultural conditioning that turns ancient religious texts into violence. You are not free to not believe. Those Muslims that actual support all of the Bill of Rights would not spout such convictions on many streets in the ME. I see no movies or internet blogs where Americans Muslims passionately denounce and reject what blows our way. In Europe where their numbers are much larger, they are less afraid to publicly call their followers to overthrown their host governments.
This cycle will continue as we refuse to evolve past kin cooperation. Right now we don’t even seem able to reason or govern our own destiny…..
I’m sorry that was so long. I didn’t realize it until I hit send. That should shut me up for a while. Again, sorry Barry…
I don’t think there’s a problem with long comments if they have real and relevant content. Of course, many people might avoid reading them, but that should be your only concern. Certainly nothing to apologize for. Some of the people do read the long comments if they interest them and it may make for a more serious and valuable discussion, which can be as important and informative as the blog post itself. Often blogs with longer comments (which means many of the visitors exhibit longer attention span and are willing to take the trouble to both write and read long comments) offer more quality and indepth discussion, so I don’t think it should be discouraged.
Step back a mere three decades, and it would have seemed obvious that anyone would have appeared insane suggesting that thirty years hence, 25,000,000 Muslims would reside in Europe, dominating many city centers. Now entire swaths of some Eropean cities are dominated by Muslims and Islam, and those areas are no-go zones for “infidels”, Jews, unattended women, and native Euros.
So when Mr. rubin suggests that Muslims “dream of total conquest. Of course, that is more speculative, less likely, and far longer-term” — is that last part really true? The Norway killer was a maniac, and his act was an atrocity… but it is not insane to suggest that Muslims, who illustrate little to no Intention of integrating into Europe, regularly express their intentions to conquer it clear. In fact, well within the span of a single human life they are WELL on their way to their goal… I believe that Islam is at war with us – wemjust refuse to notivpce because the implications are far more horrific than anything this killer did last week… We are witlessly presiding over our own slow-motion suicide to our inimical enemy, and those who point this out are ostracized viciously.
‘Those who see “Muslim domination” and “creeping Sharia law” around every corner are imagining things. Their fictions only feed extremism.’
Uh huh. The author of that tripe wins the Strawman killer of the week award.
What I see isn’t “Muslim domination”. What I see is thousands and thousands of Americans (not to mention other folks) murdered in cold blood by Muslim fanatics in terror attack after terror attack. That’s not a “fiction”. That’s a reality.
Thanks for not beginning and ending with the obligatory disclaimer that you don’t endorse what Breivik did.
There are some real questions that people are afraid to ask and answer for fear of being castigated as evil and vile. Questions such as: Should Islamification be stopped? Is the use of violence a justifiable method of stopping Islamification? If entrenched dhimmi governments support Islamification, is violence against them justifiable? Is the use of violence the only way to stop Islamification?
Cute to notice how his name has anagrams of evil and vile in it.
The rest of his name has brek which could yield a sound like what you do when your are nauseated. Or kerb, which reminds me that I wished he kerbed his enthusiasm.
Sorry, used the e twice so I should have just said also has these words in it. But anyway, I should haves stopped after the first sentence.
There is a kind of craziness which manifests itself in sticking to an internally consistent logical path with no internal voice that says ‘wait a minute, this holy warrior things is all very well but slaughtering 80 kids seems a bit over the top’.
I’m going to admit, I didn’t even read this article. I’m just saying something from my gut instinct and I have to write it NOW before I lose it:
This dude DID NOT KILL MUSLIMS.
Now, why did he KILL people of his own race and origin if he was so against ‘Muslims’?
HOW does that MAKE SENSE?
Does he think by killing people supporting “muslims” a preemptive strike that is more powerful than just killing “Muslims”?
No. This guy killed like a Muslim Martyr for ALLAH. He set out to make himself look as “right wing” as possible and then he killed his own kind.
People are so gullible.
Wisen up and think outside the box.
…An analogy here is the Communist Party in Germany (at Stalin’s orders, of course) arguing that the growth of the Nazis would benefit them at a certain point. They were dead — literally — wrong. That doesn’t mean the Communists were pro-Nazi, it meant that they were disastrously stupid …
Are you sure they were wrong? The rise of the Nazis led to WWII which led to communist East Germany — indeed to all of Eastern Europe going communist. Supporting the Nazis worked exactly as planned…
????? Martyr for allah?
