What Palestinian Children Watch on TV
To commemorate the latest video showing a cute anthropomorphic Hamas animal teaching murder, martrydom, and Jew-hating to a generation of children, I have decided to give you a short history of the cute, evil characters. I found all these by browsing through Hot Air posts, or conducting YouTube searches based on those posts.
It started with the Jew-hating Mickey Mouse.
This video shows Mickey-Mouse-resembling mouse Farfour being given the documents that prove Palestinians own Palestine. Then an evil Zionist beats him up for not giving up the documents. Finaly, Farfour ends up in prison, and Saraa, the bloodthirsty little girl who hosts these programs, tells us that he was martryed defending his land, by the same murderers who killed Muhammad Al-Dura and other children. (Al-Dura’s death was very likely staged, but don’t expect Saraa to tell you that.)
Replacing Farfour the mouse was a giant bee named Nahoul, the cousin of Farfour. You can see him in action here. He says: “I want to continue the path of Farfour — the path of Islam, of heroism, of martrydom, and of the mujahideen.”
This is a culture of death, so Nahoul had to die as well — of Zionist neglect in a Gazan hospital. In the next video, which is embedded below, we see doctors giving CPR to the giant bee, which they do in the classic Palestinian style — about four pumps per second.
Then a new character — a bunny resembling Bugs Bunny — asks what happened to his brother Nahoul the bee. Eventually, the bunny is told: “He’s not in any hospital. He died a martyr’s death, Allah have mercy upon him.” The bunny is determined to take the bee’s place in the hearts of Gazan children, just as the bee took the mouse’s place.
In a conversation with Saraa, we hear the bunny talk about the glory of seeking martyrdom and eating Jews — yes, I said eating Jews:
Bunny: We are all martrydom-seekers, are we not, Saraa?
Saraa: Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland.
. . . .
Bunny: And we will take Al-Aqsa?
Saraa: Of course, Assud. We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists.
. . . .
Bunny: But I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing. [Jumping up and down] and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?
Saraa: Allah willing.
Here’s the video:
Here is the short clip of Assud exulting at the thought of eating Jews:
Here is our friend Assud calling for the murder of Danish cartoonists who dared picture Mohammed:
Here is an image from the Hot Air post that alerted us to this charming video:
In this video, Assud the Jew-eating rabbit dies due to Zionist aggression. No English subtitles, but you can figure it out.
The latest character, we learn today, is a cuddly bear. Here is the conversation between the cute bear and the little zealot Saraa:
Bear: Saraa, Allah willing, I will be one of the mujahideen, one of the fighters. . . . I will wage Jihad among them, and carry a gun. Do you know why?
Saraa: Why?
Bear: To defend the children of Palestine.
Here’s the video:
It’s not just cute characters. On Palestinian TV, we also get to hear from real-life children whose mom did the greatest thing any Palestinian could do: namely, kill Jews.
Here is a video in which the host chats with children of a female suicide bomber. It’s smiles all around as they proudly talk about how many Jews mom killed:
Host: What did mama do?
Child: She committed martyrdom.
Host: She killed Jews, right?
[Girl smiles and nods.]
Host: How many did she kill, Muhammad?
Child: Huh?
Host: How many Jews did mama kill?
Child: This many. [Smiles and holds up five fingers.]
Host: How many is that?
Child: Five.
[Girl also smiles and holds up five fingers.]
And you guys are worried about the children being raised by Octomom?
I’ve seen this noxious brew previously, but it can never hurt to post it as many times as possible. Now let’s hear Hacks defend this, all in the guise of “google has millions of examples of moderate Muslims condemning this program.”
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:05 pmMom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Anonymous (5fa9a5) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:13 pmHost: How many Jews did mama kill?
Child: This many. [Smiles and holds up five fingers.]
Patterico – She must have been a moderate. She only killed five Jews. Hopefully her children will do better with appropriate instruction.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:16 pmHmmm. So are these cartoons considered mainstream, Patterico?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:19 pmAnd thank you for posting this. We all need to see this kind of thing, to understand what is happening. Otherwise, the cultural relativists will say “well, this isn’t mainstream” and “moderate Muslims reject this.”
According to Google.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:20 pmThis should be followed with a posting of the videos of the planes into the Twin Towers, and the people jumping to escape the fires – film that has mysteriously disappeared from our history it seems.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:31 pmI’ve seen this noxious brew previously . . .
Yeah, it’s mostly historical — but the bear’s new.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:31 pmWhat say you, Hacks?
We all know what Peter would think.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:32 pmC’mon JD: don’t be a racist. This isn’t mainstream. Only a tiny minority of Muslims pay attention to this kind of thing.
And besides, Christian fundamentalists do worse every day.
Right?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:37 pmInteresting how they have no problem poaching from the creativity of the West: Mickey Mouse & Bugs Bunny…and perhaps the bear too, Yogi? Care Bear? Teddy Ruxpin?
Shouldn’t there be some sort of public denouncement of evil America in this, too? …just to be consistent…
Dana (137151) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:38 pmThe Israelis are doomed.
And we’re next.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:40 pmDana, I am pretty sure that there are such cartoons out there.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:42 pm“And besides, Christian fundamentalists do worse every day.”
Eric – Yeah, Sarah Palin’s church is into this kind of shit big time. Plus they’ve got SNAKES!!!!
Ask Crazee Andee.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:47 pmYogi? Care Bear? Teddy Ruxpin?
I’m waiting for Hamas to re – engineer Thomas the Tank Engine, except this time it will be a train with a suicide bomb strapped to the engineer. Hey, it’s a British cartoon, correct? Might as well give them a preview of coming attractions.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:51 pmThe united States government (or Israel) should be jamming the signal of any station broadcasting this.
gahrie (9d1bb3) — 2/15/2009 @ 2:52 pmDmac, I guess you would need to replace Ringo Starr’s voice overs with Cat Stevens!
But instead of “Thomas the Tank Engine” what could it be called?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:02 pmDidn’t Alec Baldwin take a turn at that, as well? Hey, and George Carlin, too!
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:03 pmI mean, have you seen Veggie Tales?!
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:08 pm“Thomas the Tank Engine”
Achmed the Avenging Peaceful Warrior but Who is Justfied in Killing the Infidels as it is Written. Starring the voice of Matt Damon.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:15 pmOr Barney the Pro-Zionist Dinosaur who Drives Mohammed’s Children from their Rightful Lands with the Help of the Racist Amerikkka?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:18 pmUnsurprisingly, some are saying the Memri translation is inaccurate and misleading:
http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/2007/05/14/memri-and-its-mickey-mouse-translation/
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:25 pmWe all know that the I in I, Carly stands for infidel. And Hannah Montana’s middle name is mujahdeen. The Jonas Brothers, Zionist pigs, to be sure.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:25 pmDmac, EB…
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:26 pmYou guys keep this up and you’ll be getting a gig at The Atlantic Monthly – as serious political commentators.
Right, Hacks. That lovely little rabbit does not want to eat Joooooooooooooos, it wants to kill Joooooooooos. The rest were clearly not glorifying martyrdom. SHOCKA that you would defend these animals.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:29 pmHax, why don’t you answer some of the many comments addressed to you on the other post where you were demanding proof of moderate Muslims sympathizing with terrorists… like the large plurality of Pakistanis who have a favorable impression of Osama bin Laden?
And what basis can you give us to distrust MEMRI’s translation and trust the partly competing translation? Are you actually going to deny that they’re putting on programs for Palestinian children that encourage suicide bombing? Are you saying that Patterico’s history at the top of this page is a lie?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:34 pmOh…. and what’s with the word “unsurprisingly?” Is this more of that Zionist-conspiracy stuff?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:34 pmAre you surprised, Alan? After all, Christian fundamentalists are every bit as bad as Muslim extremists, who aren’t really a problem, and are only acting out because of Zionist perfidy which is funded by our own government.
It’s all American cultural imperialism.
Seriously, what else can this guy do? He has established a position, based on what he wishes to be true, involving radical Islam. And it’s reactive: you say “up” and he MUST say “down.”
He can’t ever reevaluate or write that he was mistaken. And those cartoons are not genuine and are overstated and besides, Veggie Tales is no different.
And did I mention Rush Limbaugh is overweight?
Sigh.
Teh Narrative, defined.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:41 pmUnsurprisingly, the site you link to has a number of issues itself.
First, there’s the “MEMRI was established by the JOOOOSSS” line. Immaterial.
Second, the helpfully color-coded section that supposedly shows where MEMRI mistranslated makes a couple of errors. The “preferred” translation has a statement from Farfour stating “I will shoot” — and in order to “show” MEMRI got it wrong, they shifted the MEMRI translation of that phrase to line up with the next statement!
The next MEMRI “error” is a disagreement in translation. The “preferred” source makes the translation “we are going to resist” and MEMRI renders it as “we want to fight”. Meh — unconvincing.
The next supposed error:
This is in response to a question which the preferred translation renders as “then what? We already know this one, then what?” It is followed by what the preferred translation renders as “We are going to defend Al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not Sanabel?”
That particular translation may be inaccurate, but either way it’s despicable. Is it encouraging children to murder or to allow themselves to be murdered?
The final “error” is laughable. The preferred translation: ” I’m going to become a martyr. [Literally: I want to become a martyr]”. The “incorrect” MEMRI translation: “I will commit martyrdom.”
Er… what’s the error there?
The final part of the post you linked to is just another attack on MEMRI, and is, again, immaterial.
All in all, not a convincing “rebuttal”, particularly as it completely ignores the other six videos, as well as the history of this crap coming out of the Arab world in general!
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:48 pmUnsurprisingly, some are saying the Memri translation is inaccurate and misleading:
Unsurprisingly, ignorant douchebags immediately blame the Jooos for other’s vile behaviors.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:48 pmI’m not defending anything, just pointing out the Memri translations may be biased.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:50 pmPoint of order – since our host gave Hackey a generous offer to attempt to prove himself worthy of not going into moderation/banning, what has he done any differently since that time?
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:50 pmThanks for immediately proving my point, Hackey Sack.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:51 pmMr Blair asks an appropriate question:
I’d answer that by comparing them to American television. Thanks to cable, even in the backwoods of northeastern Pennsyltucky, I get 200 channels, and on none of those channels do we see anything remotely close to that.
Now, I’m guessing that the Palestinians have a somewhat more limited selection than 200 channels; perhaps there’s a Patterico reader who can tell us just how many they do get. If the Aryan Brotherhood can’t get a foot in the doorway of American television with all of the cable channels that exist, the fact that this stuff can make it onto Palestinian broadcast television tells you that it’s at least a lot closer to mainstream there than it would be considered here.
The realistic Dana (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:52 pm#29: you aren’t defending anything? Wow. If this is not defending something, I would hate to see you defend something!
Unless you are just being a contrarian.
Would you describe your own posts as “possibly biased”?
And how interesting that you don’t suspect pro-Arab sources of perfidy? Because you are just pointing out possible biases, I mean.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:54 pm“Just asking questions”?
Feh. What’s your judgment on the matter? You’ve seen the translation and the argument against it’s accuracy, as well as a counter argument. So now state your opinion on the matter.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:57 pmjust pointing out the Memri translations may be biased.
And I’d like to point out the utter worthlessness of this commenter’s body of work on this blog.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/15/2009 @ 3:58 pmTo be fair, Dana, the television stations in Gaza and the West Bank aren’t free to broadcast what their audiences want. This is more about what the Palestinians’ elected governments want to push than the attitudes of the run-of-the-mill Palestinians.
If, on the other hand, these shows get stellar ratings…
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:00 pmRob, Dmac: the goal, again, is to get you folks to dive through all the proof.
The troll sits back and “asks questions.”
It’s about speaking Troof to Powder.
It is amusing to see the mindset that looks at those kids’ cartoons and assume that the Joooosssss are mistranslating things.
But remember, this character isn’t defending anything. Just asking questions.
Isn’t that what the 9-11 Truthers say?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:01 pmI’d point out here that, even with our freedom of the press, if an American street agitator had written something like Mein Kampf, nobody would print it. It was printed in Germany, when Adolf Hitler was a nobody, because anti-Semitism was simply an accepted part of the European culture at the time.
In The Winds of War, Herman Wouk has one of the characters, Byron Henry, reading Mein Kampf, and saying, “Don’t they have any lunatic asylums in Germany? And if they do, who do they put there if not this guy?” That, in an interesting way, pointed out the huge cultural differences post-war Americans have with pre-war Europeans. If written today, we’d toss Adolf Hitler in the looney bin, here in the United States.
Well, what the Palestinian leadership plays to its people is possible only because their culture allows it. If Hitler was a raving anti-Semite, he could still be accepted in a Germany where anti-Semitism existed, openly, if not as virulently. And if this stuff can be played in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, it is because the culture accepts the base mindset.
We remember, of course, what der Führer’s leadership was able to do, when given the fertile fields of European anti-Semitism. Why would we think that, given the base culture in the areas ruled by the Palestinians, the same thing couldn’t happen again?
The Dana who isn't Jewish (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:04 pmI’m not defending anything, just pointing out the Memri translations may be biased.
What basis do you have for supporting those who’ve said it is biased? Why bring up the accusation of bias if you can’t support it yourself? Why bring it up if, as a non-Arabic-speaker, you have absolutely no idea whether it’s true? Why bring it up anyway when it’s indisputable that an awful lot of other Palestinian TV programming is of the same sort? Do you think you get to avoid taking any responsibility by volunteering what someone on another site has said, endorsing it, and then not providing any evidence that it’s correct?
So if I volunteer that some think you may be a future suicide bomber, I don’t have any burden to make any statement defending that? I can just say, “I’m not arguing anything, just pointing out you may be a future suicide bomber”?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:06 pmMr Crawford wrote:
The answer is in your statement, Mr Crawford. Yes, the Palestinian political leadership determines what will be broadcast, but, as you noted, it is an elected leadership. The Palestinians knew who they elected, knew exactly what they were getting.
We liberal Westerners deceive ourselves when it comes to the Palestinians. They have come right out and told us, in the PLO Charter and the Hamas Charter, that their goal is the elimination of Israel. Yet we don’t want to believe them; we deceive ourselves into thinking, well, this isn’t realistic, this is just some sort of negotiating ploy, because we cannot comprehend that these people are part of a culture that is so different from our own that what seems reasonable and rational and obvious to us is so much sewage to them. We think in terms of a just, negotiated settlement, and it all seems right to us; they think in terms of war and victory.
When I look at what happens over there, when I see that the Palestinians are able to recruit men and women and children who are willing to commit suicide, just to strike at their enemies, I see a people who are committed to their cause. Fighters don’t willingly go to their deaths for negotiating positions; they go to their deaths to strike, to help their people win the victory.
The Dana not blinded by our own cultural norms (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:15 pm“We think in terms of a just, negotiated settlement, and it all seems right to us; they think in terms of war and victory.”
Come again.
I don’t hear anyone on this blog thinking in terms of a just, negotiated settlement.
Who are you talking about when you say “we”?
And, more important, what course, other than pacifism and surrender, do you advocate for ending the occupation?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:20 pmHaving experience translating Arabic, I know that it can be difficult, especially when translating the spoken word into written form. The verbs have countless “measures” where a groups of different verbs derive from the same root. A non-specific example would be how the root infinitive of “to walk” gives rise to walk quickly, jog, run, sprint, and several other that differ, by degree.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:20 pmHax: why ask others questions when you won’t answer those put to you? When others answer even though you don’t answer, are you grateful that they’re more considerate than you–that they actually take the time to show why what you say makes even less sense than casting Hayden Christensen to play Darth Vader?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:22 pmAlan, when you wrote:
Now, that is getting just too nasty!
Grin.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:24 pmOh, and this bit, Alan:
Surely you know that is a purely rhetorical question.
I’m just asking questions, after all.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:25 pmI know. I should’ve said “as little sense” rather than “even less sense.” Outside of math class, there is no less-than-zero.
D**n you to Hell, George Lucas.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:26 pm45–Yes, that’s true.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:26 pmWhat occupation? It ended a couple of years ago.
You may have heard about it. It was in the news and everything.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:28 pmI have heard this claim that MEMRI translations are incorrect.
Now for thinking people arguments like that don’t mean squat unless the proper translation is then given and of course it never is, its just more liberal apologist for terrorist claptrap.
ML (14488c) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:28 pmHacks is just “asking questions” though.
Pacifism and surrender being used to describe the Palistinian terrorists would be a good start, Hacks. And end to homicide bombings of civilians would be a good start. I will ask a silly question. Since Hamas has a stated goal of the elimination of Israel, how do you see a negotiated settlement working out? Hamas will agree to only murder some Jooooooooos? When was the last time that Hamas/Palestine lived up to the terms of a negotiated peace settlement?
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:29 pmAnd you guys are worried about the children being raised by Octomom?
She’s an Arab. Her husband is Iraqi, presumably Muslim. Yes, you should be worried about her. That’s another eight little jihadis.
Subotai (ed0250) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:31 pmMr Vobiscum noted that there is an Arab source which disputes the MEMRI translations. But when I read Mr Vobiscum’s source, what I saw was a difference of emphasis in English. An example would be what the Arabs say means “I’ll become a martyr,” MEMRI translated as “I will commit martyrdom,” and the Arab source claims that this makes MEMRI’s translation “not credible and (a) flat out forgery.”
Pardom me if I fail to see the difference in meaning, even if MEMRI translates the statement as using a transitive verb, and the Arab sympathizers translate it as an intransitive.
But there is a wider point here: as we quibble about the translation, we ignore the larger, more important consideration, that such a show would never make it on the air in a liberal Western democracy for small differences in verbiage to be debated in the first place. Even were we to accept, without question, Mr Vobiscum’s source, we should still be shocked that this crap is on Palestinian television at all!
The Dana who sees the bigger picture (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:32 pmIslam – Now celebrating 1,388 years of teaching their children to kill Jews.
Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:33 pmI have no doubt but that extremists are using whatever influence they can, including television, to try to win converts.
My point is that by inaccurately, unfairly, misleadingly lumping moderate Muslims together with the terrorists, we make the extremists job much easier.
Rob Crawford: Where are you getting the occupation ended?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:38 pm#52 Even were we to accept, without question, Mr Vobiscum’s source, we should still be shocked that this crap is on Palestinian television at all!
I am not surprised after reading some of the Qur’an and hadeeth,
ML (14488c) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:39 pmthese cartoons are just simple representations of the Jew and infidel hatred those already contain.
I agree, the occupation hasn’t ended. When 2 countries were set up, one Palestine and the other Israel, Jordan rushed in and occupied Palestine. So the Palestinians chose to occupy a portion of Israel. Neither occupation has ended.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:41 pmHacks is just asking questions. Surely there were thousands of “moderates” that protested the use of childrens programming to promote terrorism.
Note how Hacks ignores all of the comments that refute the BS it has spewed, and then runs away with the goalposts.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:42 pmComment by The Dana who isn’t Jewish — 2/15/2009 @ 4:04 pm
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:48 pmTangently O/T..but I would point out that the man who provided Americans with their first English translation of Mein Kampf (and not a critical one) was eventually elected to the U.S.Senate, and was a leading voice of the Progressive Movement in latter 20th Century America: Alan Cranston.
What Richard Posner said of Noam Chomsky is true of Hax: His style of argumentation consists of changing the subject. If you show that something he said was wrong, he just ignores it and moves on.
Hax himself is making the job much easier of discrediting the idea that terrorist sympathizers comprise only a tiny minority of Muslims. Every time evidence cuts against his view, he ignores it. He doesn’t respond. This of course reinforces the certitude of those (like me) who had enough common sense to disagree with Hax in the first place. So, Hax, thank you for bringing shame and dishonor to your already cretinous side of this issue. You’ve slimed your cause by putting yourself out there in support of that cause.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:49 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/15/2009 @ 4:38 pm
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:51 pmIgnoring the reality that violence is the mainstream,
and moderation (if it actually exists) is the aberration within Islam.
