Why They Love Usama, Hate Obama, and How Obama Uses the Same Tactic at Home
Why are tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims chanting about how much they love Osama bin Laden and how much they hate Barack (Hussein) Obama?
Simple. Because bin Laden was a Muslim and an Arab (for the Arab demonstrators) and thus he was one of their people, someone from their side, whatever tactical disagreements they might have had with him. And Obama isn’t. No amount of groveling, apology, or money will change that fact.
Isn’t that clear?
I should quickly add that many Muslims don’t support the Islamists. In elections in Libya and Tunisia, a majority voted for non-Islamist parties. Even in Egypt, when the showdown came in the presidential election the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won by only a narrow margin. Most Lebanese don’t support the Islamists (the main force of which is Hezballah, a Shia group).
There are, of course, plenty of Islamists and they have lots of sympathizers. They can cite chapter and verse from Islamic holy texts.
Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.
But that’s not my point here. The key element for this article is this: when solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates, then that means serious trouble.
Well, guess what?
And this is precisely the kind of thing that makes Middle Eastern Muslims who even if they were Islamists–like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist groups—hated bin Ladin when he was alive opportunistically turn him into a martyr. The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.
Should be
And this is precisely the kind of thing that makes Middle Eastern Muslims who, even if they were Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist groups, hated bin Ladin when he was alive, opportunistically turn him into a martyr. The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.
And when Obama is un-elected in thirty days, the media and his fawning supporters will raise him to martyr status, if only figuratively rather than actually. But the difference will be indiscernible. Not that I advocate making him a martyr in any sense of the word.
The media will cry how the “racists” “lynched” the guy, etc etc, ad nauseum. Which, now that I think about it, may cause the final faithful watchers of the “mainstream” news to click off, permanently.
But the end-run of it all is that Obama can’t lose, even if he loses the election. He will be heralded as the “guy who saved America from itself” and “A great hero” even. Unlike Jimmy Carter who had no marketable skills, post presidency, Obama who has even less, will be simply marketed as the “first black president” for the next several decades. To say nothing of the eventual lull, then “nostalgic re-visitation” of his days in office ten or twenty years down the road when people have largely forgotten all about him. But he’ll be needing more choom-bucks and will happily leave his compound in Ha-wah-ee (correct pronunciation to prove how sophisticated and sensitive to other cultures I am)to do speaking engagements and appearances on some ancient news whore’s show. Like…Whoopi Goldbergs new show “Whitey Sucks” on the still-struggling BET network.
This guy, in four years, has done more to set race relations back forty plus years than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jacskon have done in their entire lifetimes.
But his martyrdom will be the narrative for the next decade at least.
I couldn’t agree more with your entire post however I wanted to highlight statement, “This guy, in four years, has done more to set race relations back forty plus years than al sharpton or jesse jackson have done in their entire lifetimes.” because I believe it to be one of the most salient comments concerning this administration. The most tragic result of the way they have handled the Middle East is they drank their own kool-aid and believe there is a way to negotiate a peace with them.
Ain’t gona’ happen, ever.
Sexond wave American feminists will all come out for Obama, as indicated by the Obama campaign’s recent e-card, defining the war for women as focused on sexuality and abortion rights. I wrote about that here: http://clarespark.com/2012/10/03/the-sexual-revolution-2/. I was there as feminist artists of the 1970s allied themselves with the New Left and its focus on anti-imperialism, ignoring the condtion of women in the Third World.
As a woman, I am sickened by people who would reduce all my interests, goals and aspirations in life — which are many and complex — to nothing but my “lady parts.” The Left wants to turn me into a brainless sex object who’s not interested in ANYTHING but the freedom to “put out” without any consequences. The Left treats me as if I’m some moron incapable of rational deliberation about vitally important issues such as the national debt, education systems, fiscal policy, foreign policy and national security, etc.
Not to mention that I have always had a visceral revulsion to contraception, and feel that killing one’s own baby is the cruelest betrayal any human has ever dreamed up. People who assume that just because I and millions of others are female, that we must support taxpayer-funded contraception and unlimited abortion is seriously out of touch with reality.
“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense”.
That is my favorite point. Unfortunately some on the right cling to the, “all Muslims are programmed by the Koran to be head-chopping zombies” meme just as some on the left cling to the RoP meme.