No – he killed the children of the elite in his country that isolated themselves from the policies which brought the muzz into his country against the will of the natives and then savagely silenced them as they were victiminzed by both the muzz and the elite.
It’s shocking to hear something like this is associated with any claims of Muslim affairs. There’s nothing worse than doing this, it seems.
–Ri of changerules(dot)net
I guess on an academic level it is true that there is much to learn from this incident. But I have to say that as an American I think we here in the US have been fretting and worrying too much over it. This isn’t international terrorism, and the particular circumstances behind this domestic terrorism do not exist here at a level where they should be considered significant cultural factors. We don’t have high levels of Muslim immigration, we don’t have a marxist government – or even a leftists one – and we don’t have a big problem with white supremacists, or any other type of ethnic nationalists. It seems as bizarre to me for the US media and the political classes to be so wrapped up in this as it would if Europeans were fretting over Mexican immigration to the United States.
I suppose there is some value taking it up as an academic exercise, but I have to say I’ve been very offended by the attempts of some in Norway to attribute this attack to American “extremists” and I do not think we should be at all willing to take ownership of this, or to even appear to be considering that proposition seriously. Just because some nutjob in Norway refers to some American he saw on TV or whatever doesn’t mean we share responsibility. People all over the world follow American politics. Closely. We can’t and shouldn’t take the blame whenever an extremist cites an American as a role model. I’ve seen with my own eyes jihadis quote Thomas Jefferson, for instance. It’s just stupid and crazy to think argue it might be something to do with us when somebody halfway around the world has a melt-down.
I’d add that while the Muslims in the West currently make a minority smaller than 10%, the combination of the current mass immigration magnitude and higher birth rate will make them a majority before the end of this century. This is bound to profoundly change the culture of the West on every level, from political structure to social norms. The trend among the Muslim minorities in Europe is not assimilation, or the dominance of the modertes, liberals and reformists, or a “European” version of Islam, but the takeover of radicals over the Muslim communities and the replication of conditions and norms prevalent in the Muslim world. It doesn’t matter at all if they mean to take over the West or not. When they’ll become a majority Europe will inevitably change to reflect Muslim values and norms because that’s what naturally happens when people of a certain culture become the majority – their culture inevitably becomes the dominant culture. So fearing a Muslim “takeover” isn’t delusional. If the current policies don’t change it’s extremely likely to happen even if not a single Muslim intends for it to happen.
Of course it’s mainly the left that makes it happen. And I don’t mean just the political parties, but the entire dogma preached in the leftist-dominated media and education system. Which is my response to the commenter wondering how come ABB targeted non-Muslims from the ruling party rather than Muslims he’s supposed to hate.
My response to the reader who asked if violence is the only way to stop “Islamification” and if it’s justifiable is: Of course not! I believe violence can be legitimate when it’s truly the only way. For instance, I believe it’s legitimate to assassinate a cruel dictator if there’s no other way to end his reign. It would have been legitimate to kill Hitler. But that’s far from being the situation in Europe. Europe is still democratic (albeit not as much as it used to be), and the problem isn’t the existence of this or that party or politician, but the fact that a majority of the people vote for these parties. So if you follow ABB’s “logic” of gunning down the opposition you would have to commit genocide against your own people or else a majority will continue to vote for these parties. He said he wanted to start a civil war. That isn’t a much better idea. The nature of the struggle in a democratic society is what the Marxist Antonio Gramnsci called a “War of Position” rather than a “War of Maneuver” (armed insurrection). It’s the struggle over information and ideas.
The “War of Position” proposed by Gramsci means infiltrating and becoming the dominant voice in the education system, media, popular culture, social clubs, political parties and other organs of civil society, and use it to subvert the existing paradigm, spread their ideas and gradually transform the culture. This strategy proved itself to be remarkably successful, as opposed to the strategy of violence and murdering innocents adopted by the likes of the Weather Underground and Baader-Meinhof that could never gain the support of the masses. I think the “War of Position” is the strategy we should adopt, though we need to go faster than the Marxists did because it’s already very late in the game. But basically this is a cultural struggle. Terror and murder are immoral. They’re also ineffective.