Ummm…
Our point is that you continually ask other people to prove things to you, while you do little legwork yourself.
Yo are just asking questions, I know.
In that spirit, he is one for you. Since you write:
I’m not going to argue your interesting use of the terms “inaccurately,” “unfairly,” and “misleadingly.” All of those terms imply that you are familiar with a wide range of different sources—or you could not use those terms.
Speaking of “misleadingly.”
How about finding us fifteen “moderate Muslim” websites that decry these Palestinian cartoons?
Oh, and don’t use any pro-Arab source. We might question their translations.
Not to worry. We won’t wait up for your response.
It’s so much easier to tell other people to disprove your point than to prove it for yourself, isn’t it?
P.S. We are just asking questions.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:54 pmMr Vobiscum wrote:
Our entire way of thinking is based on the notion of a settlement based on Resolutions 242 and 338, some sort of division of the land with Israel returning to its pre-June 1967 borders and the Palestinians having Gaza, Judea and Samaria on which to begin an independent Palestine. That has been American policy for 42 years now, though we haven’t always been explicit about it.
We might debate the wisdom of that policy here, but, in the larger sense, that is exactly what the Western world sees as the solution.
Ariel Sharon was right: Israel must build a physical separation between themselves and the Arabs.
The sober Dana (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:57 pmBy ignoring the extremists, by failing to call them out and condemn them, we’re making the moderates’ jobs much harder. By caving into the extremists demands and ignoring their crimes, we give them space to grow. Hirsi Ali and Wilders are in danger because the murder of van Gogh was treated with kids gloves.
By letting the extremists control discourse — whether it’s Wilders or Rushdie or Hirsi Ali or anyone else — we’re showing the moderates that we really don’t mean what we say about freedom of speech. By sweeping honor killings under the multicultural rug, we’re letting Muslim women in our own communities that their freedom doesn’t matter all that much to us. By ignoring forced marriages that treat women as if they’re chattel worth little more than a ticket into western countries, we’re letting them know how much they can count on our support — not at all.
If you really gave a rat’s ass about moderate Muslims, you wouldn’t be so upset over people pointing out the rhetoric, acts, and goals of the extremists. As you said, it’s the moderates who suffer the most at the extremists hands — why are you so reluctant to stand by the moderates in our common fight?
The fact that the Palestinians have their own government(s), that they aren’t living with daily patrols by the IDF, and other clues.
Israel disengaged from the Palestinian territories. Even though it’s Wikipedia, this page may help you understand what I’m referring to.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/15/2009 @ 4:57 pmMr Vobiscum wrote:
You know, not all Germans were Nazis, either, but we had to defeat the good, moderate Germans along with the Nazis.
The “moderate Muslims” are the enablers of the extremists: they provide the cover for the guerrilla fighters, allowing them to live and hide and workl in their midst, they provide the economic support for the fighters, they are the indistinguishable from the good, non-Nazi Germans who nevertheless had jobs in armament factories supplying the Wehrmacht, who had jobs refining petroleum to fuel the Panzers, who grew the food to feed the soldiers.
What good does it to to identify ahmed as a moderate Muslim if he is still providing the shelter for the Hamas guerrilla?
The very realistic Dana (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:04 pmTo borrow from our current times…
We had lots of people in this country who just detested GW Bush and the Republican administration, right? And they held protests and were on television shows and wrote essays and books. Right?
So…where are the moderate Muslim equivalents? I can think of maybe three.
Dissent is patriotism. Except when they shoot you in the back of the head for dissenting, I mean.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:10 pm“My point is that by inaccurately, unfairly, misleadingly lumping moderate Muslims together with the terrorists, we make the extremists job much easier.”
Hax – What is the “job” or goal of the extremists and how do you see that differing from the “moderates.”
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:11 pmAD – RtR/OS: I suspect that I’m in a small minority here, but I’ve actually read Mein Kampf, and did so just last year. My translation was by Ralph Manheim, © 1943 by Houghton Mifflin. It’s rough reading.
The very literate Dana (556f76) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:12 pmNow there you go again, Dana, dissing Austrians and Germans. You know perfectly well that rhetoric is just rhetoric for propaganda purposes, and you can’t prove that the translation is correct and accurate.
Besides, the Jooooooooossss are behind it.
All you are doing with this discussing is inflaming extremists, and making the Nazis more powerful.
I’m just asking questions.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:15 pmI wonder how they’d like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy over there?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:27 pmShi’a Eye for the Sunni Guy?
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:33 pmComment by Eric Blair — 2/15/2009 @ 5:33 pm
That is sooooo bad!
Consider yourself denounced.
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:37 pmOnly people Egyptians and Jordanians hate more than the Jews are the Palestinians.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:40 pmFWIW, the production values of those carterrortoons are horrible.
What the hell are they doing with the billions in EU aide?
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/15/2009 @ 5:41 pmIt started with the Jew-hating Mickey Mouse
. . .but some historians trace the beginnings to a militant German trade union led by the charismatic ex-merchant seaman, Donald Dück.
Official Internet Data Office (ca554a) — 2/15/2009 @ 6:19 pmWithin a few short years, the world was at war, and the entire continent of Europe was in flames.
(Sorry, the html umlaut worked just fine in Live Preview.)
Official Internet Data Office (ca554a) — 2/15/2009 @ 6:24 pmIt’s surprising that people rooted in a particular theology (and I won’t mention the peculiar politics of those who are into woe-is-me socialism intertwined with woe-is-me fascism) should be so aggressive and even a bit, uh, bloodthirsty. I’m truly baffled!
___________________________________
Mark (411533) — 2/15/2009 @ 6:24 pm___________________________________
“I see dead people.”
Patricia (89cb84) — 2/15/2009 @ 6:34 pmBy the same token, I’m just pointing out that you’re consistently, demonstrably, completely full of shit. Oh wait. Yours is conjecture, mine is a statement of fact. My bad.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/15/2009 @ 6:52 pm#52 The Dana who sees the bigger picture:
Much less state television.
Although I suppose that one could argue that CPB/PBS/NPR aren’t exactly “mainstream” here.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/15/2009 @ 8:29 pmSee, I have a slightly different view of Hax and his comments.
I want someone from the left who will give us a link challenging the MEMRI translation. Apparently unlike many of you, I find challenges like that valuable. I wasn’t aware of this particular challenge. I don’t find it facially very convincing, for reasons stated by Rob Crawford. But I’m no Arabic speaker, and now that I’m aware of the controversy I’ll want to research it further.
However, I too am curious, Hax, as to your use of the word “unsurprisingly.” You claim you were only making us aware of the controversy — but that’s a loaded word. Care to explain what you meant by it?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/15/2009 @ 9:30 pmHonestly, Patterico, this is the whole Contrarian Poster scheme, again. He has to take the opposite of the issue, by his nature.
I know you like him, and it is your house. That’s cool.
But I find that most people who are CPs cannot help but reveal their own prejudices and biases—even as (and this is the critical part) they excoriate others for their own biases and prejudices.
Hence the “unsurprisingly” term.
Admittedly, I tend to have a lower burden of proof when it comes to open societies (Israel) versus totalitarian and medieval regimes (most of the rest of the Middle East). Is there a free press present? Maybe that isn’t important to many people; it is to me.
But what I find is that all the anti-Semitic commentary and attacks by Muslim nations seem to qualified and hyperanalyzed and eventually explained away by the Left—but actions of Israel are held to very exacting and suspicious standards, again by the Left.
Use a tough metric on everyone; fine. But that ain’t what’s happening.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 9:41 pmHacks balances out his aggressive dishonesty throughout many threads by pointing us to a link where they disagree with a transaltion, or actually, disagree with the degree of the language used. The standard for Hacks is pretty damn low.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:03 pmPatterico, I used the word “unsurprisingly” because I’m not surprised that there would be challenges to a translation of a very controversial, highly politicized TV show.
It’s telling that some of your posters read in completely different meanings.
I too have no idea whether this guy’s translations are any better than Memri’s, but I do know that there is often a lot lost in translation and that it is sometimes used deliberately to mislead.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:08 pmYep. Just asking questions with no agenda.
It’s a television show for children.
“Completely different meanings”? Is that the best you can say? Given the alternate translations provided, which are, to my mind, anti-Semitic in the extreme.
And this is not new.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:11 pmDeliberately misleading is a concept you know well, Hacks.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:13 pmJD, I keep imagining what people like this guy would say if there was a anti-Obama, racist television show for children on the air.
Would we need lots of translations and context? And understanding?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:18 pmNo one’s explaining anything away.
I merely pointed out that the translations may be off.
If there’s any hypocrisy here it’s in the blatant double standard in favor of anti-Islamic smears.
Some of the stuff that goes unremarked on here is bigotry on stilts…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:19 pmComment by Eric Blair — 2/15/2009 @ 10:18 pm
Did you sign up for that cable feed from Northern Idaho, EB?
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:20 pmCan we all say, together:
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:21 pmP R O J E C T I O N !
And Rob C pointed out that the quotes being “off” are really just based on degrees, not substantive content. Never mind, you are not explaining things away, you are just asking tough questions.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:24 pmWonder what you defenders of childhood innocence make of this:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007733.html
“Muslim Massacre” is a video game in which an American hero commits religious genocide against Muslims.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:25 pmHax, did you actually accuse anyone here of bigotry?
Honestly?
I’m just asking questions, after all. Some might call you an anti-semite and a willing tool of terrorists. But not me. I’m just asking questions.
Irritating, isn’t it?
AD, beware the ZOG.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:26 pmI know you like him, and it is your house. That’s cool.
It’s not so much that I “like” him — he has gotten on my nerves more than once in the past.
But I think his comment is an example of the value added by commenters who don’t share the prevailing political view. And I do worry that the crowd here gangs up too quickly on those holding opposing viewpoints.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:26 pmEric – No need to imagine. You and I both know exactly how it would respond.
Racist
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:27 pmHey, Patterico, are you still digging this guy and his links?
I’m taking a break from this nonsense. This guy is the poster child for Cultural Relativist…but he strains at gnats while passing elephants.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:28 pmYeah, the post by subotai talking about the children of Octomom being “eight little jihadis” stinks to high heaven of bigotry.
No one commented on it.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:28 pmAnd I’m no anti-semite, by any measure.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:29 pmWhacks are not cuts.
JD (c2765f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:29 pmPerhaps so, but usually only on those who are unable, or unwilling, to defend and define their positions.
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:30 pm100 is in response to 94
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:33 pmEB, I have anti-ZOG plug-ins installed throughout the Casa.
AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f) — 2/15/2009 @ 10:34 pmPalestinians are sorta just losers I think.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:16 pmJust thought I’d throw that out there and mix things up a little.
happyfeet (4eacbc) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:29 pmPatterico, do you think he adds value even though he says things like “You have no evidence of moderate Muslims endorsing terrorism” and then completely ignores it when other commenters pile on evidence, e.g., OBL’s 46% approval rating in Pakistan? Does he really add value when he sparks debate about issues but then goes MIA when evidence on the other side is presented, and repeatedly ignores calls to come back to the fight instead of hide because there’s evidence against his point? Does he add value when he does this repeatedly over multiple threads in the course of a single day?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:31 pmNo one commented on it.
Hax, you moral degenerate animal, you didn’t respond to countless comments made specifically in response to points you made or questions you asked, so STFU about other people not commenting on things.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:36 pmHey Alan, it’s Patterico’s house.
To me, HV is just a contrarian who thinks he is speaking Truth to Power to those nasty narrow minded Right wingers, and pulls the “I’m just asking questions” business while accusing others of bigotry. In my opinion, he remains to Poster Boy for Cultural Relativism, which is something of a contradiction in terms nowadays.
But I could be wrong. And my opinion doesn’t matter. If he irritates me too much, I don’t have to deal with him. Patterico knows his bona fides and that must mean that there is some intellectual value in the guy.
But the Palestinian TV add thread was certainly annoying to me. Everyone else’s mileage may vary.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:40 pmI know it’s Patterico’s house, and I mean no disrespect to him–those weren’t rhetorical questions I was asking him. I really wanted to hear what Patterico thinks about what I asked.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/15/2009 @ 11:42 pmI get irritated, too, Alan, and then I remember it’s all just electrons on the screen.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 12:07 amPatterico, do you think he adds value even though he says things like “You have no evidence of moderate Muslims endorsing terrorism” and then completely ignores it when other commenters pile on evidence, e.g., OBL’s 46% approval rating in Pakistan? Does he really add value when he sparks debate about issues but then goes MIA when evidence on the other side is presented, and repeatedly ignores calls to come back to the fight instead of hide because there’s evidence against his point? Does he add value when he does this repeatedly over multiple threads in the course of a single day?
Hax? You’re being accused of being an intellectual coward. I didn’t read those threads, but if you’re ignoring evidence contradictory to your position, people will notice and judge you accordingly.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 12:21 amI responded to that evidence, but I’m happy to respond again, briefly.
Even the survey results for Pakistan show that bin Laden’s supporters are a minority.
And Pakistan is only one country, and one that has born much of the brunt of the “war on terror” in Afghanistan. It doesn’t reflect the wider Muslim world. There are more Muslims, for example, in India than in Pakistan, and the numbers who support bin Laden there are much, much smaller.
Likewise in the largest Muslim countries, Indonesia and Egypt, support for bin Laden is miniscule.
The data are in: support for bin Laden is a tiny minority in the Muslim world, and nothing, not one word, brought up by any commenter on this forum contradicts that.
I’ve provided hundreds and hundreds of words and countless examples of moderate Muslims condemning terror, yet no response to that, other than to dismiss it out of hand or talk around it.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/16/2009 @ 1:56 amHax,
Do you believe and practice the teachings of the Koran? Did Mark in #77 offer any “mis-translations”? Is it true that a Islamic woman be punished if she is raped? Is it true that you hate and wish all Jews were killed?
Just asking………….
krusher (e82eb2) — 2/16/2009 @ 4:29 amIsn’t this what child molesters do? They use puppies and stuffed animals to lure young children to perform grotesque acts for the perverse pleasures of the adults.
eaglewingz08 (782b50) — 2/16/2009 @ 5:03 amReligion of peace-my foot!
Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/16/2009 @ 5:24 amYet when I volunteer at Toys for Tots, it will not even give military toys to kids so as to remove any criticism that the Marines are using the program to recruit.
Well that type of politically correct appeasement is wrong too. The Marines should tell critics to screw off, but it is an honor thing and the kids are more important than the satisfaction gained in doing that.
But getting back to the topic, the Palestinians are the most self destructive sick people (as a nation) on the planet, with the exception of North Korea. That is my most sane Palestinians (who are able to do so) have left.
Joe (17aeff) — 2/16/2009 @ 5:37 amI think that’s disgusting. I’d never let any child under my supervision play it, and if I thought it was produced by the US government, I’d demand an accounting and the ending of the careers of anyone involved.
But surely you see the difference between a privately created expression of bigotry that appears and disappears without a ripple (seriously — how hard did you have to search for a reference to that game?) and a government-funded program intended to teach children hatred and violence?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:26 am#110 Patterico:
He isn’t an intellectual coward~he’s intellectually dishonest, which to me is a rather large difference.
For example,
which is unfortunately true, but follows with
which is not.
Add to that an incredible lack of knowledge of some pretty downright basic stuff, and you have a vapid, dishonest poser who isn’t here to argue in the affirmative for anything with any real expectation of changing anyone’s mind about anything, nor has it displayed any hint of willingness to consider that its viewpoints don’t mesh with the real world at all.
Coupled with the observation that many of your other commenters are extremely perceptive and intelligent (myself excluded, I’m just a cranky old boor), it’s easy to see why you might be concerned that
where I think that its just an example of many commenters recognizing that it (meaning the troll) does not add anything to the discussion.
I think a majority of the regulars welcome an honest dissenting opinion, and are open to argument presented fairly and openly.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:37 amFor me, the real example of hatred is Hax’s willingness to ignore Islamic extremists. The rest of us want to stand up to them, expose them, weaken them — to support the moderates. Yet we’re the “bigots” in Hax’s world.
And, oddly, Hax refuses to ever address that issue. Just calls everyone else a bigot…
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:37 amRob, I think that it has to do with reflexive contrarianism more than a principled set of differences.
It’s fine to enter this debate with a deep suspicion of Muslim terrorism, given the preponderance of associations between acts of terrorism and that particular faith (and yes, primarily but not always involving the Wahabist viewpoint).
But HV enters from the other direction. Remember all the celebrations from the Muslim world over 9-11? And then there was this scramble to find some kind of American equivalent to that celebration (and without success that is in any way a valid comparison).
And academics see this kind of thing all of the time on campus: a distrust and condemnation of the “status quo” without using that same analytical precision on the critics’ viewpoints. Instead academics invariably come up with Ace’s concept of nuance to make very dissimilar things alike.
I’m not sure that HV has deep feelings on this subject, to be frank. I do think that he is oppositional, in the sense of Pacifica Radio’s approach to society: “The Man” is wrong and venal, but “Teh People” are honest and require more understanding in a complex world.
I wouldn’t mind either approach applied equitably. But not doing so is a sure sign of partisanship (to coin a phrase) uber alles.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:51 amAnd I’m no anti-semite, by any measure.
Whatever you say, Himmler.
The data are in:
I’ve provided hundreds and hundreds of words
Hackey, your words do not equate with actual facts. Do look up the meaning of the word and try to use it accurately in the future.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:02 amMaybe this guy owns the ocelot?
Just so long as it isn’t a Zionist ocelot, naturally.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:03 amHax may be where I was at not too long ago — desperately trying to be balanced about Islamist violence. Americans (I presume he is one) are taught to be respectful of other religions to avoid seeming bigoted or judgmental. So Hax tries to balance each example of Islamist violence with an example of violence from some other religion.
But the facts are not balanced. There is a large minority of Muslims that support terrorism (25 percent of U.S. male Muslims!), and a majority that appears cowed into submission. The same is not true of Christians. The Christians who practice or condone “Christianist” violence are an infinitesimal fraction of the Christian population, condemned by all other Christians.
The attempt to equate conservative Christians with violent Islamists twists the facts, such as the many vile leftist attacks against them as the “American Taliban” and so forth.
While as an atheist I don’t agree with conservative Christians, I can appreciate the difference between the former, who would pray for me or at worst ostracize me, and Islamic extremists, who would imprison or kill me.
No, the facts aren’t balanced, and that’s something Hax needs to understand.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:26 am“I’m not sure that HV has deep feelings on this subject, to be frank.”
Eric – On this and other subjects on which he has taken positions. His very extended delays in providing “countless” examples to back up his hundreds of words supporting his positions on various matters may just signal lazy thinking in adopting lefty CW that never requires support because it is CW. Alternatively, he may, as you suggest, be making shit up as he goes to be oppositional. Neither approach illustrates much intellectual courage or honesty.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:44 amYou make the mistake of attempting to argue points with the monkey, Bradley – but the monkey only wishes to fling poo, nothing else.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:09 amNicely put, Bradley. Everyone tries to be fair, I suspect. But you have to ask yourself where your “fairness” takes you, and are you happy with that destination?
All things are not equivalent, no matter how much the Left, philosophically, wishes it to be so.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:23 amThe leftist ideology is just too ironic.
Their anti-Christian hate and delusions run rampant, yet the minute any fact about Islam are given the calls of racist, bigot and everything else just comes flowing out.
And they wonder why we laugh at them and consider them to be apologist for the mujahedeen.
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:01 amEven the survey results for Pakistan show that bin Laden’s supporters are a minority.