Exhibit “A” is the recent article you posted by Spyer on the complexity of the lineup of the Syrian opposition. It’s great analysis but folks would rather write rants inspired by the “Jihadwatch” comments section.
I don’t care what you believe, just as long as you acknowledge the TEXTS support the headchopper’s plans and actions.
btw, last time I checked, without Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugged there would still be complete widespread obliviousness to islam and jihad.
“Unfortunately some on the right cling to the, “all Muslims are programmed by the Koran to be head-chopping zombies” meme”
Nonsense.
No one on the right has said that. What people on the right have truthfully said is what “islam” teaches.
Those teachings from the koran, the hadiths, and sharia are facts. Because some muslims do not obey them does not negate the argument.
“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense”.
Just to be fair, I think there should be a distinction between two different kinds of claims among the “rants”:
1) There are no moderate Muslims.
2) There is no moderate Islam.
The second doesn’t claim that there are no moderate people who call themselves Muslims and just mind their own business. It claims that there is no mainstream Islamic theological school that fits what we call moderate. The people who hold this view don’t deny that there is a large number of Muslims who are moderate in reality – they claim these Muslims don’t strictly follow their religion. They don’t say all the Muslims are the problem. They say Islam as a religion is the problem. To counter their claim it’s not enough to show that there exist moderate Muslims – they already acknowledge that themsleves. What you need is to point to a mainstream Islamic school that teaches as part of its tenets to treat non-believers peacefully, that “apostates” should not be killed, that what is deemed blasphemy shouldn’t be met with a severe corpreal punishment, that sharia doesn’t have to be the law of the land, a mainstream Islamic school that doesn’t teach that the end goal is for the entire humanity to live under sharia. That would be a modearte Islam, a moderate ideology of Islam, not just moderate people.
“What you need is to point to a mainstream Islamic school that teaches as part of its tenets to treat non-believers peacefully, that “apostates” should not be killed, that what is deemed blasphemy shouldn’t be met with a severe corpreal punishment, that sharia doesn’t have to be the law of the land, a mainstream Islamic school that doesn’t teach that the end goal is for the entire humanity to live under sharia.”
Please, I’m listening. Where is there such a school?
Dr Jasser out of Phoenix, AZ is running such an organization. Sadly, it is not getting a whole lot of traction in the Islamic community, but it does exist.
I agree with the other thread commenters who point out that ISLAM, in the basic formative texts, commands this evil behavior from true believers. That many Muslims choose not to follow those parts doesn’t negate their existence.
Actually I don’t have a problem with islam as a religion. If people want to live under those tenets that’s up to them. Where I draw the line is islam as a political ideology because that’s where the line between freedom of religion and the government shall establish no religion becomes blurred. Islam as a religion teaches one how to live, islam as a political ideology tells mulsims how to apply their religion to people not of the same faith.
That’s where the problems come in.
As for women, I have to say that after hanging around for years in conservative websites I’m not sure that if I were American I’d vote for the GOP. Of course, it’s ridiculous to say that all conservatives are women-haters or want to turn society back to how it was before women lib, but there is an element like that among social conservatives. The question is how strong is that element. For the record, I oppose affirmative action and any type of discrimination against men as well as women. I support equality before the law and in social norms. But then which American party could I vote for?
Among conservatives in the American terminilogy there are many who are actually liberals in the classical sense (which is very different from those described as “liberals” in the contemporary American terminology – to begin with, classical liberals oppose big government). Classical liberals should support gender equality because their ideology is based on the individual and not on groups. But not all conservatives are classical liberals, and I’d be very afraid to give any power to those among the conservatives who want to reverse women lib because if they’ll ever succeed it means they’ll take my life away from me and from every women who doesn’t want to live like women lived in the 50s. So again, the question is how strong is this element.
After spending many years on conservative websites, or just living life in general, I have never heard a conservative say they want to go back to a time when women had no rights at all, or all women should be barefoot and pregnant, or any women who wasn’t conservative aren’t real women (like libs tend to think of conservative women as not being real women, or conservative blacks not being real blacks, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.). But nice try, anyway.
Uh, Max? You’re not a woman.
They listen differently.
Heck, you didn’t even listen to what Pnina SAID.