“But basically this is a cultural struggle. Terror and murder are immoral. They’re also ineffective.”
Except in the case of Islam. Terror and murder are moral to the Jihadist, and it is effective. Otherwise Islam would be like the Seventh Day Adventists or the Mormons, respectable in number, but not a billion strong.
And “terror and murder” are quite common tactics in the waging of war, and if the war is deemed a ‘moral’ war, then those tactics will be considered to be justified.
I meant the moral values prevalent in Western culture, of course. I don’t judge my actions according to Islamic morality. And no, attacking a civilian camp that you know isn’t used to fire at you or hide terrorists or anything of that sort, and killing 70 unarmed youths who are not combatants or terrorists will not be considered moral (according to common Western values) even in a war that’s considered just.
As for effectiveness, terror is often effective when you want to extract this or that concession by force. It’s much less effective in changing the minds of your own people and getting them to support your agenda. Not if you intend for your country to remain a democracy. If you want to install a fascist regime that will force its rule and policies on the population, then all sorts of violent methods will be effective in achieving that, but I assume this isn’t the goal.
I don’t know how ineffective they are. The Taliban are terrorizing their way back into power. Hizb’Allah is attempting to terrorize the useless UN out of Lebanon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14306339 Assad is deploying terror against opposition and likely Turkish soldiers (using al-Islam).
Pakistan is sinking under terrorism and government complicity. Even AQ got Madrid to switch positions. Gazans use terror and some in the West applaud.
If you mean in the West, look at the political divisions terror has caused.
“Just because some nutjob in Norway refers to some American he saw on TV or whatever doesn’t mean we share responsibility.”
Yep and I dislike the attempt to label Norway’s terrorist a “Christian”. When many label terrorism, “Muslim” in nature we can go to MEMRI and see the hundreds of clerics and Muslim leaders make clear and repeated use of religious opinions to justify violence. I would love ANYONE to show the same regarding either Judaism or Christianity in the last few decades. Although Islamists have a ways to go to organize on a global level, it is apparent that religious leaders, even those not calling for violence, do little to refute the assertions of their more fundamentalist and radical members.
hxxp://www.memritv.org/
Islam cannot be reformed. It is impossible. It is designed specifically so it cannot be reformed. It is the perfect, non-negotiable word of Allah and Mohammed for eternity and for everyone. It exists solely to destroy non-Islamic civilization. Oh, sure – a muslim can be reformed – by becoming an apostate – but then they wouldn’t be a muslim anymore. So-called ‘moderate’ muslims are marginal and peripheral to Islam. So-called ‘extremists’ are not extremists at all – they are perfectly normal muslims, practicing Islam the way it was intended, following Mohammed’s example. Only Islam itself can define what a good muslim is, and that is one who follows the Koran and Sunnah. That’s all there is to it. That’s exactly what so-called extremists do. They are good muslims by the doctrine’s own definition. Anyone who doesn’t is not.
Let’s get it clear – which bits of Islam do people want to reform? The religious bits? No. Couldn’t care less about the religious bits. They want to remove the bits which deal with politics and violence against non-muslims. But if you take that out, it’s no longer Islam. It becomes something else.
I’m not sure you have read the Old Testament or even studied the religious wars of Europe. And here are some Muslims: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-iraq-security-kirkuk-idUSTRE76Q2F820110727
In Beirut some discos even play Israeli music. It is true that culturally the clerics and Muslim leaders have been politically entwined to keep the rabid conditioning intact on the street.
I think you grossly underestimate human nature and the evolutionary necessity to cooperate. It isn’t going to be easy I grant you, but miracles can happen. I don’t think China, Russia, Canada, India or the US are going to convert to Islam, nor at the end of the day, the world is going to scrape human rights and freedom because of a religion still stuck in the 16th century. We won’t get to any reformation however, if the West succumbs to the fantasies of the Left or the strategic ignorance of the Far Right.