No, you retard, they show that bin Laden’s supporters are a very large plurality. Bin Laden’s approval rating is 46 percent, his disapproval rating 26 percent. And don’t even get me started on all that other evidence I and other commenters brought up that you ignored for hours on end and still continue to ignore.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:06 amAnd Pakistan is only one country
What about Nigeria? In Nigeria, “nearly six in ten Muslims expressed confidence in bin Laden.” http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iWFKT0dviFcq6GD_hJwnZVDB5n_g
Oh, but that’s just two countries, right? Okay, what do you suppose bin Laden’s level of support is in Iran, or Saudia Arabia, or other countries you didn’t mention? You think it’s minuscule over there, too? Oh, but that’s just four countries, right?
Likewise in the largest Muslim countries, Indonesia and Egypt, support for bin Laden is miniscule.
In 2003, nearly six in ten Muslims in Indonesia supported bin Laden. The number has fallen precipitously since then, but what does it say to you that a majority of Muslims in that country EVER supported bin Laden? Surely the reason for the change in opinion can’t be due to religious beliefs, because their religious beliefs haven’t changed since 2003.
In Lebanon, one in three Muslims supports suicide attacks, down from 74 percent in 2003, a year when the tenets of Islam were, I remind you, the same as they are today. In Jordan, one in four support suicide attacks–and the number was eighteen percentage points higher in 2002, the year after 9/11.
When are you going to stop telling this lie that only a tiny minority of Muslims support terrorism?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:22 amML @ 9:01 am, as a Conservative Christian, I strongly agree with you.
Bradley @ 7:26 am, I tried to goto your link but it appears broken. Or at least I can’t goto there (missing page).
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:28 amAll things are not equivalent, no matter how much the Left, philosophically, wishes it to be so.
This same thinking of the left, that all things must be fair leads to the belief that all are entitled to own homes, to make X amount of money, and of course for everything to be distributed ‘fairly’
Whether about making a stand against and insidious evil or whether retaining self-sufficiency, the thinking behind this view removes individualism and the individual will. I think that is where the fear to make a stand against comes in to play as well. It collectively weakens.
Dana (137151) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:32 amAlan, a tiny minority is anything below 40 pc. And anything below 50 pc is a minority, like everyone knows. But we must ignore the plurality of polls that show numbers such as 40 pc in favor, 30 pc opposed, 30 pc uncertain. Plurality is not important, it’s the fact the 40 pc is still a minority.
90 pc of all facts are 50 pc accurate most of the time. Numbers don’t lie; people who use numbers do.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:34 amHere is a link to a 2005 poll showing Muslim support in various countries for suicide attacks against civilian attacks.
57% of Muslims in Jordan say that violence against civilian targets is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 11% say it is “never” justified.
In Lebanon, 30% say that violence against civilian targets is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 33% say it is “never” justified.
In other countries polled, support for terrorism is lower. For example, in Morocco, 13% say that violence against civilian targets is “often” or “sometimes” justified. 79% say it is “never” justified.
Hax, I can understand wanting to believe that only a “tiny minority” of Muslims support terrorism. But the facts are getting in the way of what you want to believe — particularly in certain countries.
I am personally down on the idea that Islam is inherently bad or violent. My best friend in the world married a Muslim woman, and she is devoutly religious and a wonderful person. I know she is not alone.
But there is an appallingly large number of people who are adherents of Islam who openly support killing civilians. And the kind of indoctrination we see in this post — your rather ineffectual link regarding translation quibbles notwithstanding — is a good example of why. Generations of children are being raised to exult in the deaths of Jews.
Click on the last link described and watch just a few seconds. Really do it. These cute little kids lost their mom to this sickness, and they have been indoctrinated to be proud of how many Jews she killed. These people have the Nazi mentality; make no mistake.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:16 amThat’s really irrelevant to Hacks, Alan. After all, this is a guy who wants to describe Christian ethics, beliefs and behavior using the Crusades. 2003 was like 5 minutes ago on Hacks’ scale.
Unless maybe he has two of them.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:27 amPatterico
I have a feeling the Moslem wife your friend has, is the tiny minority.
If the Qur’an and hadeeth didn’t proclaim the righteousness of fighting until all religion is for Allah and Mohammed is his only prophet and that killing infidels will not get you 72 virgins with rivers flowing with Satan’s handy-work (wine) and if those didn’t proclaim Jews to be the sons of apes and pigs.
I could consider Islam non-violent and not inherently bad.
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:30 amJohn Hitchcock:
Here’s the correct link to the “American Taliban” article.
For want of a capitalized “T” . . .
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (0d7901) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:51 amThanks, Bradley, I think. That article definitely brought my Irish (and my blood pressure) up. That is definitely a hate-filled truth-twisting propaganda piece, but I redundantly repeat myself.
You are right, though. If you and I were to get into a reasoned debate on Christianity, we wouldn’t agree. And I would pray for you. Most likely the prayer would be something like “Lord, give me the love, understanding and patience to handle this situation so he might understand Your love for him.” I definitely wouldn’t go out and endanger your life or well-being.
Oh, and yes, I do pray “Lord, give me patience and give it to me now.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I have a bit of a hard edge from time to time.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 12:11 pmJohn
You mean its frowned upon when Christians behead those who insult the Christian religion?
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 12:40 pmI am reminded of the Clinton administration’s attempts to reduce inner-city black-on-black crime. While the Clinton administration was deriding faith-based initiatives, it was strongly pushing “midnight basketball.” In the context of the public debate over this, there was a very interesting question. If you were walking down a dark street late at night and you saw several six-foot-tall black men come out of a building, would you feel safer if they were carrying Bibles or basketballs?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 12:57 pmJohn Hitchcock,
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I have a bit of a hard edge from time to time.
I can’t really blame you. And a hard edge to comments is light years away from terrorism — something our “American Taliban” countrymen on the left would understand if they were ever so unfortunate as to wind up in the power of the real Taliban or Al Qaeda.
You would probably like much of what Amy Alkon, no Christian conservative herself, writes about the blindness of the left to Islamist extremism.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (0d7901) — 2/16/2009 @ 1:18 pmEFRAT, West Bank – Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy is well known for opposing such construction.
unarmed liberal (63f90e) — 2/16/2009 @ 2:32 pmIsrael opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said.
Israeli officials said any new construction would require several years more of planning and stages of approval.
The outgoing government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said it reserves the right to keep building in large West Bank settlement blocs that it wants to annex as part of a final peace deal with the Palestinians. Efrat is in one of those blocs.
Patterico: I linked to the exactly the same report, and I explained how it distorts the results.
You parrot the distortion here:
“In Lebanon, 30% say that violence against civilian targets is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 33% say it is “never” justified.”
There were four categories, not two. Yet you combine two of them, then compare them to one. How to lie with statistics in one easy lesson.
If we combine “rarely” and “never” we find that the number is even more lopsidedly against.
But here’s the real distortion, as I mentioned. Pew doesn’t even bother to compare this number to Christians or Westerners who support violence against civilians.
How do the Muslim Pakistani numbers compare with the Christian American numbers?
If it doesn’t even occur to you to ask the question, how can you expect a meaningful result?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:28 pmIs 30% a “tiny” minority, Hacks?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:30 pmBring those numbers, by all means.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:31 pmGot passive-aggressive tendencies?
Besides, I think we all can see the use of the “P” word is appropriate here.
I believe Patterico has been very supportive of you, and you call him a liar? Nice job.
Oh, that’s right: you are just asking questions.
P.S. You really and truly do not want to ask a comparison: do you support violence against innocent people in support of your religion between Pakistani Muslims and Christian Fundamentalists.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:35 pmEric – I think those numbers would be quite interesting to see, indeed.
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:37 pmPatterico: I linked to the exactly the same report, and I explained how it distorts the results.
You parrot the distortion here:
#1 Please provide a link to your comment where you did so.
#2 If there is a distortion, blame the people who did the poll. Please click my link and then scroll down to the second box of results. That’s where I took my data from. The Pew Center people are the ones who aggregated the data for “sometimes” and “always.”
Careful with false accusations that others are “lying.”
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:43 pmPew doesn’t even bother to compare this number to Christians or Westerners who support violence against civilians.
What was that quote about stupid questions?
No, Hacks proves he doesn’t get smart just in time to ask the stupid question.
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:44 pmHax, do you know what “is rarely justified” means? It means there are times when it is justified. How about “civilian targets”? That means the ones intentionally aimed at. So, “violence against civilian targets” necessarily means intentionally trying to harm civilians.
Now, back to “Violence against civilian targets is rarely justified.” That means there are times when it is permissible to intentionally aim at civilians in order to do them harm. So you want to add to the numbers who believe it is never justified those who believe there are times it is justified in order to make the claim a higher percentage of people oppose violence against civilian targets. You, sir, are the disingenuous one, with such data massaging tactics.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:47 pmWhat the hell are they doing with the billions in EU aide?
Comment by Obama über alles!!!!!
Swiss banks don’t do cartoon production.
MIke K (2cf494) — 2/16/2009 @ 3:48 pmWe are looking at some very interesting scenarios as the Western developed nations which provided the gushing fountains of aid during boom times are increasingly imploding fiscally. Be it military, economic, healthcare, or simply basic essentials, these streams are facing a drought, notwithstanding the monetary expansion capacity of central bank printing presses. The global market corrections have decimated these trade based systems right along with the petro nations’ reserves and ongoing revenue streams. While it is to be expected to see crude prices revert to the mean, overall revenues can remain severely impacted without an increase in production levels. The implications of extended reductions in petro economies alongside the West’s credit collapse and debt growth intimates a sea change in the usual flow of bribes, blood money, hush money, deal money, and way beyond my pay grade.
While popcorn may have been the snack of choice during the election campaigns, MRE’s may be making some inroads in selected locations.
allan (0f5879) — 2/16/2009 @ 4:30 pm147–When Schiller wrote, “With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain,” he must have had Hax in mind.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 5:45 pmHey, if Hax “knows” the data were “distorted,” then that must mean that Hax knows the true figures. He can’t know that the figures Patterico cited are wrong, unless he knows that the figures actually are. So… what are the real figures, Hax?
Put up or shut up, you lying, subhuman pile of rotting elk viscera.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 5:54 pmAlan, I already explained why the figures were distorted, what the real figures were and linked to them.
You should consider reading things BEFORE you comment on them, rather than after…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:39 pmHax, I explained why your explanation was false.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:41 pm#2 If there is a distortion, blame the people who did the poll. Please click my link and then scroll down to the second box of results. That’s where I took my data from. The Pew Center people are the ones who aggregated the data for “sometimes” and “always.”
I did blame the people who did the poll, and noted that you repeated the distortion.
I also explained that Pew distorted the figures in the box featured on its front-page summary, then gave the actual figures in a PDF that has to be downloaded from the same site. I also provided the link to that, though it was in the other thread about Muslims.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:43 pmJohn says he thinks my explanation was “false.” So if he found it, why couldn’t you, Alan?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:44 pmHax – Approximately 80% of Americans classify themselves as Christian if I remember correctly from the last time I googled the question. By your comments you are suggesting that you have seen data to suggest that northward of 30% support violence against civilians yet you cannot provide any support for that contention. Am I correct?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:49 pmHax has succesfully turned this from a discussion about mainstream Palestinian TV running a show trying to indoctrinate children into terrorism.
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:50 pmHax, I didn’t say I think your explanation was false. I asserted it was false. Why don’t you debunk my proof showing your explanation was false?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:52 pmHey, stupid–I didn’t ask you for an explanation; I asked you for the figures. If you don’t have the “real” figures, then your “explanation” of why the figures are biased has no relevance. You can find fault with the methodology, but the real issue is the reliability of the figures. Unless you have the “real” figures, you have no basis for saying that there’s any error in the figures that came out of that process you disingenuously criticized. The facts matter more than the process we use to get to the facts. You don’t have facts, only lies.
What basis do you have for suggesting that Muslims and Christians in any country on Earth might be anywhere near equally likely to support terrorism or terrorists like OBL? (How do the Muslim Pakistani numbers compare with the Christian American numbers?) Do you specialize in red herrings? Do you have any idea how much damage you’re doing to the credibility of everyone who shares your beliefs, by virtue of wrapping their cause around your mendacity?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 6:59 pm“By your comments you are suggesting that you have seen data to suggest that northward of 30% support violence against civilians yet you cannot provide any support for that contention. Am I correct?”
Why 30 percent?
Did you pull that out of thin air?
What is your position, Daley, on violence against civilians?
Often? Sometimes? Rarely? or Never?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:00 pmThis was actually amusing:
Let me fix that.
And it should be self directed toward HV, not Alan.
Hey, don’t get mad. After all, we are just asking questions. Trying to “balance” your statements.
Remember folks, this is his goal: to make YOU do the work to disprove HIS assertions. While he sits back with his pet ocelot and chuckles.
It’s just a game to this character.
Patterico knows his genuine identity, and actual profession. I’m guessing all this fits.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:03 pm161: You wrote the following, and this is what daleyrocks was referring to:
But here’s the real distortion, as I mentioned. Pew doesn’t even bother to compare this number to Christians or Westerners who support violence against civilians.
How do the Muslim Pakistani numbers compare with the Christian American numbers?
If it doesn’t even occur to you to ask the question, how can you expect a meaningful result?
You clearly were insinuating that the figures for Christian Americans are comparable to the Muslim Pakistani figures. Now you deny it, because you’re a liar. If you weren’t insinuating that, then your comment 141 makes no sense.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:05 pmAlan, it is just Monty Python’s Argument Room.
The guy is a tool. Big time.
His goal is play reactive, reflexive contrarian.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:06 pmYou’re right, you’re right. I’ve got to stop this.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:10 pmHax – My positions don’t matter, we’re talking about your assertions. Leaving the goalposts in place for a moment, that 30% was floating around in the midpoint of several muslim dominated countries.
Now answer the question posed.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:18 pmAlan, you are just defending against people who equate Christian fundamentalists with Muslim jihadis.
Oh, I forgot: they are just asking questions. Kind of like Truthers.
Keep in mind that these folks, for the most part, sit on their backsides and sound all lofty about complex, difficult situations. And strangely, it always works out that US policies are wrong, and anti-US policies are correct.
Hmmm. The agenda remains clear.
This false equivalence game is maddening. But never doubt it is a game, and a lazy one at that.
The goal is to get you irritated, and get you looking up facts and figures, which this character will refuse to accept…while doing a porn-star limbo to accept data from people who are demonstrably untrustworthy regarding politics.
Because they want to believe that everything the Right holds dear is eeeevvvviiilllll. And everyone who opposes the Right must be gooooooood.
Remember “Animal Farm”?
“Four legs good…two legs baaaaaad.”
It’s that kind of thing.
And that’s cool. Why argue with a troll about it?
The only issue is if a lie is repeated enough time, it becomes seen as a kind of truth (“…Bush stole the 2000 election….Bush said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11….Bush is stupid….” and so on).
But this guy? He is just here to play games.
Otherwise he would brace Patterico about a post to explain his researched and referenced views, I imagine.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:19 pmGood luck, daley. You know the game plan, I realize.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:20 pmWhile he sits back with his pet ocelot and chuckles.
Comment by Eric Blair — 2/16/2009 @ 7:03 pm
LOL
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:25 pmNo bald cat?
“Otherwise he would brace Patterico about a post to explain his researched and referenced views, I imagine.”
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:27 pmBut this guy? He is just here to play games.
If so, then stop taking the bait because then he wins. 🙂
Dana (137151) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:34 pmWise Dana.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:35 pmSo if I were to expect him to refute my proof, I would be living in a dream world?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:37 pmDoes it really matter what poll results show? Leftists live bt polls, yet we should judge people by their actions. Outside of some protests, anothe favorite of the Left, what actions are people taking to oppose these extremists? In Palestine, they are electing Hamas to run their government. Ditto with Hezbollah.
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:38 pmHere’s another poll that includes Egypt, the biggest Arab country, and a much more direct approach in terms of the questions asked:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
By your comments you are suggesting that you have seen data to suggest that northward of 30% support violence against civilians yet you cannot provide any support for that contention. Am I correct?
More than four out of five Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) said such attacks were completely inexcusable, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans said they could only be “weakly justified”). On average 75 percent said that such attacks could not be justified at all.
Most believe that attacks on civilians are contrary to Islam. Respondents were asked about the “position of Islam regarding attacks against civilians,” and asked whether it supports or opposes such attacks. They were offered the additional options of saying that it “certainly” supports or opposes such attacks. Most took the strongest position of saying that Islam “certainly” opposes targeting civilians. On average, 63 percent took this position including 83 percent of Egyptians, 72 percent of Pakistanis, and 61 percent of Moroccans. A more modest 37 percent of Indonesians said that Islam certainly opposes such attacks, though an additional 38 percent said simply that Islam opposes them.
Respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “Groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence.” Large majorities agreed in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%).
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:42 pm“By your comments you are suggesting that you have seen data to suggest that northward of 30% support violence against civilians yet you cannot provide any support for that contention. Am I correct?”
is a quote from someone else, please disregard it.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:43 pmI am personally down on the idea that Islam is inherently bad or violent.
After scrutinizing the blatantly violent, war-like and combative history of Mohammed, I have to say you’re giving the religion that he’s the founder of more benefit of the doubt than it deserves. More importantly, the extremists within that theology, in fact — and most disquietingly — can point to the ruthless nature of Mohammed to justify or rationalize away their own behavior.
This is in marked contrast to despicable or radical/fanatical deeds done in the name of Christianity, since members of that religion can’t claim things like, “oh, yea, and our dear lord Jesus Christ approved the assasinations of that turncoat Judas and that despot King Herod.”
Mark (411533) — 2/16/2009 @ 7:52 pm
Assertion by poll. What did I tell you?
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:10 pmAs always, JD, that depends on the poll, I find.
Having watched polls be spectacularly wrong repeatedly, I’m not overly impressed by them from any side of any political debate. There is an awful lot of partisan “nudging” in polls these days. Not surprisingly, the political agenda of the polling group seems to be reflected (refracted may be a better term) in those poll results.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:32 pmHax – Where is your data on American Christians? Your comment that people were distorting information without including that implied you had it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:54 pm“Your comment that people were distorting information without including that implied you had it.”
It implied no such thing. You inferred it on your own. Not surprised you don’t know the difference.
Meanwhile, we can do our own survey here, starting with you.
What’s your take on attacks against civilians, Daley?
Sometimes? Never? or what…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:57 pmJD: What do you mean by “assertion by poll”?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 8:58 pmHax – You brought American Christians into the conversation for a purpose. If not to imply their hatred for innocent civilians was just as great as that of muslims, what was it?
Please explain and show your data before switching the subject.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:09 pmHax, I’m still waiting for your reasoned response.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:09 pmI mean that like many Leftists, you seem to judge the validity of your position not based on facts, or even actions, but based on polls. It is sad.
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:09 pm(goalposts moving from ‘attacking civilians’ to ‘civilians being injured by military attacks not aimed at them which you said you supported’ in 3 … 2 …. 1 …)
Hax, like our host, I like to hear contrary views. Perhaps you can post some contrary views and answer some questions sometime. I believe that you should be busy digging up incitement to violence by LGF right about now. Why not step to it, instead of asking more questions of others, okay?
By the way, I found it difficult to associate the ‘attacks on civilians’ numbers with suicide bombings in the poll you cited. First, the question came after a series of questions about America. Which would lead some respondents to answer “yeah, we are against America attacking civilians.” Second, as I’m sure you know, there are many fatwas and other points of view that no Israelis are civilians. Some more extreme views would claim that no ‘crusaders’ are civilians. “slay the infidel where you find him” etc. But hey, it’s nice to note that only 35% of Pakistanis support attacks on civilians. And that 60% of Egyptians think that suicide attacks are sometimes / often justified. It is also interesting that 2 of 3 Pakistanis refused to answer the question about Al Qaeda’s goals and attacks on America. Wonder what they are afraid of?
carlitos (1014a5) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:18 pmDamn, you guys are kicking Hax’s ass through his nose. I should’ve just let you do all the work. You do it much better than I’ve done.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:24 pmAgain, Hacks want to talk about polls, not actions. He certainly does not want to talk about terrorist groups being elected to head governments. He certainly does not want to talk about the Palis using cartoons for children to recruit and brainwash future homicide bombers.