Try Life Style articles, particularly those pertaining to women or relationships. And I too never read a conservative say that “women had no rights at all”, but some write things that more than imply we don’t have the same rights as men, and so far I haven’t seen any man argue with such statements when expressed in the comment section on various articles on this website. I don’t think they can change the law because I guess that, say, a law that forbids a woman form being a boss based on her gender would be unconstitutional, but I won’t vote anyone with this kind of views into power. So the question is if these views are limited to a minority of rants in blogs or are prevalent among conservatives in general.
And alzaebo, you don’t have to listen “differently”, you just have to listen. The only relevance of our respective genders here is that usually a person is more sensetive to comments relevant to him/her personally, so comments about women may escape your attention far more than mine. When someone says a woman can’t be the boss because women are too dumb and irresponsible, and that women don’t need to be smart because having a job is optional for a woman and all a woman needs to know is how to sweep the floor, then there’s not much room for interpretation. The problem is not that some occasional guy says things like that or other views of this category. The problem is that you have several guys saying things like that and at best just one person – a woman – arguing with them, and then there would be a bunch of guys that will jump to his defense and the defense of the statements he made. If a woman enters the blog and sees an argument like that, with only one person opposing these views, she can easily get the impression that the overwhelming majority of the participants agree with these statements. If she sees such situations repeatedly she might get the impression that the majority of conservatives hold such views.
You may deny it all you want. I don’t really care. After all I’m not American, so it’s not really my problem personally. You can take it as a friendly tip, or leave it. I think that if American women who are not already firmly in the conservative camp get to read these things on conservative websites – not just the comments themselves, but the very little to non-exitent opposition to them – it’ll make them wary of the GOP. It turns off female voters. So if there are people here who really oppose these views you should argue with them when you see them, express your opposition, so that a female visitor won’t get the impression these views are consensual. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman. I argue against affirmative action because it ends in discrimination against individuals based on their gender (or race) – it doesn’t matter if the offended side are men and I’m a woman – I oppose it because it isn’t fair and isn’t right, not because I automatically stand with my gender. Similarly men can argue against unfair views also when the offended side are women.
Dearest Pnina, The main difference between the left and the American right, is that the left speaks to women below their waist and the right speaks to women above their necks. The following incoherence sums up the left’s embrace of women: “How dare you sexually objectify women! Now, shut up and pay for their birth control and abortions!”
Pnina the left treats you and all women as sperm receptacles. Their policies have not liberated you. Do you think it is respect for women when a man parrots that it is a “woman’s choice?” Or, do you realize it is just plain cowardice? Since women have become “liberated”, is it more likely that men will abandon them and their children or stay?
Pnina, you are free to live the way you want. No conservative wants to take away your choices (save for the choice to murder your child). However, please stop asking us to pay for those choices in order to finance your “liberation.”
And by the way, because you are against “affirmative action,” in the eyes of the left, that makes you a racist.
I won’t comment on the contraceptives issue because I don’t have enough information on the American health system. In Israel there’s socialized health care. We don’t get the drugs free, we pay a percentage of the price, usually a small one. There are drugs that are included in this arrangement and drugs that are not. As far as I know contraceptives are included. So I never really thought about it.
Abortion, IMO, is misrepresented by the left as a women lib issue. I think even most leftists will agree that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in the 9th month. Why? Because in the 9th month the fetus is already a fully formed human being and “abortion” would mean taking a baby out and killing it. So the pertinent question here is obviously not a woman’s right to her body, but at what stage is the fetus considered a human being. People who think the fetus is human since conception will see abortion at any stage as murder. People who think that in the first months the fetus is just a bunch of tissues with no consciousness and therefore not yet a human being or even a sentient creature, will not see it as murder. Conservatives should reframe the debate around this most relevant question and not let the left get away with misrepresenting the issue.
And there are some conservatives who want to take away my choices. For instance, people who think that there are predetermined gender roles. I’m not talking about pregnancy, which is innately feminine, but about cleaning, washing, cooking and parenting with all it involves. Obviously if these roles are meant exclusively for women I won’t have much time for anything else, which is to say my life will be taken away from me and replaced with dull menial work as a cleaner and a cook, for which I won’t even get a salary, so I couldn’t be financially idependent. That is a very scary thought. Of course this notion completely violates my freedom of occupation and my pursuit of happiness, so I don’t think it could be made into laws. However, I don’t want the social norms to go back to where my only choices would be to either live like that or be considered a feminazi bitch.