Maxtrue,
I understand what you’re saying, and I can understand why you think that, but consider this: we’re not talking about Christianity and the bible here, we’re talking about Islam. We’re talking about Islam, and what it says *in the Islamic doctrine itself* for the last 1400 years. Not what someone’s written in the NYT, or what some Imam claims on the TV. In saying “miracles can happen” and that we will at some point “cooperate”, you are making the *fatal* mistake of presuming that Islam is analagous with non-Islamic civilization, moral codes and ethics. It isn’t – it says so in the doctrine. Islam’s way of thinking is *totally* different to the non-Islamic way of thinking. Which is why they runs rings around us, and have correctly calculated they can do so, because we think they think like us, and will “cooperate” so we can all live a happy, multi-culti life together. Islam is a total system of social, economic and political governance, with personal faith aspects running through it. The whole body is as one. It is inseperable and immovable. Islam will never “cooperate” with the non-Islamic world in the way you envisage, because as far as Islam is concerned, it has nothing to learn from us, and nothing to gain from doing so, except when it can gain an advantage for itself over the non-islamic world. There are no more questions to ask, and no more answers to be given – Allah and Mohammed have already provided all the answers. All this is what the doctrine says, not me. My source is the Koran, Sira, and Haddith. It doesn’t go any higher than that. I’m only interested in what the doctrine itself says.
There will be no reformation of Islam, Maxtrue, ever. Islam has been unchanged for 1400 years. It’s working better than ever. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Islam has been waging war against the non-islamic world since the Hijra. It’s never stopped. And it will continue. For the last 330 years, we’ve been too strong for it, but the tide is turning. This is an eternal quest for Islam. It doesn’t matter if it takes hundreds of years – Islam thinks in centuries. It’s waited 330 years for its current run.
If you think there will be reform because of something you’ve read, or seen on TV, or heard someone say, I’m afraid you’ve been conned, ripped-off, sold a pup. It’s not going to happen. And when you talk about my underestimating human nature, again, I understand why you say that, but again consider this: Islam simply divides the world into believers and unbelievers, into what is permitted and not permitted. That is the only consideration it makes. It’s that ‘clean’. There is no concept of ‘humanity’ or a sliding moral code like the non-islamic world has.
No, I think YOU didn’t understand what I am saying. Muslims do not have a different physiological organization of their brains. You are talking purely about social conditioning. I do not underestimate the power of conditioning, but Pavlov was working on that a long time ago. The more than 100 trillion synapses of the human brain are not pre-wired.
I am sure South American natives thought Christian missionaries would never change their attitudes either, armed with the Bible and the gun. So you wish to stay away from the historical record. Alright. How many Muslims are there? 1.2 billion or so? How many of these Muslims call for jihad? Turkey is a NATO member. The Kurds beg us not to leave Iraq. Polls suggest the Iranian people do not harbor the hostility towards the West their leadership does. Perhaps you should read Michael Totten’s reports from Lebanon, or Fatima Gate. He is returning from Egypt where a significant number of young people reject the Muslim Brotherhood and want a more Liberal society. Tunisia is not a hotbed of hatred towards Western Values. You know this of course and if not, you should get out more. A friend of mine is an Egyptian employed in NYC by an Israeli. Go figure.
As I said, this is conditioning however deep and systematic. P\Now please excuse the historical digression, but readers should not have delusions. The ideology and culture established in the Koran, reflected an adaptive strategy. To unite regional populations, the Koran stressed strict laws governing kin relationships. Why do you think polygamy which is present in the Old Testament dominates Islam? Familial ties enlarged the group and extended kin cooperation. More babies were produced which was amplified by rules governing when one could marry and how many wives one could have. Warfare was built into the ideology because of the ground conditions that existed with struggles from Persia and Europe casting MENA and the ME in a constant state of belligerence. Now I know that is quite a generalization, but I want to stress that the Koran spins from the Bible’s logic and ground conditions. To further cement the cooperative rules of Islam, religion and government were joined as they were at the time in the two other major monotheistic religions. From this mindset the Islamic world both fought within itself for sectarian dominance (as groups usually do) as well as expanded with the slaughter hundreds of millions in their push into Africa, Asia and Europe.
Back to the present, we see that many things have not changed in the relationship between Islamic religious leadership and political leadership. Since Genghis, the Islamic world was mostly subordinate to the whims of other civilizations. We can’t say however nothing has changed. Turks still go to Israel on vacation. Muslims serve in the US military. In Christianity and Judaism however, much has changed despite elements of their fringe still existing.