JD (a69124) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:33 pmOh, no, JD, that’s where you’re wrong–he does want to talk about the content of those children’s shows. Specifically, he wants to say that it’s all a lie, that the translations are inaccurate, that the real translations would show the children’s shows (and the mentality that suffuses them, and the culture they perpetuate) to be perfectly innocent. Because Hax is (to steal Jonah Goldberg’s description of Al Gore) “a profound, remorseless, and very bad liar.”
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:41 pmAs George Will would say, he is a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/16/2009 @ 9:47 pmDaley, leaping logic: “You brought American Christians into the conversation for a purpose. If not to imply their hatred for innocent civilians was just as great as that of muslims, what was it?”
I mentioned it because we need a baseline for comparison.
It’s all well and good to say that 7 percent of Muslims support attacks on civilians, but is that a lot, or a little?
Without a comparison figure, we can’t really say. Perhaps only 7 percent of Christians support attacks on civilians, perhaps its more. I don’t know, because I couldn’t find any surveys that bother to ask the question.
I’m begin generous with you here, Daleyrocks. I’m not going to respond any more to you when you invent positions for me. I notice that’s your MO, so I’ll leave you to it.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:03 pmWhat’s your take on attacks against civilians, Daley?
Sometimes? Never? or what…
That’s a rather sloppy way to ask the question, Hax. Phrased that way, I might say sometimes — if it’s incidental to a strike against terrorists.
But I went and looked at the .pdf you cited. (You didn’t post the link to your comment like I asked, so I did the work and found your comment myself.) Here’s how Pew asked that question:
“Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”
Read in context, this question is obviously discussing attacks that target civilians. I’d have no trouble answering that question “never” — and I bet no regular commenter would disagree.
I don’t believe Pew or I distorted the data, but let’s set it all out, taking some of the more and less extreme countries:
BASED ON MUSLIM RESPONDENTS ONLY:
Lebanon:
Jordan:
Holy crap, that’s a sick culture.
By way of contrast:
Indonesia:
In some countries, violence targeting civilians is supported by anything but a “tiny” minority.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:04 pmBy the way, I never said Hax was my “friend.” I just appreciate having people around to challenge our comfortable assumptions.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:05 pmCarlitos: I’m the one bringing polling data into the discussion. What are you bringing?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:07 pmYou also brought into the discussion an accusation about LGF and Jawa that you seem curiously unwilling to back up.
You also are dancing around the fact that the polling data don’t support your characterizations.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:12 pmWhich of my characterizations isn’t supported by the polling data?
I said a tiny minority of Muslims support terrorism. That doesn’t mean that there are not pockets of support, such as in Pakistan. I’m talking about the overall percentage of Muslims worldwide.
If you slice and dice the data, you can make it say whatever you want.
As for LGF and Jawa, I have read incitement at bot h locales. It may take me time to find it, but I’m willing to wager that when I do, it will be dismissed as relevant.
That’s exactly what happened when I produced polling data showing a minority of Muslims support bin Laden.
The pattern here is clear: The allegation is heatedly tossed: Hax is lying if he doesn’t produce X,Y and Z. He’s expletive, expletive, expletive.
I produce X, then it’s: “Hax is a dirty liar, because he only produced X. And X doesn’t matter anyway. How dare he claim that X proves everything, or anything. Expletive, expletive, expletive.”
The I produce Y and it’s, “See, he can’t produce Z. What a dirty liar. We really showed him, didn’t we. Expletive, expletive, expletive.”
The I produce Z and it’s “See, he thinks X, Y and Z mean something because they come from A, and Hax is a dirty lying, expletive, expletive, expletive.
So it goes…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:43 pm“I mentioned it because we need a baseline for comparison.”
Hax – You were the only one here who felt a baseline was required. Why was that? You were the only person who felt it necessary to compare muslim attitudes to American or western attitudes. Why was that? You had a reason for bringing it up that you keep denying. No one here was making a comparison of American attitudes to muslim attitudes based on polling data. That’s a distortion that again exists only in your mind UNLESS, as others also read your words, your were implying American Christiams had similar attitudes toward targeting innocent civilians for violence. Backtracking and blaming others for things you said is a cowards game Hax.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:44 pmYes, you brought polling data for other countries into the discussion of the Paletinians in Gaza brainwashing their children – a 30 year project at which it seems that they have been successful. I read that poll when it came out. Your point is what – that folks who can’t see these cartoons because they live in Indonesia don’t want to kill Jews quite as much? That only 2% of Pakistanis believe that Al Qaeda committed the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Again, other than the “unsurprising” challenges to the translations, what do you think of this topic? Is it true, that the Palestinians are being robbed of the smoldering ruins of their culture by a genocidal death cult? Or does it even matter at all, because some ask questions?
What you are ‘bringing’ is your typical off-topic sniping, and refusal to answer questions or provide evidence when challenged.
carlitos (1014a5) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:46 pmThis will be the umpteenth time you’ve been asked for your definition of “tiny minority”. Please give us that definition.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 10:47 pmWhich of my characterizations isn’t supported by the polling data?
Funnier than Don Rickles.
Reminds me of that Family Guy where Peter was in the elevator with one other person, and the other guy started sniffing a horrible smell that was obviously Peter’s flatulence, and Peter said, “Uhh… It was you.”
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:01 pmHey, we’re having a live chat. Come join the fun!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:03 pmActually, a more appropriate comparison would be:
::covering own eyes:: I don’t see what you’re talking about.
Or:
::covering own ears:: What? I can’t hear you!
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:06 pmPage 50:
If my math is right, that’s half of Palestinians.
That’s 2/3. we were talking about Palestinians, right? The most comprehensively wrecked people on Earth.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:08 pmPatterico says Muslim society is sick.
I say it is half-sick or even, much less than half sick. The precise portion is far less important than the undeniable fact that the sick ones are a minority and that the majority is well aware and struggling against the sickness.
I think we do a huge disservice to ourselves, not to mention to the many good Muslims who want nothing but peace, when we define their entire religion based on the attitudes of a clear minority and without putting those attitudes into historical and political context.
I’ve never made any suggestion whatsoever that religious bigotry is not a huge problem in the Muslim world: clearly it is. And it’s a bigger source of conflict within these societies than without — a point totally lost on most of the commenters here.
Where I differ is on how to combat it and on how it can be most thoroughly understood and on the need to understand it thoroughly. (Many conservatives argue that understanding it is somehow tantamount to forgiving it or underplaying it.)
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:16 pmSlamming Islam at large — calling it “Satanism” as some have here — only makes it easier for the phoney mullah-gangsters to recruit from the ordinary, peace-loving majority of Muslims.
As former president Bush himself made clear, we’re not in a war against Islam. We’re in a war against a part of it that is first and foremost itself at war with the Muslim majority.
Objection, relevance?
Alan (551a6d) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:35 pmHax
I am surprised it took you all day to make that bogus claim.
We cant be critical of Islam because than normally “peaceful” Moslems will become terrorists.
What claptrap and maybe Hax you should ask yourself this question:
Many Christians in America are ridiculed for their faith, so why don’t these normally peaceful Christians turn to terrorism as a way to fight back?
There couldn’t possibly be anything inherent in these two religions that cause such different outcomes, now could there?
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:49 pmHax, you’re conflating Muslims and Islam. Sometimes that works. More often (or a vast majority of the time) it doesn’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:52 pmNote that Maliki just won an election by identifying as law and order, not as a Shiite block.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:54 pmI recall seeing pictures of Moslems during the cartoon riots and the latest Israeli conflict and one of them was holding a sign that read:
“Kill those who insult Islam”.
Hax, basically says the same thing, or that is what will happen if anyone is critical of Islam.
ML (14488c) — 2/16/2009 @ 11:57 pmPablo, you don’t know what conflate means. Look it up.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:04 amOf course I do, and you’re doing it. Try again. Meanwhile, how about giving us your definition of “tiny minority”?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:06 amI have to ask exactly what YOU think it means, Hax…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:06 amHax, I pointed out how you distorted polling data and you ignored it.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:11 amYou can’t “conflate” Muslims and Islam and more than you can “conflate” Christians and Christianity, conservatives and conservatism or water and wetness…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:57 amPatterico says Muslim society is sick.
Wrong. I quoted statistics showing significant numbers of people in Jordan and Lebanon supporting the idea of targeting civilians through suicide terrorism, and said that represents a “sick culture.” That is not an indictment of all Muslim society. If you’d been reading my comments you’d know that. Don’t misstate my arguments.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/17/2009 @ 1:01 amAs for your claims that I am misrepresenting the polls, I am not. But I am content to provide the information and let the reader make up his/her own mind.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/17/2009 @ 1:01 amOne of these things is not like the others. Do you know which it is, Hacks?
Let me help you figure it out. Consider the following statements. A Muslim is Islam. A Christian is Christianity. A conservative is conservatism. Water is wet.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 1:09 amYou’ve stumped me there Pablo. Perhaps you can explain. The only pattern I can see is that you’ve changed “wetness” to wet, creating the only adjective in the group.
Is there some point to that?
John Hitchcock: Here’s what you wrote: “So you want to add to the numbers who believe it is never justified those who believe there are times it is justified in order to make the claim a higher percentage of people oppose violence against civilian targets.”
That’s not what I said. What I said is that the survey’s summary on the top page, the part initially quoted by Patterico, combines two categories “sometimes” and “often” and compares them with “never.”
You’ve misrepresented what I said, which is actually an improvement. Usually, you just invent it wholecloth.
Patterico:
Still the same issue. You call Jordan a “sick society,” and it’s plain to see that it is, as many are. Still, it’s crucial to remember that many in the country — importantly including the ruling elite — are opposed and on the front lines in fighting against it.
I think “sick” is a very good word to describe the condition of a society in which targetting civilians is acceptable.
How did they get that way?
Are these attitudes related to Islam or to the socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances?
Clearly not Islam, as the same poll data show the vast majority of practicing Muslims, who live in places like Indonesia and Egypt have much different attitudes.
Of the cause were the actual teachings of Islam, we would see a consistent level of support across the Muslim world. But we don’t. Not even close.
Instead, the attitudes toward terrorism vary directly with the proximity to geopolitical conflict.
The Pew poll and the others cited, show unassailable that geopolitical conflict does much more to shape attitudes toward terrorism than does Islam.
The PIPA poll I also linked to above bears this out as well:
“Respondents were asked about the “position of Islam regarding attacks against civilians,” and asked whether it supports or opposes such attacks. They were offered the additional options of saying that it “certainly” supports or opposes such attacks. Most took the strongest position of saying that Islam “certainly” opposes targeting civilians. On average, 63 percent took this position including 83 percent of Egyptians, 72 percent of Pakistanis, and 61 percent of Moroccans. A more modest 37 percent of Indonesians said that Islam certainly opposes such attacks, though an additional 38 percent said simply that Islam opposes them.
“Respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “Groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence.” Large majorities agreed in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%).”
It will be quite possible to have peace and a thriving Islamic culture in the Middle East.
Attempts to iradicate Islam will only bring more war.
Lastly,
Why are some “conservatives” so resistent to the idea of examining the root causes of terrorism? Why do they conflate an attempt to explore cause and effect with a desire to rationalize or apologize for terrorism?
If we are going to fight terrorists, we absolutely need to understand what makes them tick. And the cockamamie misrepresentations of Islam as somehow “Satanic” or demanding violence are an annoying distraction from that goal.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:32 amI see that Hacks is still being mendoucheous, still arguing with positions not advanced, still misrepresenting others positions, still addressing the charicatures in its head, and still not wanting to talk about Hamas and Hezbollah. Shocka.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:49 amYes, I can. You’re conflating people (Muslims) with an ideology (Islam).
Now, perhaps you can explain what “tiny minority” means to you.
They’re not, that I can tell. Hint: the root cause is ideology.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:25 amHuh.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:28 am[…] Common Room rightly describes as “Deeply disturbing, heartbreaking” this news and these clips from Palestinian children’s programming glorifying hate, war, and […]
Interests and Issues « Stray Thoughts (b093c9) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:48 amWhy are some “conservatives” so resistent to the idea of examining the root causes of terrorism? Why do they conflate an attempt to explore cause and effect with a desire to rationalize or apologize for terrorism?
If we are going to fight terrorists, we absolutely need to understand what makes them tick. And the cockamamie misrepresentations of Islam as somehow “Satanic” or demanding violence are an annoying distraction from that goal.
I actually agree with this. In almost any other context you’d see conservatives agreeing that when there is a problem, you have to diagnose the cause.
I think you see resistance to the notion in this context because too many leftists seem to use the “understanding root causes” theme to suggest that terrorism is our fault. But even if we can draw a direct cause-and-effect relationship between a policy of ours and terrorism, that doesn’t automatically make it our “fault” if the policy is the right one to pursue. (E.g. the policy could be refusing to forcibly convert all Americans to radical Islam.)
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:12 amI wonder what planet Hax lives on, it certainly is not this planet.
“Palestinians” voted in a well known terrorist organization for their government, but I suppose in Hax world that means their support is nonexistent.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:15 amI think leftists prefer the “imagining root causes” theme.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:24 amOdd, I didn’t know that “resistant to the idea of examining…” is an alternate English phrase for “doesn’t agree with me”.
I learn something every day.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:39 amDear ML:
Hax lives on Howard Zinn’s planet.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:50 amThe 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,” the official said.
Another source familiar with the case said: “British intelligence officers knew about the torture and didn’t do anything about it. They supplied information to the Americans and the Moroccans. They supplied questions, they supplied photographs. There is evidence of all of that.”
—
Third, the Nelly account shows that health professionals are right in the thick of the torture and abuse of the prisoners—suggesting a systematic collapse of professional ethics driven by the Pentagon itself. He describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.
—-
JERUSALEM (CNN) — Jewish officials in Israel and abroad are outraged that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to lift the excommunication of a British bishop who denies that Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers.
Christian culture is sick.
bored again christian (c88a4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 12:55 pmGiven that we helped arm, organize and direct the bin Ladenist terror movement in Afghanistan at its formation, how in the world can you believe we are not at least partly responsible for the terror that same movement produced?
Same for Saddam. We helped him stay in power and beat back Iran. Had we not done that, he probably would not have been able to invade Kuwait.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:07 pm“bored again christian” is a douchenozzle.
Hacks is just dishonest. Why is it that you want to talk about everything except for the topic, Hacks? What say you about the Palestinian government, run by Hamas, showing this cartoon in order to recruit and brainwash young children? What say you about Hezbollah winning elections?
Oops, I forgot. That does not fit in Teh Narrative.
JD (5c4373) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:26 pmGiven that we helped arm, organize and direct the bin Ladenist terror movement in Afghanistan at its formation, how in the world can you believe we are not at least partly responsible for the terror that same movement produced?
Same for Saddam. We helped him stay in power and beat back Iran. Had we not done that, he probably would not have been able to invade Kuwait.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum
Do liars go to hell in your religion ? I guess not.
Bin Laden was a young hanger-on in Afghanistan. He had nothing to do with what we were doing. This is a standard slur from the left but not true. Most of his activity was funded by Saudis and came later, as the Soviets withdrew. Our aid had tapered off by then.
In Saddam’s case, the Arab states in the Gulf saw him as a defender against Shia resurgence. We supplied him with intelligence when it looked as though the Iranians might overwhelm him. Kissinger commented that it was a war in which we might prefer that both sides lose. At the time, Iran was a self-declared enemy of ours.
Many of your fellow leftists have tried to claim that we armed Saddam suggesting that they don’t know the difference between a US tank and a Soviet tank.
FDR helped the Soviets, too. This is what nations do.
MIke K (f89cb3) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:31 pmMike K – Facts are not all that important to Teh Narrative.
JD (5c4373) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:37 pmFunny how “cultural relativism” seems to be pretty one sided.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:38 pmI would be happy to supply this guy with a reading list. Maybe something other than left wing blogs would be a better source.
MIke K (8df289) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:45 pmHacks – I am sensing a pattern here … pull something out of your ass. Defend it by puverizing a few strawmen. When called on it, ignore same, make a tangential or off-topic point, again pulled out of your ass. Wash, rinse, repeat.
How damn hard is it to simply be honest?
JD (5c4373) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:47 pmThe US helped to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh in Iran, supported Saddam Hussein from the get-go, protected the obscene Saudi monarchy even against internal reform and backed Jewish immigration to the middle east and the creation of a Jewish homeland in someone else’s home.
Call it cold war politics but don’t start lecturing others on their adolescent rage when you can glibly use terns such as “death from above.” What’s next “Kill ’em all. Let God sort them out?”
What a stupid fucking country.
bored again christian (c88a4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:49 pmWhy are some “conservatives” so resistent to the idea of examining the root causes of terrorism? Why do they conflate an attempt to explore cause and effect with a desire to rationalize or apologize for terrorism?
Conservatives (and others) are very willing to examine why some people become terrorists. Their answer is that in most cases, it’s the religious fanaticism of militant Islam — such as the Jew-hating programs Gaza children are indoctrinated with. When kids are taught that the ticket to heaven is to die as a suicide bomber, you shouldn’t be surprised when they carry out their sick lessons.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (1680e7) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:49 pmIts funny when the left describes Gitmo, they always ignore the actions of the prisoners and how they throw feces and urine on the prison guards and other vile stuff.
They always make it sound like these terrorist are model prisoners, guilty of nothing.
Everybody is a victim of the evil US.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 2:53 pm“ it’s the religious fanaticism of militant Islam.”
Yes, that much is self-evident to the point of being a tautology.
Radical militants, indeed, engage in radical militancy.
That merely defines the problem. It does nothing to explain its causes, leaving untouched the question of why they become militant in the first place.
The evidence is clear: in Muslim societies where the level of geopolitical conflict is low, so is the support for radical Islam.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:42 pmBradley: are there any similar TV programs that teach Jewish to fear Palestinians and fight against them? (I think hate is too blunt a word here.)
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:46 pmThe evidence is clear: in Muslim societies where the level of geopolitical conflict is low, so is the support for radical Islam.
Which fails to explain why there’s no similar problem of radical Christian terrorism.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:52 pmHax,
Bradley: are there any similar TV programs that teach Jewish to fear Palestinians and fight against them? (I think hate is too blunt a word here.)
I haven’t seen any TV shows by Christians that tell children suicide bombing against Muslims is a meritorious act sanctioned by Christianity. Maybe you know of some and will provide links.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:54 pmHeaven forbid the word hate be applied to something that is actually hate.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:55 pmThe evidence is clear: in Muslim societies where the level of geopolitical conflict is low, so is the support for radical Islam.
Are you referring to Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
No conflicts there yet they still have tons of “Islamic radicals”.
I wonder if the Qur’an or hadith have anything to do with that?
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:58 pmThey say it and say it and say it again and again and again. And yet you act like the reasons for jihad are a f*cking mystery.
You’re so focused on root causes, Hacks. What do you think the root causes are, and what makes you think whatever it is you think? Is listening to those who do jihad a part of your discovery process on this issue?
And for the kajillionth time, what is a tiny minority?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 3:58 pmIt does nothing to explain its causes, leaving untouched the question of why they become militant in the first place.
I wonder if passages like this have anything to do with “radical Islam”.
From the Hadeeth
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) ‘Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah’s pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).”
Well here we see that fighting for total Islamic dominance is the 2nd holiest thing a Moslem can do.
Compare that to this:
The Bible
(Mat 22:35-40 MKJV)
Then one of them, a lawyer, asked, tempting Him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
So in Christianity the 2nd best deed is to “love your neighbor as yourself”.