Abortion, IMO, is misrepresented by the left as a women lib issue. I think even most leftists will agree that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in the 9th month. Why? Because in the 9th month the fetus is already a fully formed human being and “abortion” would mean taking a baby out and killing it.
Google “Barack Obama” and “Partial birth abortion vote”. While your statement may be true in aggregate, it apparently did not apply to the guy at the top of the Democrats presidential ballot when he actually had a chance to vote on the issue. Making Point A becomes a little tougher to justify if your presidential candidate’ record shows he doesn’t believe what you’re saying.
Your comments, Pnina, suggest that you need to talk to a counselor about paranoia, rather than projecting your exaggerated fears onto the political landscape. I am a conservative Jewish man, married to a conservative Jewish woman who became conservative years before I did. We don’t know anyone who is trying to force women into the horrifyingly brutal subservience (in your mind) that they suffered in the 1950′s. My wife is one of the smartest people I know, and I encourage her to take more leadership in our community (traditional/Modern Orthodox). We spend a lot of time with frum/chareidi Jews, and their women are very vibrant and happy. Some are suffering too, but would you trade places with Hillary Clinton or Tipper Gore? Please, you’re repeating all the left-wing libels.
Been reading your Howard Zinn eh Pnina? There are 2 very distorted views that you’re treating as fact. The first being that prior to the “Women’s liberation” movement, women were little more than menial slaves, kept out of the public eye and forced into a role defined by the men around them. Those women unfortunate enough not to have found a confining marriage were left to do “menial work” and treated as if they were inferior beings. I suggest you look into the REAL history of women in the US. Women built much of the arsenal that won WW2 prior to the 1950s, and many of them stayed in the work force. Women gained the right to vote early in the 20th century, and were not nearly as repressed as Leftist revisionist history suggests.
I also find it funny that the Prog scum say it is morally superior to leave your children in the hands of strangers while you work as a “liberated” woman rather than raise them yourself. And they miss the simple fact that many of the women in the work force are merely doing the jobs that a stay at home mom/homemaker would do. As if it is better to be paid to clean someone else’s house or take care of someone else’s kids than your own house or kids.
There may be some idiot comments on blogs, but my guess is that they are in fact idiots, or Leftist Soros funded trolls doing what they do. Nor is there any evidence of a wide spread movement on the Right that suggests women are inferior or should be kept “barefoot and pregnent”. There are some VERY stupid comments made by Republicans now and then regarding “women’s issues” (looking at you, Mr Akin), but they do not represent the party as a whole.
The second distortion is on the “Progressive” views on abortion. They are in favor of partial birth abortions, and against “born alive” laws, in case the abortion fails to kill the child. There are some of them that advocate the ability to kill children up to the age of 2! And they have the GALL to call themselves “medical ethicists”! Abortion was NOT illegal prior to Roe v. Wade in the US as a whole. WA, AK, HI, and NY all allowed abortion on demand. The other states had different restrictions, but all of them allowed for abortion to save the life of the mother, and most of them had rape/incest provisions as well. Then there is the racist aspect of abortion advocacy in the US. The founder (and patron saint) of Planned Parenthood was an open racist and eugenics advocate. Wonder of wonders, the black abortion rate is 60%, and the Hispanics are closing in on them at 40%. How this is allowed to pass without comment boggles the mind!
“Women’s Liberation” has turned out to be ANYTHING but liberating to women, and the best thing to happen to men of loose morals ever! They get what they want in the form of cheep, meaningless sex, free of consequenses, and “liberated” women go along with it! Very stupid state of affairs that many of the original femenists decry. Then there is the way Progs treat women! The entire Kennedy clan, or Bill Clinton, or Anthony “here is my” Wenier to name but a few. So spewing the correct line buys you absolution for the horrible way women are treated and viewed on the Left.
It amuses me to no end to hear the laments of so many women I know in my age range (early-mid 30s) complaining about their inablity to find a “good man”. They are the victims of their own “liberated” success.
Pnina, re: “I think even most leftists will agree that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in the 9th month.”