And this change has not come as a result of genetics or a new set of synapses. It has come because reformation allowed believers to move beyond a literal and unerring view of their religious text. Our ability to do this has spurred an industrial revolution and the fruits of a science driven technology. We have experience a certain enlightenment, though looking at the paper, one must scratch their heads. We translate this enlightenment into our educational process and most importantly into our political documents.
To suggest that Muslims are not capable nor have significant numbers actually transcended the fundamentalist bullshit is absurd. That statement does not ignore the extent radical Islam grows and the threat it presents. Poverty, culture, educational systems allows this to happen beyond the fanatical desires of religious leadership. If you think a billion Chinese are going to accept Sharia, you’re nuts. Neither are the Russians or the Canadians or will Japan and India. Not the Koreans, or Australian nor most Europeans once the smell of coffee is strong enough. The latter however are in denial of both the threat to liberty and the reaction brewing from a silent majority that does not want Europe to embrace anything connected to the 17th century. We see the results of this tension explode in Norway. As many have pointed out, this is so because the Left conspires with the more radical Islamists. Their end State cannot exist with the Islamist one, but because the common enemy now is Liberal Democracy that protects property, national identity, individual rights and what the left perceives is cultural, economic and ideological domination.
So getting back to point, Muslims are genetically the same as Westerners. In fact, Israelis are pretty cool and many share the distant racial ancestry of Arabs. Human Behavior beyond the most primitive desires is all in the mind and the culture that shapes it. The power of the Koran lies in its interpretation. The kin relationships set up in the Koran don’t work so well with non-kin members as part of a larger modern cooperative group. Centuries of stasis have left the Islamic world largely bereft of pluralism or even representational government.
I won’t exceed my band width anymore, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to propose how we can alter this dilemma. Our own energy revolution, better unity on an international level and Western resolve not to abandon the front lines of where Islamic radicalism seeks to expand would be a good start. Unstoppable internet signals to oppressed people would also be a good idea, even if many don’t understand the extent of their own conditioning.
The ultimate solution will come from within the Islamic world, not because that is what the Koran says will happen, but because of what the WORLD says will,happen. No religious text trumps evolution or the lack thereof. Besides confronting evil Americans of all faiths or non-faiths must get our own stumbling house in order. Our leadership and future prosperity depends on our economic muscle. Our ability to carry the fight to free minds and terminate enemies is not free no matter it says in any religious text.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110719171545.htm
heh, heh – there’s no need to shout and metaphorically prod me with your finger – I can hear perfectly well. I’m not talking about muslims – I’m talking about Islamic doctrine – what it actually says on paper. That is the absolute proof of Islam, and no-one can dispute that.
“To suggest that Muslims are not capable nor have significant numbers actually transcended the fundamentalist bullshit is absurd”. I never said this. You must be getting me confused with someone else. Maybe you meant to respond to another post? Have a check back at what happened.
You didn’t read in my first post that muslims can be reformed, but Islam can’t. Do you not understand the difference between Islam and muslims? I’m talking about Islam.
Muslims are people that can be reformed, and Islam is a doctrine, and can’t be reformed. And you keep bringing the bible and christians into it. They have nothing to do with this. We’re talking about Islam. My guess is you don’t like talking about Islam; it makes you uncomfortable, because your knowledge of the doctrine is not good (you only refer to the Koran, which is 15% of the doctrine – tiny) . So you prefer to talk about things you think you know about. I’m talking about Islamic doctrine, and you’re firing off at a tangent about Christianity, the bible, genetics, synapses, south american natives, Pavlov (!) – all pointless. But that’s OK. We all have to start somewhere. Maybe you should bother to read the Hadith, and Sira as well? You might learn something about Islam. It’ll take a while, but it’s worth it – believe me…
To finish, off you say “No religious text trumps evolution or the lack thereof.” It’s been happening under your nose for the last 1400 years. Islam is stuck in its ossified, 7th century fortress, while the rest of the world continued discovering electricity, penicillin, inventing the silicon chip, splitting the atom – the list is endless.
“He is returning from Egypt where a significant number of young people reject the Muslim Brotherhood and want a more Liberal society.” good on them – thanks for the great news. As I said clearly, but you chose to ignore it, muslims can be reformed, the doctrine can’t. Islam hasn’t changed in Egypt one iota. These people have.