The complete opposite from Mohammadanism.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
Now back to Islamic dominance.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
And that is why they teach the children to hate Jews.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:20 pmI guess the UK’s participation in the Iraq / Afghanistan projects would qualify as geopolitical conflict, thus explain the radicalization of Islam there. But how does one explain the radicalization of muslims in Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.? Hey, just asking questions.
And no, there aren’t any Jewish cartoons calling on their children to righteously slaughter Palestinians, nor transmitting blood libel against said Palestinians. If there were, it would make Hamas’ activies more or less acceptable how exactly?
Tiny minority = 50 million? 100 million? 19 guys with boxcutters?
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:20 pm0.001%? 3%? 10%? 25%? 40%?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:32 pm“How does one explain the radicalization of muslims in Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.”
The data show clearly that the levels of radicalization are much lower in Europe than in Afghanistan, for example. It only proves my point. There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.
One difference, however, is that there is some spillover radicalization within Islam, transmitted from war zones like Pakistan to peaceful areas like Europe. Again, nothing unique to Islam there.
Remember when conservatives were blaming terrorism on the Soviet Union and insisting that communism was some kind of uber-powerful global threat to the existence of mankind? What happened to that?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:33 pmTiny minority = less than 15 percent, or thereabouts.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:33 pmThere will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.
So where are these groups of Hindu, atheist or Christian terrorists who you keep saying are “no different” from Islamic terrorists? How many evolutionists have been beheaded by Christian fundamentalists? How many radical violent evolutionists stage terror attacks on creationists?
Don’t you ever get tired trying to draw moral parallels when they don’t exist? Just admit the obvious — Islam has a disproportionately large number of violent terrorists under its umbrella — and you won’t get into such absurd, reality-denying contortions.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:44 pmAnything will be spun, twisted, contorted, distorted, and generally lied about in the service of Teh Narrative.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:45 pm15% is like 200 million people. Sad thing is that I agree with you. Even sadder thing is that western democracies won’t expel each and every one of these troublemakers who won’t sign a loyalty oath.
Really though, the parallels to Christianity are just silly on their face.
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:49 pmComment by bored again christian — 2/17/2009 @ 12:55 pm
I find the “Nelly” account almost a complete fiction.
AD - RtR/OS (58203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:51 pmHe was at GITMO at the beginning, yet he is described as a “private”? After 5+ years, one would think that he would have received a promotion.. And, why is he afraid of retaliation from the Bush Administration? Is he still in the service? And still a “private”?
This just sounds as about as believable as the early AP reports from Iraq from the mythical reporter that they were never able to produce.
“you keep saying are “no different” from Islamic terrorists?”
Sorry Brad, I don’t keep saying that. YOU keep saying that.
I said there is a radical fringe.
My point is that the resort to terrorism varies with geopolitical instability, not with religious affiliation. You cite Hindus, for example. Sri Lankan Hindus invented the suicide bomb, as you may or may not be aware, even though Hinduism is clearly a religion of peace. Yet another example of my point.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:51 pmHey, Bradley. Remember what you told me about this kind of thing?
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:52 pmHey, weren’t those atheist terrorists commies?
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:53 pmBrother Bradley
You know Americans are lazy, maybe us creationist have been to lazy to behead you for accepting Darwinism.
Hax
It interesting that this latest Israeli conflict caused the moderates Moslems in America and Europe to enter the streets screaming death to the Jews, they need bigger ovens ect….
Yes all those “moderates” in America and Europe, boy everything you say is just plain bullshit, maybe its that tinfoil hat you wear?
There maybe moderate Moslems, but there is no moderate Islam ~ Ibn Warraq
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:55 pmTiny minority = less than 15 percent, or thereabouts.
With 1 billion Muslims on the planet, that means any less than 150 million who support terrorism would be a “tiny minority” by your standards.
If just 10 percent Muslims support terrorism, that’s still 100 million people.
If just 5 percent, there’s still 50 million people who are terrorists or willing to support terrorism.
Those numbers are not “tiny”.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:55 pmTrue enough, Bradley, but did you know that Christianists are just as bad?
Besides, Begin was a terrorist.
And we make terrorists do what they do; it’s our fault. They are just misunderstood, and will stop killing and bombing once we sit down for a just and principled negotiation session.
So long as Zionists aren’t present.
Sigh. You know the reflexive responses by now.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 4:58 pmEric: got straw?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:00 pmFill in your response, Hax. You are good at that.
Besides, I was just imitating your personal style.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:01 pmSorry Brad, I don’t keep saying that. YOU keep saying that.
Yes, YOU said that. I’ll bold the words so you can see what you wrote:
The data show clearly that the levels of radicalization are much lower in Europe than in Afghanistan, for example. It only proves my point. There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.
What part of “no different” don’t you understand?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:04 pmIt’s just Monty Python’s “Argument Room” as seen through a partisan “debate club” lens, Bradley. This is just a game to the fellow.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:07 pmEric,
Having denounced creationism as false science, I fear for my life. William Dembski has trained platoons of fanatical Jesuseen to hunt me down. Duane Gish has issued a fatwa against me, pledging heavenly merits for whoever beheads me in the name of Jesus.
If only I wrote about Islam instead, I’d have nothing at all to fear from the religion of peace.
Yes, those evil Christian conservatives are every bit as bad as Al Qaeda, because the radical fringe of Christianity is no different than that of radical Islam.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:09 pmFor perspective, Hax, perhaps you could identify the ‘radical fringe’ in the Western democratic, judeo-christian movement here in the US?
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:10 pmBe careful about that “Jesuseen” line, Bradley. Andrew Sullivan will claim to have invented it, and then sue you.
But don’t you see that Evil Amerikkka is responsible for all this? That and McDonalds and Halliburton.
Honestly, this is all partisan nonsense. At least you made me laugh.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:12 pmOh, have no fear, carlitos. You will soon be treated to a poll on the subject, from a supposedly nonpartisan source.
Sigh.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:13 pmBrother Bradley
That is it, nobody insults Dembski and lives to tell about it.
Kinda OT, but do you really think that “science” only includes natural science?
The dictionary tells me otherwise.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:15 pmHey folks, Iowahawk does it again:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dburge/2009/02/17/heere-bigynneth-the-tale-of-the-asse-hatte/
Well worth your time. And relevant to this silly discussion.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:16 pm“What part of “no different” don’t you understand.”
The part where you omit the words “in that regard,” in a risible attempt to distort what I wrote.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:20 pmThe Tamil Tigers have nothing to do with Hinduism, Hacks. Swing and a(nother) miss.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:21 pmML
Kinda OT, but do you really think that “science” only includes natural science?
If by “natural science”, you mean limited to natural explanations, yes. That’s how scientists define their field. No miracles allowed.
If you invoke miracles and supernatural, that’s the province of religion.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:22 pmOoooohhhh….
You got burned on that one, Bradley!
Not.
Here comes the aggressive part of the passive-aggressive show, folks!
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:24 pmAnd I don’t mean you, Bradley. You generally stay pretty calm and civil, even in disagreement.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:25 pmNo, not at all. Bradley is asking you where the proof is that Islam is no different in that regard. Where are the religious extremists motivated by the other religions which are no different from Islam in that regard?
Don’t cry distortion where there isn’t any, Hacks. Try proving your point instead.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:32 pmBradley, you are dead wrong about creationism not being “science” and evolution being “science.” Using your own definition, evolution cannot be “science” because it depends on a great deal of miracles.
Now, I said all that not to start a debate on that issue — it doesn’t belong here — but to provide you with words from a Christian Conservative so you can take them out of context to prove you need to fear for your… hamburger.:D
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:36 pm“Hax, perhaps you could identify the ‘radical fringe’ in the Western democratic, judeo-christian movement here in the US.”
I can’t even identify a “Western democratic Judeo-Christian movement,” let alone its radical fringe.
You also present the “Great Scotsman” problem with that, i.e. reverse tautology. Of course there is no radical fringe within the mainstream, in other words.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:39 pmPablo: “that regard” refers to a radical fringe.
All ideologies have a radical fringe.
I never said, or even hinted, that I think all radical fringes are the same.
Indeed, I have repeated made the opposite claim: the nature of radical movements varies with the geopolitical situation they are surrounded with.
In Islam’s case, we find that radical activity varies directly with geopolitical instability, not with the presence of the ideology. Muslims in countries like Indonesia, where conflict is relatively low, are far less likely to support radical violence than people in Pakistan, where it is high.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:47 pmThe data show clearly that the levels of radicalization are much lower in Europe than in Afghanistan, for example. It only proves my point. There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.
Once again, a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. The Banlieues might tend to disprove your assumption. Islam is VERY different with respect to violence and intolerance. The beheaded wife of the Muslim “moderate” in Buffalo might disagree with your premise.
But she can’t.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:51 pmBrother Bradley
I assume natural science is what we call biology, I am in civil engineering field which is still science but we could care less about Darwin, he has nothing to do with gravity and other stuff, but it is still a science.
I agree with you that invoking the super natural is religion and not science, although it seems like the cause of natural selection has yet to be discovered so it requires a bit of faith also.
I like your website, but I have a motor boat, so now we have something else to fight about.
LOL!
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:52 pmAll ideologies have a radical fringe
Do you speak in generalities very much?
AD - RtR/OS (58203b) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:52 pmYou wrote:
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 5:52 pmOh, I quite agree. But I mean it differently than you do.
“The beheaded wife of the Muslim “moderate” in Buffalo might disagree with your premise.”
Mike K: why do you put moderate in quote marks?
Are you suggesting he’s not actually a moderate?
If so, what is your point?
If not, what is your point?
Do you admit to defining Islam at large by the actions of an obviously deranged man?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:00 pmHacks must be in really good shape from running around with those goalposts on its back.
Just to humor ít, how would it explain the disproportionate amount of extremists that get their genesis in The Kingdom, which has little “geopolitical unrest”.?
Still interesting that Hacks continues to ignore the fact that at least 2 muslim countries have elected terrorist organizations as leaders of their government.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:02 pmHax Vobiscum
I only define Islam by the Qur’an and hadeeth and how Moslems typically accept them and practice them.
Sharia is a good example, where the death penalty is required for those who leave Mohammadanism and say become Christian or Jewish.
Sharia or Islamic law is quite telling of Moslem, Qur’anic values.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:06 pmJD: just because I don’t comment on something doesn’t give you the right to accuse me of ignoring it. Why isn’t that obvious to you?
I will take up your point on Hamas, at some point.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:06 pmPablo: “that regard” refers to a radical fringe.
All ideologies have a radical fringe. If they’re in that regard, then the radicals must also be violent.
So, where’s the violent fringe of Christianity, of Catholicism, of Evangelicalism, of Hinduism, of Buddhism, of Sihkism? They all have one, right? Or is Islam different in that regard?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:11 pmEverybody, this comment:
Is much funnier that the man making that statement intended.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:15 pmAnd did Hax actually write this:
but did not perceive the irony?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:16 pm“If they’re in that regard, then the radicals must also be violent.”
No dice, Pablo. As I’ve explained repeatedly and at length, the level of violence varies with the level of conflict.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:16 pmHax, again, please define a moderate Muslim. This is the 3rd time I’ve asked and I’m wondering why you won’t specifically inform us – especially if it might be enlightening and give context to some of your comments.
Dana (137151) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:17 pmPablo,
Let me answer for Hax — he going to say Hindu violence on Muslims is evidence of extremism with Hindus.
All the while, hax will ignore that Christians, Catholics, Hindhus, Buddhists life side-by-side in relative peace everywhere across the word …. it is when Muzlims are present that violence seems to start.
Muzlims are like the magic ingredient to incite violence in all societies world-wide.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:17 pmOh, and strangely, I can kinda predict the fellow’s stand on Hamas.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:17 pmHindhus, Buddhists life side-by-side in relative peace everywhere across the word
Except in Sri Lanka.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:19 pmIslam is not a religion but a neurotic pathology IMHO.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:19 pmAnd did the person writing this:
Actually accuse another person of presenting a tautology?
This is performance art, isn’t it?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:20 pmBullshit, Hacks. It is how you operate. You throw out baseless assertions, and when called on it, you cite some poll or your own opinion, and then puke out an army of strawmen, and proceed to mercilessly flog said strawmen. I brought up Hamas and Hezbollah over a day ago, yet you have ignored that, as it does not fit in Teh Narrative. You ignore how these cartoons are broadcast by a terrorist organization running a country, in an attempt to brainwash and recruit young children to be homicide bombers. The closest to a response to that was some childish “question” as to whether or not there were equivalent cartoons in Israel.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:20 pmI pegged you quickly when you came back, bunkerblaster. Patterico had the right idea the first time, and Eric has you described perfectly.
Sri Lanka might be the only example and some would say that is more a cultural problem but point taken.
Live in peace in India, “Siam,” China …..
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:20 pmMaking circular points makes me dizzy. Reading them makes me puke.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:21 pmSo, where are the conflicts in which people are killing on Christ’s orders, Or Vishnu’s? Are you aware of the number of places in the world that are troubled by Jihad?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:28 pmML,
Disclaimer: The Web site I link to is Mike K.’s. He graciously lets me post there.
As for “natural” in science, I mean following natural laws. It’s not used in quite the same sense as “natural history”.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:32 pmHax, you caught me–i was trying to define “the west” writ large as “the mainstream.” At least in the USA, the mainstream has no real radical fringe. Contrast that with Saudi? Pakistan? “The mainstream” there indeed has a radical fringe, no? Even beyond a fringe, if you ask me.
carlitos (f4f9e7) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:34 pmThe idea that Hack would assert that another was using a “No True Scotsman” fallacy is pretty hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:36 pmBradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.
Oh, so you are not older and wiser.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:38 pmNot for long. They’re just about to close the book on the Tamil Tigers. And that conflict is not religious in nature. But we’ll still have FARC, right?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:39 pmPablo,
Looks like Tamil will get closed out and it was not a religious thing as I pointed out. In fact Christians, Muslims and Hindhu were on the same side there versus Buddhists? I always forget who was killing who.
FARC? Muslims and Colombia FARC? Connect me da dots.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:42 pmJohn Hitchcock,
Using your own definition, evolution cannot be “science” because it depends on a great deal of miracles.
Like you, I don’t want this thread to turn into an evolution/creation debate. But miracles are supernatural acts that occur in defiance of natural law. Creationism, based on a religious doctrine, is purely religious.
Evolutionary theory explicitly rules out the supernatural. It invokes natural processes, which can be studied scientifically. You may think evolutionary conclusions are incorrect and challenge the data, but the theory does not depend on supernatural intervention.
Creationists or their intelligent design relatives often blur the meaning of “science” and “religion.” This is so they can argue that creationism/ID is not religion, so they can get it taught in public schools as science. The Kitzmiller decision went into great detail about this. (PDF link)
Instead of doing that, and getting slapped down in the courts, it would be better for creationists/IDers to openly admit they are advocating a religious view, and that it is not meant as an alternative scientific theory.
If you want more from a much better source than I, ask Eric Blair, both a good scientist and a believer in God.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:44 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7895485.stm
Peace. Alluh Akbar.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:44 pmOh, so you are not older and wiser.
Not as old and wise as Dr. Capt. Mike K.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:45 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7894755.stm
More peace.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:45 pmThat would be Christians killing each other, possibly. Except FARC is predominately Marxist, but maybe no one will notice.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:48 pmWell, FARC has Venezuelan backing until recently, if not still, and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is getting some sort of assistance from Iran and is increasing anti-semitism in Venezuela.
Tenuous but there is a link there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:49 pmAn oldie but goodie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7893861.stm
Pablo, Christians killing each other is old hat but certainly not religious in nature.
Lived in Colombia some time ago. Wonderful people in general.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:49 pmMore peace
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:50 pmSPQR, Venezuela another example of Muzlims spreading hatred.
See their elections? Funny thing these Marxist Dictators!!!
But in general most religions live in peace, side by side, except for our Muzlim frems.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:52 pmNo dice, Pablo. As I’ve explained repeatedly and at length, the level of violence varies with the level of conflict.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum
Aside from the tautology, this ignores the actual history of the jihadi interventions in the Muslim world. Again, I will quote Kilcullen’s book although Hax no doubt knows more about it.
The typical insurgency involves a local group that is disaffected for some reason. The international jihadis, which Kilcullen calls takfiris, insert themselves into the local dispute and try to aggravate it while trying to assert their own agenda. Their agenda has little to do with traditional Muslim practices and everything to do with a fantasy of world domination by a new caliphate. They will try to spread the insurgency while opposing any attempt to settle differences with the central government by killing “collaborators.”
The only role we play is by openly intervening, a lesson we have learned as we try to stay in the background aside from training and supporting local forces.
Now, I’m sure Hax knows more about this so I will stop here.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:52 pmHey, what’s Hezbollah doing in Argentina? Missionary work, probably.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:53 pmWhat kills me about this all is that when a Catholic does something over-the-top, they get hammered.
Muzlims do it and folks “struggle to understand” why?
Double standard, hello!
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:54 pm…by other Catholics.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:55 pmPablo,
Empanadas, bife de chorizo and spanish speaking italian women.
Oooocheeyyyy!!!!! Boludo!
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:56 pmPablo, #315, following up on the Iranian paid bombing of a jewish center there probably.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:59 pm#317, yes and moderate muzlims line up to esplane the insanity.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 6:59 pmWell, I think it is the women but frankly Brazil has more quality, quantity and looser morals for the aspiring martyr with a few Saudi ducats in his briefs.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:03 pmit is when Muzlims are present that violence seems to start. Comment by Obama über alles!!!!!
Well — once again — they certainly have learned from the best…
Mark (411533) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:06 pmHax, you owe me an apology for misrepresenting what I wrote. (Statements labeled with HAX or ME to show who’s speaking)
Here is what I wrote:
ME: Yes, YOU said that. I’ll bold the words so you can see what you wrote:
HAX: The data show clearly that the levels of radicalization are much lower in Europe than in Afghanistan, for example. It only proves my point. There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different IN THAT REGARD.
ME: What part of “no different” don’t you understand?
Here is your reply
ME: “What part of “no different” don’t you understand.”
HAX: The part where you omit the words “in that regard,” in a risible attempt to distort what I wrote.
——————————
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:07 pmI put IN THAT REGARD in bold caps so you would see them. Since I didn’t omit “in that regard,” you made a false statement.
Christians and Jews do bad things in spite of what their scriptures teach,
Moslems do bad things in light of what their scriptures teach.
Its that simple.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:15 pm#324, that is a keeper.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:17 pmML, that indeed is a succinct way of putting it.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:23 pmML,
I’ve noticed that no one has challenged Mark’s chilling accounts of Mohammed’s actions, or tried to put them in a more positive light. That Mohammed ordered poets who ridiculed him assassinated seems pretty well established. The Rushdie fatwa is a logical followup, as the death threats against the Danish cartoonists and newspapers.
As has been pointed out here, there’s no comparable example in modern Christianity. No papal encyclicals ordering the assassination of heretics, no divine orders from Pat Robertson to unleash the jesuseen.
Why is that, we wonderss, aye, we wonders!
Maybe Hax would like to explain it all for us.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:24 pm“In Islam’s case, we find that radical activity varies directly with geopolitical instability, not with the presence of the ideology.”
“As I’ve explained repeatedly and at length, the level of violence varies with the level of conflict.”
I’m not sure why Hax chooses to use the word “we” in the first quote above instead of I. It’s sort of pedantic unless there are secret others who he has not cited who share his recently invented view of Islam.
The Hax Theory is certainly a convenient all purpose theory that fails in actual application. Which comes first, conflict or violence? We could argue that the Indonesian muslim slaughter of a large number of Christians earlier this millenium, and revving up again, was certainly violence. Was it conflict as well? Yes, yes it was. How does it fit the Hax Theory? Who knows. There was muslim violence and conflict in the same place so it probably makes perfect sense to him. To others it probably looks like more muslim persecution of religious minorities. Like I said, the Hax Theory is not particularly useful because it can be molded to explain away virtually any situation without serious thought. For example, why do one in four American muslims, far removed from geopolitical conflict, feel violence targeted against innocent civilians (or whatever measure was surveyed) is acceptable under the Hax Theory.