First, let me establish my creds. I consider myself a feminist of the 1970s variety, went into the private sector with math and analytical skills, did amazingly well, including promotions to low executive rank. Married a guy I met at night school for my MBA, had two children in my 30s.
I suspect I am old enough to be your mother, but I encourage you to look up some facts, instead of believing what feminist losers spout off. Nearly all third wave feminists agree the development and survivability of the baby is of no relevance in determining WHEN the mother can ‘choose” abortion. They believe it’s the mother’s right to choose abortion any time during the 9 months. Period. The few who say otherwise are ridiculed.
Have you ever been to a neonatal unit? They have visiting hours and guests can view the tiny babies through a window. Go visit.
Next, Meet someone who started life in a neonatal unit. Guess what, it might be someone you fall in love with and marry.
I would like to assure you that 31 week gestation babies are INDEED babies. That is 7 months in fetal terms. I know because my oldest son was born at 31 weeks. Rest assured, my dear, 7, 8, and 9 month pre-born babies ARE ready to go, survival wise. Once born, they eat, cry, yell, pee and poop just like all the bigger babies.
You need to google “fetal development month by month”. There’s over a million hits. Are you writing from Israel? Josef Mengele experimented on pregnant women in one of the Polish death camps, removing unborn babies and seeing how long they could live in his experimental conditions, ie. exposure to cold, etc. before they died. If killing babies is not a crime, why was this included in his murder indictment?
Finally, Kathleen Sibelius doesn’t pass the smell test on abortion. She vetoed a bill passed by the Kansas legislature which would have prohibited 3rd Trimester abortions. Within a year of her veto Obama made her Secretary of HHS, which now has the authority to decide about abortion rules and rules for providing medical services for old useless people.
Guess what, dear, one day all of us will be old and useless. When Sibelius’ friends in white coats come for you, don’t be surprised if your next gurney takes you to the morgue.
Just to show you the nasty nexus between money and politics, Ms. Sibelius also took nearly $50,000 in donations from a notorious 3rd Trimester Kansas abortionist. The money went to her campaign & her PAC).
If I had the volume of abortions this doctor did after the veto and divided into the $50,000 political donation, I could compute the amount Katherine Sibelius earned per dead baby. In case you are wondering, babies in the third trimester are born alive unless the doc uses his tools & techniques to alter this. If Josef Mengene had done this sort of thing, he would have been villified as the most heinous doctor who ever broke his Hippocratic oath.
Although male, I think I can offer a different kind of response. First I’m pretty sure the segment of American conservatives you doubt you could vote for are generally known as Socons or social conservatives. For example, when Rick Santorum made his run at Romney in the primaries he was described, accurately or otherwise, as an ultramontain Roman Catholic. According to Wikipedia the term is ‘applied to people who support papal authority’. “In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).” Ouch! If true I would have trouble voting for Mr. Santorum, precisely because it sounds to me that he might well use the power of the state to impose Roman Catholics views on the populace at large. While I have many reasons not to vote for Obama one would be that he is trying to use the power of the state to impose his secularist views on Roman Catholics. (I think Barry Rubin correctly characterized Obama as a cynical postmodern atheist in a recent column.) The problem I have with both of these positions is that they are overly collectivist and are too ready to use the state to coerce the individual. That said, some quick research shows that the American public is very evenly divided on the issue of abortion. Yet, evangelical Christians make up about 45% of Republican voters. So it seems there is plenty of anti abortion sentiment outside evangelical Christians. It is a tricky situation and I certainly have American women friends and relatives who are very reactive on this issue, and I can’t say their fears – or yours – are irrational. That said, I remember what it was like before abortion was legal in the US and it was pretty unsatisfactory. Michael Crichton’s A Case of Need catches the atmosphere very well. I think if abortion was made illegal again in the US the main beneficiaries would be airlines and foreign doctors, and it wouldn’t last long. On the other hand as I heard Hilary Clinton (always a conservative favorite) on CSPAN point out abortion is not cost free in terms of psychological damage. Yup, that was what my mother said shortly before her death of an abortion she had performed in the 30s. And if you Google ‘world abortion map’ and know anything about demographic collapse you will see that we have not resolved the issue of human fertility.