“A friend of mine is an Egyptian employed in NYC by an Israeli. Go figure.” and your point is? this is totally meaningless, and neither proves nor disproves anything whatsoever, apart from the fact that your friend in NYC has a job. Good for him in the current economic climate, but you’re going off at a tangent again.
“In fact, Israelis are pretty cool” really? Who’d have thought? Thanks for the heads-up…and you mentioned they play Israeli music in discos in beirut? That’s nice to know. And your point is?
Finally, I’ll leave on the real kicker, “The power of the Koran lies in its interpretation” – oh, yeah, here we go – the old classic. If I had a penny…The old ones are the best ones. It’s all about the interpretation! Of course – why didn’t I think of that? The Koran has already been interpreted for us, Maxtrue, by the highest possible authority in Islam – Mohammed himself. His word is final. No arguments. Do you think that *you* can decide what Islam is by interpreting it, and not Mohammed? Do you think my muslim next door neighbour can decide what Islam is, and not Mohammed? Please tell. If you try and argue with Mohammed about Islam, Maxtrue, you’re wasting your time. In a competition between you and Mohammed about Islam, I’m only listening to him. He is right, and you are wrong – always. No exceptions. There’s no further interpretation to make other than what Mohammed himself said. Islam is extraordinarily simple. It’s black and white. It’s well written and coherent. You’re trying to make it complicated. If it’s not incredibly simple, how can a 10 yr old goat herder from Afghanistan understand it, or an illiterate farm hand in upper-Egypt? If it’s not incredibly simple, how can it be a universal message for all people and all time, as it says in the doctrine?
Forget it – maxtrue is a true believer that everything under the sun is the same. He engages in cultural relativism. Nothing is better or worse than the next thing. Guys who write a concerto are the same as guys who eat Christian missionaries (cannables). There is just no difference.
Lolly would you dare to support any of your libel?
“Forget it”
(what are we to forget?)
“– maxtrue is a true believer that everything under the sun is the same.”
(what does this mean?)
“He engages in cultural relativism.”
(I did nothing of the sort and maybe you should Google the term you obviously don’t know much about)
“Nothing is better or worse than the next thing.”
(I never said that. You’re letting your talking points get in the way of your thinking. If you are referring to the need to go beyond literal and unerring interpretations of religious documents as “cultural relativism” you are an idiot)
“Guys who write a concerto are the same as guys who eat Christian missionaries (cannables).”
(You are now slipping into the need-to-be-medicated category. Yes, Europe’s greatest artists lived in the Amazon spreading the word of Christ to its native inhabitants. Or were they soldiers spreading Europe’s social diseases? Don’t get me started. Obviously, something is keeping your brain from comprehending what was posted. I said nothing of the sort. By most historical accounts, native Indians did not do very well under the Christian Sun. Are you going to debate that? Just because there ARE differences between the “savages” and the “civilized” doesn’t make the actions of the Spanish moral or the slavery introduced. It also doesn’t follow these were genetic differences. About this time, Jews had already faced the Great Inquisition of Christianity and my father’s family was on their way East ending up in another wonderful Christian country at the time called Romania. At this time, Jews were doing better in Muslim countries in the ME. Nowhere did I ever forsake Liberal values in my comments which require the defense of self-determination, equal rights, minority rights, representational democracy, free speech, rule of law etc. etc.)
Yes?
“Besides confronting evil Americans of all faiths or non-faiths must get our own stumbling house in order.”
Maybe my forgetting a comma after “evil” confused you.
In your universe is the opposite of cultural relativism, cultural superiority? While I oppose the former, I have my doubts these days about the intelligence of the latter. We have seen where that can lead.
Morality by the way, isn’t the exclusive domain of religious belief. The enlightenment of reason was the light which our Founders sought despite their moral imperfection and their personal religious beliefs. The first Christian (or anyone) to be convicted of slave trade under unenforced Federal law was hung in New York just before the Civil War despite public protest. The Christian people of New York were shocked to witness the execution but Lincoln would not pardon the convict.
I suppose the superiority of culture was why slavery was accepted and women were property of men. Was that based on the Bible? We have grown up quite a bit, haven’t we? As I said, Islam has some growing to do, or they are in a big time collision with modern reality. Whether they manage this or not, our difference are not genetic, they are learned.
“To argue that Western governments want the Islamists to win and take over their societies is paranoid.”