Hax is just wearing out the soles on another pair of shoes today dancing around trying to defend his unthought out statements. He claims to deplore terrorism yet demands a baseline of “Christian American” attitudes about terrorism and civilian targeting for comparison purposes. The left has a problem accepting concepts of absolute right and wrong and that attitude is a perfect example of it. Why would someone need a baseline comparison for something they deplore if they were not raising merely to introduce red herring or tangents into the conversation. Hax is not a very serious person in that way, but I think everyone has figured that out by now.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:24 pmIt is puzzling that the ruthless nature of Muhammad hasn’t generated more publicity over the past several years, post-9-11, post-murder of Theo Van Gogh, post-viciousness of various Palestinian groups, etc.
Moreover, it really isn’t flippant or inaccurate to say that the blood-thirsty behavior of, for example, Hamas or the 9-11 terrorists goes against the grain — goes against an intrinsic facet of the religion of Islam — namely the behavior of Muhammad himself.
Mark (411533) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:55 pm“Moslems do bad things in light of what their scriptures teach.”
Sorry ML, but the facts show rather clearly that the vast majority of Muslims don’t do bad things. What does your theory say about them?
I think you’d agree that you’ve given us no reason to believe that your bin Ladenist interpretation of the Koran is more valid than that of the vast majority of leading Islamic clerics and scholars who say it doesn’t condone terror.
The vast majority of Muslims should be judged by their actions, not by radical fringe interpretations of their holy books. Likewise, Islam should be judged by what the majority of its adherents say it means, rather than by what its radical fringe and/or its detractors say it means.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:56 pmIt doesn’t address them, nor need it. It addresses those who do bad things. What part of that is confusing you?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:59 pm“Islam should be judged by what the majority of its adherents say it means.”
…. err let me correct ….
Islam should be judged by what the majority of its adherents DO.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 7:59 pmPablo,
Don’t bother, he does not get it.
Maybe a ven diagram might help.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:01 pmChristianity is also a religion of peace, judging from the actions of its adherents, even if we acknowledge that the Holocaust and Stalin’s horror developed out of cultures that were unquestionably Christian. I cite those because they do not in any way represent Christianity, but rather a challenge to it from within, just as radical Islam poses a challenge today to Islam itself.
As for the MLs ability to interpret holy texts, I wonder what he says about these:
“I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.”
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:04 pm“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with them and show no favor to them” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).
“When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).
“Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens” (Numbers 31:17-18).
“I will send my terror in front of you… you shall utterly demolish them and break their pillars in pieces” (Exodus 23: 23-24, 27).
Hax – The Bush Administration said it didn’t torture.
How much of the left believed them?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:05 pmOr what its scriptures say and its clerics preach.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:06 pm“Islam should be judged by what the majority of its adherents DO.”
Exactly, O. And the majority aren’t involved in terror in any way shape or form.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:06 pmBradley, re: #323: don’t hold your breath. After all, he was just asking questions.
And he has other arguments to attend to….
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:07 pmHax – What evidence to you have to support you assertion that the quotes provided by Mark and others here are “radical fringe” interpretations of Islamic religious doctrine? Is it just the words of Imams and others saying Islam does not condone violence, which is my guess, or go you actually have some scholarly research to back up your assertion. Show your work.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:09 pmDaley: #334….that’s different, of course.
Chimpy McBush Halliburton should be held to a much greater level of scrutiny…because….because…
Well, because anyone who opposes Amerikkka must be righteous in some fashion, because we are basically icky.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:09 pmDaley, I’m still interested in when the guy will apologize to Bradley Fikes. After all, he got all histrionic about it.
So…either he posts and doesn’t keep track of what he posts…or he is just a troll.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:11 pmDaley: I linked to several lists of scores of mainstream Muslim scholars who issued statements, including fatwas, condemning terrorism.
You can easily find this info yourself. Go to Google and type in Islam condemns terrorism and see what you get. Should I be surprised that you haven’t already done this?
As for evidence that ML’s selective, literal interpretation is a radical fringe perspective, I would note that it matches bin Laden’s. He is clearly a fringe figure in the world of Islam — widely condemned in the mainstream.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:14 pmBrad: you put “no different” in quotes, clearly excluding “in that regard.”
Why did you do that? It distorted my meaning.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:17 pmSpeaking of exaggeration:
That’s at least sixty. Funny, I didn’t see that.
A strange calculus, indeed.
But then, exaggeration is this guy’s forte.
As for all this poll nonsense, I come back to Cicero:
My guess is that this fella loves polls which agree with his world view, and distrusts those that do not. And I think that polls held in countries that do not have a free press and are in the habit of imprisoning (or worse) dissidents are even less reliable.
But then, this is all reaction. It’s just a game.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:31 pmEric: Here’s the link:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:34 pmHax,
Okay, let’s try it your way. I’ll repeat my original statement, including “in that regard.”
You tell me how it alters the meaning.
——————–
You wrote:
“There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.”
My reply (including “in that regard”):
So where are these groups of Hindu, atheist or Christian terrorists who you keep saying are “no different in that regard” from Islamic terrorists? How many evolutionists have been beheaded by Christian fundamentalists? How many radical violent evolutionists stage terror attacks on creationists?
Don’t you ever get tired trying to draw moral parallels when they don’t exist? Just admit the obvious — Islam has a disproportionately large number of violent terrorists under its umbrella — and you won’t get into such absurd, reality-denying contortions.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:36 pmTry again, Brad.
I said Islam is no different.
You added “terrorists” so that you misleadingly portrayed me as saying atheist fringists are no different from terrorists.
Please try responding to what I wrote, rather than making things up and attributing them to me.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:43 pmBradley, in all honesty, I was giving you information (I strongly believe) merely so you could take it out of context and provide Hax ammo to prove we “radical Christians” (a CB handle I had when an OTR trucker) are just like islamic terrorists. You know, use the words I typed, pick-and-choose, and you could create a non-existant capital threat that would fit Hax’s paradigm out of a benign statement.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:44 pmYou can easily find this info yourself. Go to Google and type in Islam condemns terrorism and see what you get. Should I be surprised that you haven’t already done this?
As for evidence that ML’s selective, literal interpretation is a radical fringe perspective, I would note that it matches bin Laden’s.
Hax – I’ve seen plenty of statements from Islamic scholars condemining terrorism. A funny thing is they are in countries or are affiliated with organizations that are often big sponsors of terrorism. Hey, maybe they are some of those fringe radicals disguising themselves as moderates to look acceptable to the world before the next bombing or attack. We’ve seen enough of these unserious condemnations of terrorism over the years not to take them seriously. I’m surprised you do if you have studied the matter.
With respect to quoting the Koran or the Hadith, you are going to have to do better than say people agree with bin Laden and therefore they are fringe interpretations. There are many notable western scholars of Islam and their translations are not necessarily faulty. Why am I surprised you do not know this. Many have studied in Egypt under noted scholars. Your standard of proof by assertion and then related assertion are laughable.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:47 pmBut you see, Bradley, he has to do this. It’s part of his world view.
You are wrong; he is right. Always.
Sixty different links, huh? And as I recall, you doubt a number of websites that have association with Jewish or Israeli groups.
But your first link is from CAIR, for the love of Allah! But then, I’m sure you think they are a fine, upstanding organization.
I found the aggregate website interesting. Folks should read about the authoress of the site:
http://www.muhajabah.com/docstorage/me.htm
and this:
http://www.muhajabah.com/my_niqab_story/almuhajab.php
I’m curious what the women posters on this blog have to say about it.
But none of this surprises me.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 8:50 pmThose peace loving Palestinians and Lebanese should be judged on their actions. They chose and elected terrorist organizations to govern their country. Clearly the majorities in those countries have no problem with terrorists.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:00 pmCall it cold war politics but don’t start lecturing others on their adolescent rage when you can glibly use terns such as “death from above.” What’s next “Kill ‘em all. Let God sort them out?”
Click the link, dumbass. Then actually WATCH the video.
I’ll give it to you again:
Death from above!
Now who is glib and stupid?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:03 pm“There are many notable western scholars of Islam and their translations are not necessarily faulty.”
Name them. Please do enlighten me.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:04 pmUh, that depends on what the meaning of is is. Now, about that vast right wing conspiracy…
/Hax off
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:09 pmAs you probably know, Israeli intelligence helped Hamas get started and to expand.
Does that mean Israeli intelligence supports terrorism?
By your own definitions, that makes Israel a terrorist state, doesn’t it?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:12 pmHax – Explain that your assertion that the translations/interpretations of Islamic documents posted here were radical fringe were not based on knowledge first, then I’ll list some scholars. If I start a list a scholars, you’ll start quibbling over that and take the thread on a tangent. That’s your game. You can google the scholars on your own. Why am I’m surprised you haven’t?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:14 pmFaux equivalence. SHOCKA! Hacks, you are as predictable as Dems waging class warfare.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:21 pmDaley writes: “ Explain that your assertion that the translations/interpretations of Islamic documents posted here were radical fringe.”
It’s the interpretation, not the translation that is fringe.
As I’ve explained, over and over and over again, only a tiny minority of Muslims are involved in terrorism. That is the main reason I believe their religion doesn’t promote terrorism and why I label interpretations of Islam, such as yours and bin Laden’s, that say it justifies terrorism as fringe.
There is also the fact that in 14 centuries of existence, Islamists have only been involved a tiny number of murders relative to other movements and ideologies. How could that happen if their ideology demands murder?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:23 pmPatterico, I think your drive by poster with the f-bombs…drove past.
But please reassure me that HV isn’t just some undergraduate playing debate club. You have his bona fides, and you sure don’t have to share them. Just reassure me that he is a genuine grown up with a real job (you mentioned he gets paid to write, for example).
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:26 pmAs I say, performance art:
Wow. Just wow.
Now, that I want to see referenced. And not from any CAIR associated organization.
But that’s not your game, of course.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:28 pmThose damned Zoroastrans were particularly barbaric, in fact.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:36 pm“It’s the interpretation, not the translation that is fringe.”
Hax – The interpretations/translations of the Koran and other documents posted here don’t necessarily tell muslims to commit terrorist acts, so clerics can legitimately say Islam doesn’t support terrorism. But just as easily they can take those verses and say to their followers you must do this or that act of terrorism to defend Islam. The sophistry is easy to see for those who want to see it. Why am I surprised that you are among those who don’t want to see it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:44 pmPerformance art … priceless!
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:47 pmTry a little harder, Eric. Hitler? Not a Zorastrian. Stalin? No Caliph there…Mao? Not the type to face Mecca and pray.
Ghengis Khan? Not Muslim…
Islam was around throughout all these massacres, yet not responsible for any. How did that happen?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:51 pmOh, for Christ’s sake, quit being a moron, Hax. Read some Middle Eastern history.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:54 pmFaux equivalence, again.
JD (acbb4c) — 2/17/2009 @ 9:54 pmPatterico, is this the “value” you were talking about? Sheesh. But then, I have Armenian relatives who have some strong opinions on this subject.
I don’t mind different voices. But this guy is just posting nonsense to pick fights.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:03 pmIslam was around for these. How did that happen is the more pertinent question.
You see, this discussion centered around religions. But if you’d like to expand it into murderous, totalitarian ideologies, we can do that. We can talk about Mein Kampf, the Little Red Book and the Quran.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:05 pmHax – The thread isn’t about what their religion tells them to do, that is what the thread has temporarily morphed into. What their religion tells them to do is irrelevant in the face of the violent actions, propaganda, words, etc., etc., in societies, where only a tiny fringe of radicals support extremist Islam apparently according to the Grand Unifying Hax Theory Of Islam. Under the Hax Theory any action can be conveniently explained away by the proximity of conflict or violence, except when it can’t, such as domestic violence against people possessing a uterus.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:18 pmSorry ML, but the facts show rather clearly that the vast majority of Muslims don’t do bad things. What does your theory say about them?
Do they really Hax?
Then maybe you can explain to me a simple folk about Sharia and how every Moslem country follows it and its inherent misogyny, it takes something like 4 women’s testimony in court to equal one mans, that way he can rape her and she gets put to death for being a fornicatress.
Or the daughter gets honor killed for disgracing the family, or how apostates are given the death penalty same with gays although I think having sex with goats and other farm animals is considered fair game as in Hadal.
So you can claim the moon is made from green cheese all you want, but that fact is that a vast majority of Moslems do follow Sharia, which is amoral by any western standard.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:20 pmML: so if you live under a bad law, you are, by definition, a bad person?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:29 pm“What their religion tells them to do is irrelevant…”
Sounds like your argument is with ML, not with me, Daley..
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:30 pm# 337. As for the MLs ability to interpret holy texts, I wonder what he says about these:
Hax you have proven you are pretty dam stupid so this doesn’t surprise me,
do you have any examples of Jews or Christians attempting to fulfil those scriptures?
It’s a rhetorical question.
Deuteronomy and Numbers and Leviticus are historical records not open invites to kill Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Those Qur’anic and hadeeth passages are open invites to kill infidels that apply today.
I take it reading and comprehension are not your strong suites as you prove over and over again.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:30 pmWell, someone is certainly a disingenuous person in this play, and it ain’t ML.
What a tool.
Hey daley, relevant to your post, check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123489213059001223.html
It’s interesting what NOW finds worthy of comment, and what it does not find worthy of comment. Couldn’t have a thing to do with politics, could it?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:32 pmML: so if you live under a bad law, you are, by definition, a bad person?
Hax
It depends on the person, you do understand the difference between books and an individuals, don’t you?
But I see you agree that the Qur’an and hadeeth are bad. Maybe we are finally getting somewhere but I doubt it.
I think that crack or glue has really messing your brain up, stop before it is too late.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:50 pmHax
And I am pretty sure I recall the Moslem brotherhood and the Nazis were in cahoots and I think I recall a Moslem regiment was part of the Nazi army, that my help prove your theory that the Nazis were really just Christians.
ML (14488c) — 2/17/2009 @ 10:55 pmEric – parsnip and Hax. Liberal performance art.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/17/2009 @ 11:03 pmThey are the “Air America” of the commenters.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/17/2009 @ 11:09 pmML, you sound confused. Are you saying books are bad, or individuals?
And I agree the Koran is a bad book, but so’s the Bible.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/17/2009 @ 11:59 pmYou’ll have a hard time proving the Bible is a bad book with me, Hax. Especially since I am vehemently Christian around here.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:04 amI’m interested, John, in what you make of the Bible citings above that advocate some rather extreme violence. Do you take them in the same you ML and others interepret the Koran’s calls to violence or do you apply a different analytical framework?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:08 amAnd: is vehemence Christian?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:09 amYou haven’t actually explained squit.
Which is why nobody really gives a piddly about what kind of ridiculous ‘believes’ you have, because you have shown yourself to be a complete and utter moral moron, and an intellectual vacuum to boot.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:20 amve·he·ment (vē’ə-mənt) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial. See Synonyms at intense.
2. Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin vehemēns, vehement-, perhaps from vehere, to carry; see wegh- in Indo-European roots.]
ve’he·mence, ve’he·men·cy n., ve’he·ment·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
1 Corinthians 10:31
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
Sounds like vehemence to me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:42 amThanks for contributing, EW1(SG), it’s the thought that counts…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 12:57 amHax, let me be as sincere, honest and charitable as I can.
I agree with EW1(SG)s evaluation of your contribution to this blog.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:03 amJohn: me too’s only count for half, but thanks anyway.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:10 amAnd I’m still interested, John, in what you make of the Bible citings above that advocate some rather extreme violence. Do you take them in the same you ML and others interepret the Koran’s calls to violence or do you apply a different analytical framework?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:12 amIf the dude really upsets y’all — and some of what he’s saying does resemble spoiling for a fight — you can ignore him. There’s no law against it.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/18/2009 @ 1:14 amAs Hax knows, the later verses in the Koran trump the earlier verses. The Koran proceeds to be more violent as written.
The new testament vs. the old testament become obviously more peaceful. Very very few Christians run around quoting verse from Leviticus or Deuteronomy, which are outdated laws or descriptions of battles from 4,000 years ago.
This really isn’t in dispute, and is the very definition of faux equivalence.
Why can’t we judge the horros of hamas brainwashing on its face? It’s horrific, to be condemned, shocking, brutal. One of the worst human-rights crimes on the planet. There is no need to soften the horror by citing other horrors, especially those from the Old Testament. It’s 2009, right?
carlitos (8d203b) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:31 amI think I may have discovered Hax’s real name. At least he shares this fellow’s opinion of Islam. Are you an imam, Hax ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:41 amAnd that defines Hax.
“Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.” – Anonymous
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:46 amIn Hacks’ world, childrens stories would sound something likke this …
Rock-a-bye baby, let’s eat some Jooooooos.
JD (d1c83a) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:35 amWhen the wind blows, we’ll smell some cordite.
When the bough breaks, the filthy infidels will fall.
And down will fall Israel, civilians and all.
Hax replied as I expected. This was purely to establish he’s being a troll and not interested in fair discussion. It’s still instructive however, as an illustration of how dishonestly one must argue when operating without facts.
Bad tactic on a blog where one’s every comment is preserved for the record.
I stated:
So where are these groups of Hindu, atheist or Christian terrorists who you keep saying are “no different” from Islamic terrorists? How many evolutionists have been beheaded by Christian fundamentalists? How many radical violent evolutionists stage terror attacks on creationists?
Hax replied:
Sorry Brad, I don’t keep saying that. YOU keep saying that.
I said there is a radical fringe.
Then I asked:
“What part of “no different” don’t you understand.”
Hax replied:
The part where you omit the words “in that regard,” in a risible attempt to distort what I wrote.
So I repeated my question with that phrase, and asked him what was the difference. Hax never answered that one. Instead, he made a completely new charge:
I said Islam is no different.
You added “terrorists” so that you misleadingly portrayed me as saying atheist fringists are no different from terrorists.
Okayyyy, now let’s compare Hax’s latest iteration with the original claim that I challenged:
The data show clearly that the levels of radicalization are much lower in Europe than in Afghanistan, for example. It only proves my point. There will always be a radical fringe in any movement, be it Hindu, atheist, Christian,…Islam is no different in that regard.
Challenged to back up his words, Hax has shamelessly feigned incomprehension and distorted a record we all can read. It’s removed all doubt in my mind about his fact-averse behavior.
So now I will ignore the troll.
Bradley J. Fikes, C. O. R. (0ea407) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:13 amSo in other words, Hax says all religions have radical fringes — and I agree. He also appears to agree that Islam is different in this one regard: that in modern times, it has spawned a group of radical terrorists without any current parallel.
Right, Hax?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:18 amBradley, trolls try to exhaust you with non sequiturs and asking them to defend their outrageous statements is a waste of time. For example, I mentioned the fellow who beheaded his wife and referred to him as a “moderate” in quotes as he had been extensively interviewed and praised as just that when he started his TV station.
From NBC Nightly News, December 9th 2004:
[REPORTER RON] ALLEN: It’s the brainchild of Aasiya Zubair, an architect, and her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11.
Ms. AASIYA ZUBAIR: I did not want my kids growing up to watch Muslims being portrayed as terrorists.
Instead, her kids will grow up aware that their father beheaded her after she filed for divorce. Calling this “domestic violence” is like calling 9/11 a building failure.
But Hax can’t let this pass without a snark that he knows is more trouble to refute than we have the time for. He isn’t worth refuting and isn’t worth reading his comments. Trolls live for attention. We’ve been down this road before.