I don’t know the strength of the conservative element that would take rights from women, but I hope it’s a small minority. You are correct about classical liberals and their emphasis on the individual and their unalienable rights. The point of the Barry Rubin article on which we are commenting seems to be that division by arbitrary qualities is harmful and that extremists and unprincipled politicians both use this polarizing tactic to achieve their personal/political objectives. Those who would impose their ideologies on others, be they social conservative, modern liberals (leftists) or Islamists all share the same defective mental processes that impede peace and development. The Rubin piece goes to the core of our existence and our politics today. Unfortunately, it is the kind of observation that will not find its way into the mainstream media, which is part of what attempts to divide us.
Yes, gender discrimination is part of this, but the issue is much larger. Discrimination because of belonging to any gender, racial, ethnic or religious group is harmful to society and to the individual who practices it. Classical liberals also recognize that education and example are needed to combat discrimination much more than legislation, which can be dangerous because morality cannot be imposed by government and because it can lead to reverse discrimination, which is the same as the ill it tries to correct, besides being divisive.
My gender or other descriptions are irrelevant and should make no difference. I know men and women, as well of people of several religions (including Islam), nationalities and ethnicities who share the above thoughts.
Can you name which Republican administration in the past years has taken your rights away? I am a woman and I really need to ask, why is it my responsibility to pay for somepne else’s birth control? you want an abotion, you pay for it. This so called “war on women” doesn’t exist at least not in the minds of many women.
Just how do you “reverse women(‘s)lib”?
“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.”
“Islamism” is a phony word and if someone is not for Shariah and Islam ruling the world, they are not really Muslim and your calling people names who disagree with your false view of Islam does not change that.
On top of that, there is the long-time Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya (Which makes it required to lie to non-Muslims in order to gain their confidence : ie, promising you won’t impose The Shari’ah upon them once you get power), and the more recent concept of Muruna (immunity from having to follow The Shari’ah when living among non-Muslims, in order to fool them into thinking The Shari’ah is not a fundamental part of Islam).
When a religion/ideology is BUILT upon everything you say to “the enemy” being a lie, and every action you take being ‘undercover’ cheating on your own ideology ‘for the cause’, that makes it impossible to give them ANY credibility whatsoever.
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of searching for unicorns.
“Moderate” Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No “moderate” can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of “moderates”, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
To add to your point, the US does not insist that all citizens give their primary loyalty to America with penalties for those whose actions prove otherwise.
Multiculturalism in the name of tolerance has introduced alien concepts incompatible with the founding documents. Individual citizens need to be tolerant of other religions but the context in which that tolerance is exercised must be adherence to the constitution.
“Yet that doesn’t make all Nazis supporters of revolutionary Naziism or advocates of Nazi totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Nazism and Europe run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Nazism is a political party of peace” nonsense.”
See how foolish that sounds? Or maybe you agree with it.
Islam does not teach the same sort of compassion for the other that virtually every other religion including today’s “secular humanism” teaches. Muslims murder and torture each other without compunction and their own ummah, “brotherhood” has no condemnation to offer. That’s because they don’t value individual human life the way Christian westerners do. It’s not a concept in Islam, which means it’s not a concept in Muslims “hearts and minds”. Their hearts and minds instead understand what Allah teaches them in the Koran, namely, the Collective Will to Power.
When will our leaders understand this? And moreover understand that it is necessary in the end to treat Muslims in the way they themselves understand moral principles? Which ultimately means that they must be beaten back and vanquished and humiliated by a greater strength. That is clearly what they understand. Every move to win their hearts and minds only strengthens them, emboldens them to advance their own peculiar ethics of the world, which couldn’t give a damn about “hearts and minds”, as we understand the term. They will accept the shehada from anyone they can swindle and connive to recite it while at the same time are willing to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whatever it takes to build the army of Islamic soldiers is what their ethics is about.
There is no way of avoiding the reality that the adults in this world are going to have to act like adults and step up and slap, and in a big way, Muslims who have made of their own societies the equivalent of “Lord of the Flies” and who now threaten to overrun every more advanced society with their mayhem. We’re going to have to come to terms this reality. Either that or it’s simply going to be cruel for all of us, with no kindness in sight, and possibly no one left to come and rescue us off an Island from Hell that in our passivity and cowardice we allowed to be taken over by moral pygmies.
,i>“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.”