Indeed, but it works for the left when they accuse conservatives of wanting to trow granny over the cliff. After years of shaming their adversaries into submission we want to try it too!
I’m tired of the constant and malicious use of the term “extremist” to smear anybody who takes a stand that one disagrees with. It’s being used to choke off freedom of speech.
I addressed that topic here:
http://1389blog.com/2011/07/24/utoya-attack-shows-magnanimity-of-israel-and-vacuity-of-bds-campaign/
Barry Rubin is fortunate he wasn’t quoted in the manifesto. And even if he was, his ideas have killed no one! Does that mean if an extremist someday in the future should cite him as an authority for whatever evil deeds he might have in mind, that discredit Rubin as a legitimate authority on the Middle East? Of course not!
But we do have the media persecuting innocent people who have nothing to do with Breivik’s crime. This is character assassination by definition. Responsible people don’t impute to anti-Islamists a guilt they don’t have. And Islam was not the target of the attack Norway even thought its an ideology infected by fanaticism and a lack of regard for most people consider moral norms.
I might add the Western media refuses to seriously discuss these issues. And repressing, in the name of political correctness, the debate what real Islam is won’t help us to counter the rise of extremists in Islamic countries. What Breivik did doesn’t change this is the most challenging issue for the West since Communism.
I appreciate Mr. Rubin’s article, and comments such as this one.
The deplorable actions of this insane murderer don’t erase the problems of an immigrant population, unwilling to assimilate, that comes to European countries not to adopt a European world-view or way of life, but to propagate itself off European welfare.
Can you imagine European governments giving the right to strangers in their midst suddenly to decide that women can’t be in the same swimming pool as men? Or to accept cultural excuses for ‘honor-killing’ murders? Or accommodating their need to wash various parts of their bodies before prayer (this gets expensive, mind you)? Or to build public schools for their religious teachings?
Unthinkable–and yet this has all happened. What’s more,sections of European cities can’t be safely entered by the authorities, much less female residents not hidden in burkas.
Who is supposed to like that and accept that? Are the Europeans supposed to do a sort of ‘white man’s burden, noblesse oblige’ sort of thing? Is that what the politically-correctly-thinking elites (who express such scorn for their ‘nativist’ countrymen) really think?
And no, I don’t think the solution is to blow up bombs and start shooting. But I would hope people could recognize and talk about the problems.
It would be nice to talk about the problems. But what happens when talking does not work? what happens when the enemy does not want negotiation and compromise, but your death and the destruction of all you hold dear? what happens when the enemy does not care about you, your rules, your county, but only wants to use you and conquer you? THAT is what is happening now. at what point do we stop talking about ‘freedom isnt free’ and start re earning the freedom, the country, the society that was bought and paid for with the blood and tears of our own? These are questions that MUST be answered soon. What are you willing to do for freedom? when speeches and placards fail. when the laws are ignored and set up by the enemy. when it comes down to ‘us or them’ what are you willing to do?
Definitely _not_ willing to take up arms against unsuspecting and unarmed youngsters, who (apparently) were targeted because they were thought to be tokens or symbols of some sort.
Supporting the people who publish written attacks on Islamofascism, and voting for parties that want to curtail the out-of-control immigration; that sounds reasonable to me.
BREIVIK’S MESSIAH COMPLEX
Breivik is a lunatic with a messiah complex. He believes that he’s the heaven sent savior of Norway and European civilization from Islamic subversion, which is very real and growing. After many years of trying to awaken Norway to no avail Breivik completely lost his mind and humanity and came to insanely resent and hate his country and people. In a fit of psychotic rage he decided that Norway would ignore his message and mission no more. So on July 22nd he struck slaughtering 76 Norwegians as a blood sacrifice to his cause. As much as he hated Moslems he hated his people more. Breivik has made his mark on history and has entered the annals of infamy. In the end this mass murdering terrorist thug has more in common with the murdering prophet Mohammed than with the non-violent, world renouncing, ascetic Jesus Christ; more in common with Islamic jihadists like bin Laden than with peaceful, civilized, virtuous Americans like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller.
Click my name ApolloSpeaks and read my widely linked Townhall piece, “Apollo Takes On LoonWatch Over Norway Massacre And The Bashing Of Spencer And Geller.”