MIke K (2cf494) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:23 amDr. Capt. Mike K.,
Indeed we have been down this road before. I still remember the troll on Cathy’s World who claimed to be in the Coast Guard, and was exposed as a fraud by Ody — may he and his family be safe and happy.
Trolls don’t understand that blog communities have long memories, and that their deceptions and evasions always trip them up. They are at first annoyances, then when we see through them, objects of ridicule. Especially on this blog, the half-life of a troll tends to be short.
Bradley J. Fikes, C. O. R. (0ea407) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:45 amThe guy just like to be a reflexive contrarian, all fueled by the current pseudo-intellectual conceit of cultural relativism. Hence the snarking at the Bible, because he knew it would inflame certain posters here.
Patterico’s comment is interesting. My understanding of Hax’s point of view is that he would disagree vehemently with the second business of “without parallel.”
I don’t recall him ever stating that Islam has generated terrorists without then claiming that all groups generate evil people. “Tiny minority” is how it starts, and then it ends up trying to compare Wahabist terrorism with Hitler and Stalin’s regimes.
Cue the Cultural Relativism Theme Song.
But all of this gives the guy more credit than I think he merits. He is all about contradicting what he considers to be Right wing doctrinaire “talking points.”
Troof to Powder, again!
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:07 amAnother Hamas children’s song
Twinkle twinkle little shrapnel,
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:30 amHow I wonder how to make more of you.
Up above those filthy Jew scum so high
Like sparkling little diamonds shredding the sky.
Twinkle twinkle little shrapnel, now I wonder when I will don the next homicide vest.
Hush little shaheed don’t you cry
Mommy’s gonna help you blow sky high
If the Zionists don’t evacuate
Momma’s gonna teach your little sister to hate
If she doesn’t kill those filthy Jews
your little cousin Ahmed will be on the news
If Ahmed doesn’t heed our deadly urgings
he isn’t gonna get those 72 virgins
If Hamas can’t kill the rest
We’ll put young Mohamed in a suicide vest
Trust in Allah, you will see
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:38 amPalestine liberated from the river to the sea
Still waiting for the explanation how terrorist organizations running governments only represents a tiny minority. Methinks that Hacks learned math from the people at the LA Times.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:42 amGood one, Pablo. Bravo.
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:43 amTake me out to the Jihad
Take me out to the war
Buy me some C4 and suicide vests
I don’t care if I ever come back
Let’s root root root for Allah’s team (Pbuh)
For if they don’t win it’s a shame
‘Cause it’s one, two, three bombs you’re dead
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:50 amat the old jihad place
And I agree the Koran is a bad book, but so’s the Bible.
It would nice if this Hack would read up on something before putting his feet in his mouth.
In order to prove those Old Testament scriptures are open invites to violence in the name of God, then there would need to be “tiny” groups of Jews and Christians that are perpetrating violence and then justifying those actions by quoting those scriptures. I cant find any.
Something kinda like how Moslems yell “Allah Akbar” when they are perpetrating violence against the infidels.
I guess Hacks forgets or never knew the Old Testament contains the 10 commandments which is the very moral basis of Western society, it also contains the golden rule “love your neighbor as your self.
The Qur’an doesn’t contain the 10 commandments or the golden rule, yet these books are equal in the mind of Hacks.
ML (14488c) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:52 amThanks, JD. Y’ever tried to rhyme “virgins”” Art ain’t easy, I tell ya.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 8:56 amPablo – Try weerjuns. I think that is from “Gotcha”
JD (d5a778) — 2/18/2009 @ 9:07 amhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/opinion/18friedman.html?em
“Indian Muslims are proud of being both Indian and Muslim, and the Mumbai terrorism was a war against both India and Islam,” explained M.J. Akbar, the Indian-Muslim editor of Covert, an Indian investigative journal. “Terrorism has no place in Islamic doctrine. The Koranic term for the killing of innocents is ‘fasad.’ Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis. In a beautiful verse, the Koran says that the killing of an innocent is akin to slaying the whole community. Since the … terrorists were neither Indian nor true Muslims, they had no right to an Islamic burial in an Indian Muslim cemetery.”
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 5:08 pmComment 398 is waiting for a response, Hax.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:35 pmGood luck on that one, Patterico.
Maybe he will start being responsive instead of the snarky hit and run Troof to Powder approach.
Actually, his doing so would be good thing.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:37 pm“So in other words, Hax says all religions have radical fringes — and I agree. He also appears to agree that Islam is different in this one regard: that in modern times, it has spawned a group of radical terrorists without any current parallel.”
Yes, I absolutely agree, as a general statement, though “without parallel” is a little too wide, given that there are some parallels. Where I suspect I would disagree with many of your commenters — don’t know where you stand, Pat — is on the cause of that phenomenon.
I’ve argued clearly and substantively here that the record shows geopolitical conflict and failed-state chaos drive terrorism, not Islam itself. As it happens, many of the world’s failed states are in the Middle East. Radicalism in the region is without parallel primarily because poverty and instability are without parallel in the region.
To be sure, Islam plays a role in that, but I would argue it’s the minor one and that, the world can get along just fine with Islam.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/18/2009 @ 6:49 pmIf the world “can get along just fine with Islam”, one wonders why that hasn’t happened yet.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:17 pmIf failed-state chaos is the root of islamic terrorism, how do we explain the prevalence of middle-class, educated terrorists? Egyptian doctor, abu musab al-zarqawi, from the failed state of egypt, mohammed atta, living a comfortable life as a student in the failed state of hamburg, osama bin laden, millionaire from the failed state of saudi arabia, etc. I could list dozens. Why does “failed state chaos” drive them to commit horrific acts of terror in the name os Islam against the west if they are not from or even living in a failed state?
carlitos (f2604b) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:20 pmYou’ve been asked, probably a dozen times, to identify them. Don’t you think its about time you did so?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:20 pmNo, you haven’t. You’ve only asserted. In fact, when I’ve asked you to address “root causes” you’ve ignored those requests.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:22 pmI’ve argued clearly and substantively here that the record shows geopolitical conflict and failed-state chaos drive terrorism, not Islam itself. As it happens, many of the world’s failed states are in the Middle East. Radicalism in the region is without parallel primarily because poverty and instability are without parallel in the region.
This does not explain the educated businessman with money and a home in NY beheading his wife, nor the educated diplomat with a home also in NY beating his wife for 15 hours until she swallowed her tongue and died. These were men living in America, not some failed state. These were comfortable, upstanding citizens in the public eye.
Pre-emptive strike: These are not the only two educated, prosperous men not living in the poverty and oppression of some failed state who have maimed or murdered their wives/daughters/sisters. And the common thread would be?
Dana (137151) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:28 pm#340, The majority of German people where not genocidal nut jobs but fact is they put genocidal nut jobs in power. So, they are not completely blameless ….. so, anyway …..
Of course most Muzlims don’t do terror but the silent majority create apologies for their behavior, a good amount provide active verbal support and some provide $$$$$$$$$.
I am always reminded of Muzlims love of country by the celebrations my frems in Jersey City had as the buildings were going up in smoke. Or the Gaza scum celebrating the attack. Or Lebanon. Or Saudi …. most of the world in mourning and our Muzlim frems clapping like trained seals.
“Muzlim” frems indeed.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:31 pm“The record shows geopolitical conflict and failed-state chaos drive terrorism”
Wow, now that is completely wrong. Sounds like puke from a College Prof who has never left campus.
Most Muzlim terrorist organizers are quite well off and in positions of power. What failed state are they angry about? The failed state that made them well off?
Unhappy people join terrorist movements but the movement itself is usually conceptualized and organized in the Coffee Houses and University Campuses of the world, all while the organizers are living off daddy’s hard work.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/18/2009 @ 7:41 pm“the educated businessman with money and a home in NY beheading his wife, nor the educated diplomat with a home also in NY beating his wife for 15 hours until she swallowed her tongue and died. These were men living in America, not some failed state. These were comfortable, upstanding citizens in the public eye.”
No one is suggesting these crimes were motivated by Islam, are they?
When a white Christian like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, commits mass murder, then eats his victims, do you think it’s credible to argue that he did so because he’s a white Christian?
By far the vast majority of domestic violence, including murder, in the U.S. is committed by Christians. Muslims only account for a tiny sliver and, within the Muslim community, only tiny sliver are involved in domestic violence cases.
There is simply no data that would link Muslims to domestic violence.
The cases you cite are unambigously exceptions, just as Jeffrey Dahmer, or Son of Sam or the many other white Christian mass murderers are.
As for the fact that man of the 9/11 attackers were well educated and from stable family backgrounds:
They all went to Afghanistan and/or Pakistan to train and were brought into the movement by elements based in those chaotic, lawless, dirt-poor places.
Wherever there is any semblance of order, economic activity and prosperity, terror is utterly unappealing.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/19/2009 @ 2:51 amBaloney.
Terror is part and parcel of waging jihad, and has been since the inception of Islam.
On the contrary, you would do well to educate yourself in the subject before you make grandiose, and false, generalizations. Start with Pryce-Jones The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs to gain an insight into how Arab culture influences Islam (and vice versa, they are part and parcel), and why domestic violence is the norm rather than the exception in (specifically Arab) Muslim culture. Other cultures that have embraced Islam may have moderated some Arab Islamic cultural themes in their own practice, but it is a two way street with Islam provoking violence where there was none before.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/19/2009 @ 5:09 amExcept for Hamburg, Saudi Arabia, London, Madrid, Bali, Buenos Aires, New York … oh, unless you go somewhere to train as a terrorist, and someone brings you into the movement. Gee, and why would someone think that you, at a terrorist training camp, would be interested in their movement? Well, then, all we have to do is civilize the entire world and get rid of the terrorist training camps.
Wait, how many black africans who grow up in actual chaos (not touristy, going-to-visit-a-camp chaos) go on to commit acts of terror against the west?
By far the vast majority of domestic violence, including murder, in the U.S. is committed by Christians. Muslims only account for a tiny sliver and, within the Muslim community, only tiny sliver are involved in domestic violence cases.
Gee, most of X in the United States is done by Christians, who make up 90% of the population. Go out on a limb, why don’t ya? And only a “tiny sliver” of Muslims are involved in domestic violence cases. (insert facts about % of cases by religion here)
Well, it took you 400 posts to define “tiny fraction” of mulsims as 200 million people. Feel free to be more specific with your fact-free, general assertion above. It’s not like Muslims have a particular problem in this area, right? We had all kinds of honor killings in Buffalo before there were Muslims there, right? Ditto Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Hamburg, right? Domestic violence is the same in Amman as it is in Tokyo, right?
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 6:59 am“Wherever there is any semblance of order, economic activity and prosperity terror is utterly unappealing”
…. that statement ignores all facts …
… and even if accepted it proves the supremacy of Pluralistic, Western-based, Capitalist Democracies which undermines the very argument made by the Vobiscum’s of this world about how bad we are.
Hax, make up you mind.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:08 amA beheading? Motivated by Islam? Why, yes.
Can you please explain why there is a sword on the Saudi Arabian flag? Why Danny Pearl and countless other westerners have been beheaded in the name of Islam? Why the US Marines are known as ‘leathernecks?’ Hint – it’s a koranic verse.
You are truly, intentionally, spectacularly obtuse.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:10 amDon’t forget Texas, UK and Canada.
Not to worry, though. Tiny minority and all that.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:11 amHi EW1(SG):
This troll fellow is just trying to stir the pot with that nonsense:
We have a choice. Either he is just a snotty undergraduate trying to fight with people.
Or he is a complete racist (hi, JD) who feels that Western European standards of spousal treatment should be the norm throughout the world.
Wait, a third possibility: or he thinks that spousal treatment standards should be completely linked to whatever society, and all of those societies are equal.
Like a said, a troll trying to stir up fights.
He should just groom his ocelot.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 7:12 am[…] on February 19, 2009 I meant earlier to link to this fantastic article by Patterico highlighting hateful jihadist programming shown on Palestinian TV and, yes, aimed at children. We have delightful examples of a cartoon bee wishing to follow the […]
Jihadist kids shows - why there won’t be Middle East peace anytime soon « Wellsy’s World (661794) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:43 pmLot’s of suggestions that data linking Muslims to domestic violence exists, but still no data.
If you’ve got it, bring it on. If you don’t, find another angle.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:45 pmUber asserts: “argument made by the Vobiscum’s of this world about how bad we are.”
Speaking for myself, no one loves America more than I do. We’re one of the world’s greatest countries, full of open-minded, caring, sharing, smart, happy, well-adjusted people. Our educational institutions lead the world, drawing elite students from every corner of the earth. our military is by far the biggest and strongest. our economy leads as well.
Sorry, I’m no downer on the U.S. or the West in general.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:50 pmHonor killings are just so common in the Methodist church.
JD (03563c) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:50 pmIts the Baptist suicide bombers targeting discos to stop all that dancing that always upset me, JD.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:52 pmI agree, JD. Those of us who are Grace Brethren, similar to Baptist, are very busy blowing ourselves up in the name of Christ. In fact, I’ve blown myself up three times a year for the past 20 years, taking out at least eight atheists each time I killed myself.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:53 pmThanks JD. Straw men are ever so slightly crunchier than ad hominem.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 3:53 pmSigh. Hax, you did read #422 and the book referenced? Or #423 and the links associated…including some polls? Or #426?
Oh, that’s right: you don’t trust those sources.
Whatever, dude. You just like to fight.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:05 pmFalse, as noted above.
Well, I figured since the following passages appeared in my earlier link, that would be enough. For your benefit I will excise them, but you would do well to go read the source material found at each footnote, this being wikipedia and all.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:19 pmOh, and like the first half of Ayaan Hirsi-Ali’s book, but never mind.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:41 pmIt’s not about actually dealing with the discussion.
It’s called “…playing to win….” carlitos. With emphasis on the “playing.”
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:50 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/19/2009 @ 2:51 am
Hax, your refusal to admit the place Islam plays in the heinous treatment toward women is utterly offensive and that you see no difference from it’s view and influence in the treatment of women than that of Christianity or any other religion, is unspeakable.
Too bad such an obviously intelligent person can’t get beyond baiting and obfuscating and being dishonest.
I’m done here.
Dana (137151) — 2/19/2009 @ 4:57 pmI don’t get where anyone thinks Hax is intelligent. Smart people can deal in facts, and Hacks doesn’t qualify.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:36 pmDana: check out Eric’s link. It says Islamic scholars are divided over whether Islam permits spouse abuse. If you are certain that it does, can you point out where the scholars who say it doesn’t are wrong?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 8:47 pmHax, the problem exists; the women are oppressed and abused. What the fuck difference does it make what some scholars say?
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:00 pmThere’s a nice piece from the American Thinker from 2005 which illustrates how different translations of Koran can be used for different effect depending on the agenda of the purpose of the person using them. Useful idiots from the West eager to be taken in by propaganda shills are often willing to swallow the most twisted and nonsensical translations while ignoring mountains of historical evidence in front of their faces.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/02/domestic_violence_in_the_quran.html
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:03 pmLet me explain something to you: you are not one of the people that you have just described!
You have, in fact, found yourself in a room full of the people you describe, but when it is pointed out to you that a totalitarian ideology with violent world conquest as a primary motivator isn’t good for women, children, puppies, goldfish, and fluffly little panda bears, you poke your fingers in your ears and chant ‘Na na na na … I can’t hear you!’ rather than saying ‘Goodness! There is a significant portion of the world’s population that should be rescued from a fate often worse than death!’
Hence my earlier description of you as a moral moron. You have certainly cemented your image as such with your continous and continued obtusity.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:18 pmThanks EW! I’m glad you got that off your chest.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:21 pmHax, that link contains a number of references that have some very disturbing statistics (getting back to your silly “tiny minority” arguments from prior posts that you also cannot defend and do not intend to defend—given your penchant for silly games).
For example (as you know quite well)….
You wrote:
But in the post that I gave, and that you yourself reference:
I haven’t even mentioned the other sites, and books, that have been referenced.
So you are either lying, not reading, or playing word games. It is the latter with you, as usual.
More fundamentally (!), you know that women are treated poorly in many Muslim nations. You are playing word games regarding a tragic topic. It’s okay for a high school student; it is not good when you are dealing with the awfulness that you make light of so easily.
And the funny part, of course, is that I certain you consider yourself to be a good feminist male.
You should be ashamed that you play these games. It is no game, in fact, but life and death in many parts of the world.
But for you, it is all funny.
Patterico likes you. Cool. But in the history of trolls on this site, people like you continue to push, until you finally go far.
People like you then issue lines like “I work here is done” and go away.
So either quit playing word games over human lives—making jokes and insults as you do—or go away. Either way doesn’t matter to me.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:22 pm^ The ridiculous and pathetic thing is I have no doubt that the person you’re referring to fancies himself a kind and caring human, a liberal of impeccable credentials.
What a damn joke such people are.
Mark (411533) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:24 pmYou continue to display a brain splittingly painful obtusity. You aren’t exactly aware of what constitutes Islamic scholarship, are you.
When hundreds of thousands of Islamic “scholars” throughout the history of Islam grant the imprimatur of their “scholarship” to spouse abuse, and along comes one who doesn’t~then a scroundrel can take refuge in claiming the “scholars are divided”!
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:25 pmThanks for the laugh! Really no more than an idle thought passed on during a commercial break in Iron Chef America. You aren’t worth any more than that.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:36 pmEW: on Islamic scholars being divided, I was quoting Eric’s link, not giving my own analytical observations. You may want to take it up with Wikipedia.
Eric: I’m not sure why you keep talking past my point.
As I’ve said repeatedly, there is no question as to whether spouse abuse is a problem. The debate is over whether the problem is in any way unique to Islam.
Are spouse abuse rates higher in the Muslim world than elsewhere? If there is something uniquely abusive about the religion, then surely it would generate more violence.
The facts I presented show it doesn’t. Rates in the Muslim world are similar to those elsewhere. That’s case-closing evidence that Islam isn’t the cause.
I think where many of you are misled is that of course perpetrators of spouse abuse often use their religion as an excuse. But again, that excuse comes up often in other cultures as well. It’s not unique to Islam. And the fact that people use it, doesn’t mean it’s correct.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:38 pmEW writes: “no more than an idle thought” Like I said, we all contribute what we can.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:39 pmYES! Something like 80 – 90% in Pakistan, for example.
What facts? What evidence?
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:44 pm“The facts I presented show it doesn’t.”
Analytical observations again?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:55 pmCheck #444 Carlitos.
Also, the 80 percent figure you cite for Pakistan refers to domestic violence, not spousal abuse.
Clearly, the rate is very high in Pakistan: unacceptably high. However, we don’t find similar rates across the Muslim world. Pakistan is the exception, not the rule. If Islam were the primary driver, the rates should be similar across the Islamic world and, even, with in Islamic communities in Europe and the U.S.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:56 pm“Analytical observations again?”
No, facts. Read them and respond, Daley. If you can.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:57 pm“The debate is over”
Now Hax sounds like Al Gore, but Al only says that to avoid debating anyone because the facts aren’t on his side.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 9:59 pm“Also, the 80 percent figure you cite for Pakistan refers to domestic violence, not spousal abuse.”
Hax – Spousal abuse is a component of domestic violence. What is your quibble?
Also, I just skimmed the thread and must have missed your presentation of facts. Can you provide directions to where you ended the debate, please?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 10:18 pmDaley: #444
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/19/2009 @ 10:29 pmSorry Hax, you didn’t present any facts. Other people did. You are just trying to contort them in a manner that supports your argument.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/19/2009 @ 11:46 pmIronically, #444 wasn’t even posted by Hax…
Patterico, seriously… Do something about Hax, would you?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/19/2009 @ 11:53 pmCheck it again, Scott. Here’s 444, by me: No one has suggested domestic violence isn’t a problem in the Muslim world. The point is, it’s a problem around the world and NOT UNIQUE TO ISLAM.