“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)
“He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and all Muslim's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Islamism", nor "Radical Islam", nor "Islamofascism", nor "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!], against all the rest of mankind.” (John Quincy Adams)
“Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog.” (Winston Churchill)
Mohammad, all Muslim’s “Perfect Man”, was a torture loving, mass murdering, little girl raping, sadistic ghoul – The Monster Who Walked The Earth. Islam has not one redeeming feature – it is the Plague – worse than Fascism and Communism combined.
Or, he never did exist, but was imagined by a culture that admired all those things in a leader.
1. You grow poppies and refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
You may be a Muslim
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher and ammo, but you can’t afford shoes. You may be a Muslim
3. You have more wives than teeth.
You may be a Muslim
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon and pork unclean.
You may be a Muslim
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
You may be a Muslim
6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.
You may be a Muslim
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
You may be a Muslim
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
You may be a Muslim
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
You may be a Muslim
10. Your cousin is president of the United States .
You may be a Muslim
11. You find this offensive or racist and won’t forward it.
You may be a Muslim
Loved it! More! Moooore! (flicks lighter)
I think Patton and MacArthur and Grant and Eisenhower would think we should say Muslims instead of islamists as using islamists implies that it is just some extremists among “The Religion Of Peace” that’s the only problem when it is the whole damn lot of the followers of Mohammad, The Monster Who Waked The Earth.
“But that’s not my point here. The key element for this article is this: when solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates, then that means serious trouble.”
No amount of self-rightious platitudes will change in the least what Islam is.
“,i>“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.”
But that’s not my point here. The key element for this article is this: when solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates, then that means serious trouble.”
This is the very same kind of “Partners in Peace” thinking that has cost over 2,000, and still going, American troops their lives in Afcrapistan for absolutely nothing.
There is no such thing as an “Islamist.” This is an invented term by Westerners that means nothing to Muslims. We invented it because we are desperate to believe the fantasy that there are two classes of Muslims – one class of some “extremist” Muslims who want to impose medieval, barbaric Islamic law on the Earth, and another class that doesn’t. Hence, the fantasy that the ones that do are the “Islamists.” In reality, there is only one Islam. All Muslims believe the same thing. And the core imperative of the ideology is world domination, totalitarianism and subjugation of non-Muslims under this sick barbaric system invented by a 7th century pedophilic warlord. There is no Muslim anywhere that doesn’t support that agenda. The only difference between individual Muslims is how energetic they are about it.
“The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.”
This is a very good point. I just heard a racket coming from outside and I looked out my window and it was a hysterical mob of Jews chasing some guy with a camera and that hysterical mob of Jews was yelling they were going to behead him for making a video disrespecting Moses. And just yesterday it was a hysterical mob of Catholics running after some guy they said had insulted the Pope and yelling they were going to burn him at the stake when they caught up with him. And just last week a hysterical mob of atheists was after some guy to cut his heart out for insulting Christopher Hitchens.
And I’m sure part of it was for political gain with the rest just being for the joy of it all.
I am not sure about the comments about the rants on Islam. They’re not surprising, given the times and the war ongoing. I was educated or ‘educated’ on the view that Islam, though having some warlike aspects, was essentially a political framework that gave rise to somewhat reasonable (if expansionist) empires like the Ottoman. My views have been revised. And while there are moderate Muslims, there indeed seems to be no effective, visible moderate Islam anywhere.
“And while there are moderate Muslims, there indeed seems to be no effective, visible moderate Islam anywhere.”
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. The entire west is basing policy on something that is not in evidence. Belief in moderate islam is kind of like believe in CAGW. You have to believe, and stone the unbeliever. Evidence is irrelevant.
Someday, maybe. But it’s not in evidence right now.
Obama is more savvy in talking to Muslims than we give him credit. For example, his line in his UN speech about “the future not belonging to those who defame the prophet of Islam.” He was intentionally two-faced. To Americans, he said, “the future doesn’t belong to those who ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.” But to Muslims and Islamists, he was saying, “The future doesn’t belong to non-Muslims.” Because to most Muslims, both radical and otherwise, simply denying that Mohammed was God’s prophet is defaming Mohammed. Non-radical Muslims just live with other people disagreeing with them; similar to many Christians believing that denying the deity of Christ is defaming Christ.