Barry, I knew that right away. I did not believe anything that the news media said. This is a cultural war most in his country and government are siding with Islam. He felt betrayed with no where to go. That is why they will not let him speak.
ehhh this guy was a nut, but i gotta disagree a bit. Look there is a group of people who want to destroy the west and America. this isnt a delusion. And they are not a small group nor are they just a couple of random yahoos venting. They are large well funded organizations, heads of countries, schools etc. So the question of ‘is it everyone’ is foolish. No its not every single last one, but it is definatly a viable threat and one that must be stopped before nore happens. At a certain point, we have to acknowledge that ismal and communism do NOT seek tolerance or cooperation. They seek dominance and death of their enemy. They say this at every turn and every action is geared towards that end goal. So what point does the threat become real enough to be taken serously? we have spent 10 yrs fighting stone throwers,because we are afraid of our enemy not liking us. We see them, we see their actions, hear their words know their deeds past AND present and yet we keep pretending it does not exist? Do we have to wait til Iran nukes israel? then what? ‘oops we were wrong, our bad’? We see the signs…AGAIN and still do nothing like fools. we saw the same shit in hitlers rise to power, didnt do anything..remember how that turned out? Im not saying if we stub our toe to go on a rampage. I AM saying that this peacenik kiumbaya delusion that we can ignore the problem or someone compromise with people whos only goal is to enslave and kill us is MORIONIC. it will get us killed. we are being played and we know it. yet we are foolish enough to think we can be nice and win. This aint TV folks, people are dying, the good guys dont always win, cheaters DO prosper and history is written by the winners. Islam and communism are fighting a real war against us and we are waging a PR campaign that gets people killed. yeah this oslo guy was a nut, but we are just as foolish
I dunno…I am a little uncomfortable with all the contortions we’re all going. everybody thought it was Islamic terrorists–it was a good guess, come on!–and now that we know it wasn’t, we should be ok with admitting: “OK, libs? you now officially have a second name to add to Timothy McVeigh’s. yes, it is true: a second white Christian male committed an act of terror.”
we should just admit it and stop trying to contort that fact away. two attacks by white Christian males in three decades is not a bad record. I’ll put it up against the number of Islam-related attacks any day.
I hate the guy not only for the slaughter he committed, but for the damage he has done for the cause of people who understand that “creeping sharia” is a real problem. I don’t like agreeing with a mass murderer on that point, but I do. and I don’t think Europe is suddenly out of danger because one single terrorist attack was not carried out by jihadis.
but a lot of people are missing the point. Bill O’Reilly in particular is being unusually dense, even for him. the question isn’t what religion someone is, the question is did the religion motivate him to do the crime? in the case of Islamic terrorism, their religion clearly is the motivating force. in the Norway case, it SEEMS that his religion was NOT the motive.
I agree. if it was RW thnen admit it. We certainly have no monopoly on terrorist activities. Admit it and denounce it. To hell with the LSM or leftists thoughts. They do not matter. they will acuse us of it no matter what was found. They have to its an agenda they are after NOT the truth. We need to fully admit that to ourselves and quit trying to impress the left who do not care.
He believed in his mind that he was a Christian warrior. The question is whether this was his private belief disconnect to any established religious group. In the case of Islamist extremists is that the network involves religious leadership as well as regimes from Pakistan to Caracas.
Barry, here is another example of Mr. Ackerman’s work. I think he noticed the unwanted attention and pours it on, doesn’t he? You do know his history in the Journolist affair. Damn, our FBI is a bunch of ignant racists according to the Ackerattack. Of course they have been chasing the MB for years.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/fbi-islam-101-guide/
There are plenty of good and valid reasons to stop – and to roll back – Muslim immigration. Just because a madman yells out that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn’t mean that it suddenly stops being true.
Why Muslim immigration is stealth jihad
Israel are stealing land,terrorizing and making war every day.and you WONDER WHY
you are hated ,it´s not difficult to understand if you look at it whith palestine
eyes .to me israel are the CAUSE of this everlasting war .and you are very similar
to a nazizt
“Herman Cain said he would be willing to take a lie detector test. But that’s kind of a double-edged sword. If he fails, his career is over. And if he passes and it turns out he’s not a liar, he’s obviously not cut out for politics.” –Jay Leno