Obama and other progressives don’t understand the Middle East because they view everything through a racialist, marxist worldview. They believe people are driven by the conflict between white Europeans and other races (like Marx’s struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat). To progressives, they see themselves as being on the same side as the radical Muslims against white, colonialist Europeans. They don’t understand that other people view the world via a different confrontational paradigm, i.e. Muslim versus non-Muslim.
As Obama’s cover story comes down, the curtain goes up on the USAO’s cover-up of J.J., Jr.’s role in the Blago story
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/10/05/as-obamas-cover-story-comes-down-the-curtain-goes-up-on-the-usaos-cover-up-of-j-j-jr-s-role-in-the-blago-story/
All of which brings up a real danger in this racial solidarity stuff. At some point, when pushed, and pushed, and pushed, whites might start reacting the same way.
Then we’re back to the days of the Klan. We’re closer than anybody thinks.
Barry,
Thanks for another insightful article. I very much enjoy your perspective and always learn something. Considering:
“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.
But that’s not my point here. ”
I, for one would really like to read your thoughts when that is the point. Having heard both angles many times, your insight about where the truth lies would be helpful to me.
- a -
From the article: “… when solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates, then that means serious trouble.”
Since, for Muslims, the Koran is the literal and immutable word of the supreme being, Allah, all Islamic concepts derived from the Koran are doctrinal. One such doctrine is jahiliyya (refers to “the time of ignorance,” the time before Islamic enlightenment), which holds that everything outside of Islamic culture is totally worthless. Thus, all infidel beliefs, customs, social conventions, traditions, institutions, laws, and history are to be discarded, buried, and their memory erased forever.
As Westerners, we all are familiar with the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Islam has similar rules for Muslims dealing with other Muslims (there are violent disagreements within Islam as to who is a “true” Muslim–that is, how to properly “purify” the Islamic collective,the ummah of wrong-thinkers). However, implementing the doctrine of jahiliyya, toward infidels(non-Muslims) Islam has a different rule–for infidels, the Islamic Golden Rule is “obliterate the Other.”
Thus Islam inevitably, as the author correctly says, ever and always “means serious trouble” for civilization. The author’s assertion that we who resist this ancient fascist ideology are ignorant of Islam is insulting and itself profoundly ignorant.
Another commonality of an Obama rally and preaching to the Arab street: Talk down to the crowd. Seek the lowest common demonator. Appeal to the simple minded. Fabricate strawmen. Offer them revenge and disgust while blurring substance.
Examples: Obama says that Romneys plan will raise taxes $5 trillion, fire big bird, and throw granny under the bus with her health care. The mullah says that you get 72 virgins for suicide, Zion is the enemy and the U.S. is the Satan.
When a politician or a huckster is sell the crowd, he has to know his audience. There is a 47% of those who would be slaves, co-dependent, and believe anything.
Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911/
“The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.”
FORWARD!
What is this article doing on PJmedia anyway???!!?? It sounds like a beauty contestant vision for world peace and can’t we all just get along?
Will no one stand up for religious freedom? The right to preach and convert is fundamental to all freedom.When Obama tried to inflame billions of Muslims against a nutty American to protect his political standing, he violated the very notion of America.While Al Queda boosts of sodomizing our Ambassador, we apologize the to the UN for insulting the Prophet.
“Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense”
I would like to disagree.
The endless search for “Moderate Islam” and “Moderate Muslims” continues. The tooth fairy will be captured and put on display before this happens.
All Muslims do in fact support revolutionary “Islamism” because by definition part of what makes them a Muslim is submission to Islam which requires them to support world domination. Any Muslim that contributes any time or money to any organized form of Islam is in fact supporting revolutionary Islam.
If Muslims do not believe in these teachings of Mohamed why do they still call themselves Muslims? The usual answer is that they wont renounce Islam for fear of being killed.
That brings me to the question that is not asked nearly enough. Why do we not support freedom of religion for Muslims? By this I don’t mean the freedom to practice the barbaric life style that is Islam, I mean the freedom of the so-called “Moderate Muslims” to choose another religion or no religion without fear of being murdered.
Because the West is cowardly and also enjoys making money trading with Muslim states and entities (like OPEC).
Howdy! This blog post could not be written any better! Going through this article reminds me of my previous roommate! He constantly kept talking about this. I’ll send this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a very good read. Thanks for sharing!