The reported estimates in wiki are consistent with those of the non-Islamic developing world:
Russia
http://www.amnesty.org/russia/womens_day.html
Every day 36,000 women in the Russian Federation are beaten by their husbands or partners.
Every forty minutes a woman is killed by domestic violence.
Official figures say domestic violence is part of the life of every fourth Russian family.
Women’s organizations in the Russian Federation put forward facts like these to illustrate their concern that violence against the human rights of women is being treated as an internal, domestic, or social problem and not as a human rights violation.
The Moscow based “Siostry” is one of the first women’s NGOs to highlight the problem. Its Director Maria Mokhova says many women become victims of domestic violence and they get no protection from the state.
Serbia
http://womensphere.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/reality-tv-uncovers-domestic-violence-in-serbia/
A bridegroom on a popular Serbian television show brags how he slaps his bride now and then – with her mother’s approval.
The bashful bride acknowledges, while looking adoringly at her husband-to-be, that she can be lazy and disobedient and should be hit in the face from time to time.
The scene from 48-Hour Wedding, a reality TV show that sets up Serb couples for real nuptials, points to a less romantic issue in the macho Balkan society: spousal abuse.
Domestic violence is the most common kind of abuse in Serbia and every third women has been a victim, surveys of non-governmental groups say.
Brazil
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/psanders/litsearch/Domviol.html
In Brazil 70% of violence against women occurred in the home and 40% caused serious physical injury (Thomas, 1992), First episodes of domestic violence were found to have often occurred during pregnancy and with nursing women in a Sao Paulo study (Oliveira, Vianna, 1993).
The statistics provided are interesting for the introductory paragraph, but it would not be appropriate to include such specific details throughout the whole paper.
Types of domestic violence include murder, beatings, and rape (Saffioti,1994). Domestic violence in the past has been thought of as a private matter within the family but more is being done now to make it a public issue; this has resulted in husbands no longer having a legal right to kill or punish their wives (Lykes, Brabeck, Ferns, and Radan, 1992; Thomas, 1992). However, Brazil is one of only a few industrialized countries still allowing the use of men’s honor as a defense in trials concerning domestic violence, including wife murder (Lamego, 1993).
The Latin American culture of machismo (male dominance, “obligation to family,” and “moral superiority” to women) and marianismo (female submission, “spiritual superiority”) is important to understand as a major cause of domestic violence, or at least a strong contributing factor (Lykes et al. 1993, p. 535; Perilla, Bakeman, and Norris, 1994, p. 326). Gender inequality continues in the male dominated government. State-sponsored violence is, at minimum, described as the state not taking action to protect women or leaving women at risk for domestic violence or other crimes (Lykes et al. 1993). The Brazilian government, even now, continues to “explicitly and implicitly sanction” domestic violence (Thomas, 1992, p. 42).
Haiti
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/LZEG-6W7S5A?OpenDocument
In a recent report published by SOFA it was estimated that eight out of every ten women suffer domestic violence and the incidence of rape is increasing. It was only in 2005 that a new law was brought in making it illegal for rape within a marriage.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78729.htm
Congo
Domestic violence against women, including rape and beatings, was widespread but rarely reported. There were no specific provisions under the law outlawing spousal battery, other than general statutes prohibiting assault. Domestic violence usually was handled within the extended family, and only the more extreme incidents were reported to the police. This was primarily due to the social stigma for the victim, and because such matters traditionally were dealt with in the family or village. According to a local NGO, the Congolese Association to Combat Violence Against Women and Girls, there were no official statistics on domestic violence against women; however, during 2005 more than 500 women and children who were victims of sexual violence sought its medical assistance. The NGO reported it provided hundreds of HIV tests. The NGO also organized public awareness workshops and offered training for community chiefs, police officers, health workers, magistrates, journalists, and others from the public and private sectors. NGOs, such as the local Human Rights Center, the Congolese Association to Combat Violence Against Women and Girls, the International Rescue Committee, and Doctors Without Borders continued to draw attention to the issue and provided counseling and assistance to victims.
Rape, including spousal rape, is illegal; however, the government did not effectively enforce the law. The law prescribes five to 10 years in prison for violators. Rape was common, although the extent of rape was unknown because the crime was seldom reported. Depending on the severity of the circumstances, the penalties for rape, despite what the law requires, in practice could be as few as several months but rarely more than three years’ imprisonment. There were no statistics available on the incidence of rape.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/19/2009 @ 9:10 pm
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:00 amWhy do I need to do anything about him? You people are doing quite well. In my judgment, you are humiliating him. He’s helping out, to be sure. But you’re doing a great job.
The fact that he doesn’t realize it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Hax, if you’re claiming that, taken as a whole, it’s fair to say the Islamic world treats women with the same respect as the non-Islamic world, then you’re making a very stupid claim. You realize this, right?
If there’s a place outside the world of radical Islam where women are raped, and then beaten for the offense of being raped, I’d like to hear about it. Since you brought Christianity into the discussion, tell me whether you think this phenomenon is as widespread in the Christian world as the Islamic world.
In other words, nice hole you’re digging yourself. How would you like another shovel?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:44 amRape, including spousal rape, is illegal; however, the government did not effectively enforce the law. The law prescribes five to 10 years in prison for violators. Rape was common, although the extent of rape was unknown because the crime was seldom reported. Depending on the severity of the circumstances, the penalties for rape, despite what the law requires, in practice could be as few as several months but rarely more than three years’ imprisonment. There were no statistics available on the incidence of rape.
It’s not good to see a low punishment for rape. But it’s worse to see a high punishment for rape — when that punishment is meted out to the VICTIM instead of the perpetrator. As happens in the world of radical Islam, where women are treated as anything but equals.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:47 amI don’t see any debate enders Hax. Is it illegal to beat your wife in nations governed by sharia law?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 1:02 amThink Hax’s stuff was in the filter.
I still want his answer as to whether the Islamic world as a whole treats women with the same respect as the non-Islamic world.
If he can’t say no without qualification — and he won’t — that will say a lot. Instead I suspect we’ll get a lot of quibbling and nitpicking. If any female readers aren’t already completely repulsed by his attitude/ignorance, that should do it.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 1:05 amHax might make a good White House press secretary, if nothing else. He bobs and weaves, responding to points he can’t refute by either ignoring them or using them as opportunities to blast off on tangents that start a chase more exhilarating than a Nantucket sleigh ride, only without the hope of scoring some ambergris. Over and over we see the magnificent spectacle of an intellectual (on one side, anyway) game of tag: an opponent raises a point, devastating a lie the intruder has told, impaling a non sequitur on a pike of ugly truth, making a point that dynamites the ground on which Hax stood; yet up Hax leaps into the air, and yanks the conversation away, seizing on absolutely nothing to start a whole new round of equivocations, non sequiturs, and lies, twisting facts like pretzels as he dashes for the refuge of confusion (calling to mind that if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then you must, Best Beloved, baffle them with liberal horsepoo), and my brethren on the Right gamely give chase, butterfly nets in the air, trying to catch the S.O.B. and block off once and for all the trail of foul, fecal fictions he leaves in his wake. He runs like a rabid mongoose, far, far away from a place where truth might lay a hold of him, while those of us exhausted from the effort watch with bated breath as our brothers on this blog soldier on, struggling valiantly to catch the beast…
To steal a line from the movie Swimming with Sharks, if Hax were in my toilet bowl I wouldn’t bother flushing it. But I appreciate that you guys are continuing to expose him as being, to steal a line from Dennis Miller, more full of s*** than a whale with no ass.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/20/2009 @ 1:32 amOh, I just remembered the point I was trying to make about Hax. He’d make a good press secretary (from the perspective of one watching him on TV) because it would be so entertaining watching him pull these amazingly disingenuous tactics in a live setting and getting to see the expression on his face as he asserts with iron certitude that he’s anything but the kind of person who gives weasels a bad name.
Alan (551a6d) — 2/20/2009 @ 1:36 am“Hax, if you’re claiming that, taken as a whole, it’s fair to say the Islamic world treats women with the same respect as the non-Islamic world, then you’re making a very stupid claim. You realize this, right?”
Yes, I realize that. Or, well, no, I never said that, so I guess the answer has to be no, I don’t realize that. I’ve written an awful lot here on this subject, so I don’t think you need to respond to “if” hypotheticals about things I haven’t said.
I guess the problem is that my anti-fan club here spins so much time attributing views to me that I don’t have that there is a lot of clouding going on.
Overall, women are treated far worse, on average in the Islamic world than in the developed West. As you say, Pat, that’s undeniable and obvious.
In fact, the Muslim world trails the West badly on virtually every measure of social, economic and political achievement. Bernard Lewis, in “Crisis of Islam” notes that the number of books translated from the Islamic world’s languages is some astronomical number greater than the number of books translated into those languages.
Lewis, in the same book, recites a litany of the economic, social and political failures in the region and makes clear that is these failures, not anything intrinsic in the Koran or any supernatural effect, that is behind the deep dysfunctions of Muslim societies, relative to the developed West.
That’s why, when we look at places like Haiti and the Congo, and even Russia and Serbia, we find very similar levels of social dysfunctions — and they have almost zero exposure to the Koran.
In the “ICE” thread, which –apologies–devolved into my defense of comments on this thread — Pablo makes the excellent point that there is a “reformation” under way in the Islamic world.
Lewis also notes this, though he portrays it more as a battle between radicals and conservatives within the religion and, of course, the corellary conflict between ancient and modern habits and values.
I would ask you, Patterico: which side are you on: Are you with those Muslim scholars, clerics and believers who insist that the Koran doesn’t demand violence and spouse abuse? Or are you with bin Laden and his ilk, who insist it does?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 2:59 amHacks, if there’s nothing about Islam that isn’t paralleled in all other religions…If there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam, why would it need a reformation?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:15 amUnless you’re a Muslim, you’re not with either side. But which of those sides most resembles a “tiny minority”?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:19 amHey, Hamas! You’ve won! Here’s your prize!
Binyamin Netanyahu to be Israel’s next Prime Minister
Congratulations!
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:11 amPablo, from your Guardian link:
The President said that 65 out of 120 parties in Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, backed Mr Netanyahu.
While the Knesset is famously fractious, it’s not quite that bad, for its 120 members to each have their own party.
Ah, the famed accuracy of objective British “journalism”.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:26 am“If there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam, why would it need a reformation?”
Islam itself needs no reformation. It’s a relgion and, as such, is based on highly metaphorical texts and disparate traditions. The latitude for interpretation is far greater than any philosophical precision presented by the Muslim scriptures themselves. To put it extremely bluntly, Islam is whatever Muslims make it, just as Christianity is what Christians make it and so on.
If you look into the Christian Reformation, you’ll find that the reformers weren’t out to change Christianity, but rather to restore it to it’s intended practice. I would say the same goes for Islam and its reformers.
It’s very important to understand the the Englightenment bypassed the Muslim world. The religion remains mired in posterity and has never reformed as fully as has Christianity. That doesn’t mean the religion is any less valid than Christianity, but I do think it means the rituals, traditions and practices are less suited to modernity.
Nice try, though. At least you refrained from ad hominem this time.
“which of those sides most resembles a “tiny minority”?”
How many polls do you have to see, Pablo? How much data do you need? The data are in and it’s clear: only a teeny, tiny percentage of Muslims are involved in terrorism.
A slightly larger proporation are willing to say they support terrorists, but its still a minority.
Most Muslims oppose terrorism. The data are indisputable. The anecdotal and logical evidence is mountainous: most of the Muslim world, in particular, the ruling elite, is focused intensively on combatting terrorism, not facilitating it.
This is undeniable. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge speaks only to the state of your mind, not the state of the world.
At some point, you need to address the issue of why you cling, against all evidence, to the idea that Islam, rather than the humans who pervert it, is the threat.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:16 amUndeniable
Indisputable……
The anecdotal evidence is mountainous………
My analytical observations will shock and bewilder……
Heh, I love the language of the left in the morning.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:29 amdaley: a friend of Gleen, perhaps?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:38 amIslam is based on what its adherents believe to the the inerrant, unchangable word of Allah.
This is true, but there’s a world of difference between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Mohammed. Therein lies the rub. Now that isn’t to say that Islam can’t possibly be reinterpreted, but it would require convincing a whole lot of people to reject their fervently held beliefs about the inerrancy of the Koran and the perfection of Mohammed.
What intended practice is that? When was it practiced? Where? By whom?
That wasn’t the question. I’m not talking about the teeny, tiny minority of 200 million that you suppose support terrorism. We’re talking about violence in many forms, including the domestic sort.
That waxes and wanes, as the data show. Strong horse doctrine, and all.
At some point, you need to figure out what the difference is between people and religion.
Where is your proof that violence is a perversion of Islam, and not the proper application of it? Where is Islam practiced properly by the majority of Muslims? Is it done properly in Saudi?
I’d like to believe that Islam is just like any other religion, but I don’t see anyone killing people in the name of Christ or Vishnu or any other deity. And on the rare occasion when some underserved mental patient does do such a thing, I don’t see either scriptural or popular support for it. I don’t see sweets distributed to children in celebration. I don’t see streets plastered with posters of such defective individuals. I see the rest of the community come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:42 amDaley: I appreciate your continuing focus on my posts. It’s good to know I’m read.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:44 amDissent is futile in the face of mountainous anecdotal evidence and analytical observations!
What does that say about you!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:46 am“Daley: I appreciate your continuing focus on my posts. It’s good to know I’m read.”
Hax – I’m cleaning my combs at the same time. You’re a diversion.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:48 am“We’re talking about violence in many forms, including the domestic sort.”
As I’ve shown, domestic violence is not unique to the Islamic world. The data are clear: domestic violence varies primarily with the overall level of social and economic dysfunction, not with the dominant religion. Wherever economic and social development lags, be it Catholic Haiti, Christian Orthodox Serbia and Russia, or Muslim Sudan, domestic violence rises. Conversely, it falls where development succeeds, be it in a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist society.
Pablo asks: “What intended practice is that? When was it practiced? Where? By whom?”
Get thee to wikipedia. Poor yourself a cup of coffee and type, “REFORMATION” The answers are there for the taking.
“Where is your proof that violence is a perversion of Islam.”
It’s not something that could be proven. It’s an analytical observation. Again, you flaunt your inability to distinguish between facts and analysis. Maybe I can make it clearer.
Reagan invaded Grenada. (Fact)
Reagan was a militarist. (Analysis)
The former is subject to proof. The latter is not; its substantiation calls for evidence and logic, but proof is out of the question.
When you learn that distinction, you’ll probably become a liberal forthwith. 😉
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:59 amHack’s substitution of sophistry for integrity was best displayed on this comment and the following ones.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:04 amHax, just a heads up that I disagree with your analysis 🙂
One more question that you will surely ignore –
How in the world can searching wikipedia for “reformation” show Pablo the intended practice of Islam? One could just as easily argue that the ‘reformers’ want to go back to raiding caravans. Actions speak louder than words.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:05 amGood point, Carlitos, maybe Pablo was referring to the practice of Islam.
If that’s the case, it’s a little odd of him to be asking such basic questions, inasmuch as he appears to have made some rather strident and rather final judgments about the religion. If he’s not even aware of how it’s practiced, why would you take any conclusions about how it’s practiced seriously?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:09 amHmmm…
I thought that Hax was paid to write! Who knew?
It’s just all more Argument Room tediousness. Which is the point, but it has gotten pretty bizarre, with Hax forgetting what he has posted in the past. Because it is just a game.
I suspect that Patterico is amused, anyway. I mean, since he knows the bona fides of Hax.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:11 amThe anecdotal and logical evidence is mountainous: most of the Muslim world, in particular, the ruling elite, is focused intensively on combatting terrorism, not facilitating it.
This is undeniable.
I deny it.
You are prone to sweeping generalizations, and this is a good example.
I do not believe the ruling elite in Syria or Iran have any interest in combating terrorism — on the contrary, they have an interest in fostering it. As did the ruling elite in Iraq before we tossed out Saddam.
One can also question the unwavering anti-terror commitment of, say, the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia.
I believe large section of Pakistani intelligence are radical Muslims who have no interest in combating terror.
So that which you call undeniable, I deny.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:14 amNice fat sack of fail you’ve dropped there, Hacks.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:15 amBut Patterico, it isn’t about truth or discussion.
It’s about a worldview whereby when a Right of center person says something, a Left of center person must take the opposite side of the issue.
Reactive contrarianism.
Plus definitional word games to make Clinton blush.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:16 amPatterico @486 – What is the population of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran to the larger muslim world? Surely it is but a tiny fraction?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:21 amNevermind about the ruling elite, they are a radical fringe as the anecdotal evidence has already proven by indisputable analytical observation.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:23 amAnd logic, daley. Don’t forget the sweet, sweet logic!
Since this character has been paid to write, I still say he ought to write an entire post instead of the Tourette’s like threadjacking taking place now. More productive, and a source of discussion.
Unless the point is to fight and bicker…and win!
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:25 am“the ruling elite in Syria or Iran have any interest in combating terrorism.”
Syria, as a strategic imperative, supports groups that engage in terror, much as the U.S. and many other countries do. This is moronic and counterproductive, both in the U.S. and in Syria, but it in no way suggests that the U.S. or Syria are NOT interested in combatting terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
On February 2, 1982, when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 25,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers.
Syria had been deeply involved in Lebanon’s Civil War since 1976 and the beginning of the 1982 Lebanon War. Problems also arose from Turkey, which mobilized troops on its borders with Syria primarily to deal with Kurdish rebels and accused Syria of supporting and training the PKK rebels within Turkey. The Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of this situation to start defying Hafez al-Assad’s dictatorship. It undertook guerrilla activities in multiple cities within the country targeting officers, government officials and infrastructure. The anti-regime violence included the killings of eighty-three young military cadets at an artillery school in Aleppo in June 1979, and three car bomb attacks in Damascus between August and November 1980 that killed several hundred people. In July 1980, membership in the Muslim Brotherhood was made a capital offense, with the ratification of Law No. 49. Throughout the early 1980s the Muslim Brotherhood staged a series of bomb attacks against the government and its officials, including a nearly successful attempt to assassinate president Hafez al-Assad on June 26, 1980, during an official state reception for the president of Mali. When a machine gun salvo missed him, al-Assad allegedly ran to kick a hand grenade aside, and his bodyguard (who survived and was later promoted to a much higher position) sacrificed himself to smother the explosion of another one. Surviving with only light injuries, al-Assad’s revenge was swift and merciless: only hours later 2000 imprisoned Islamists were murdered in a massacre carried out by his brother Rifaat al-Assad and Mohamed Bakeer in Tadmor Prison (Palmera prison).
Calls for vengeance grew within the brotherhood, and bomb attacks increased in frequency. Events culminated with a general insurrection in the conservative Sunni town of Hama in February 1982. Islamists and other opposition activists proclaimed Hama a “liberated city” and urged Syria to rise up against the “infidel”. Brotherhood fighters swept the city of Ba’thists, breaking into the homes of government employees and suspected supporters of the regime, killing about 50. The goal of the attack on Hama was to halt the rebellious activities of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. The assault began on February 2 with extensive shelling of the town of 350 000 inhabitants. Before the attack, the Syrian government called for the city’s surrender and warned that anyone remaining in the city would be considered as a rebel. Robert Fisk in his book Pity the Nation described how civilians were fleeing Hama while tanks and troops were moving towards the city’s outskirts to start the siege. He cites reports of mass death and shortages of food and water from fleeing civilians and from soldiers .[3]
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:28 amAccording to Amnesty International, the Syrian military bombed the old streets of the city from the air to facilitate the introduction of military forces and tanks through the narrow streets, where homes were crushed by tanks during the first four days of fighting. They also claim that the Syrian military pumped poison gas into buildings where insurgents were said to be hiding.
The army was mobilized, and Hafez again sent Rifaat’s special forces and Mukhabarat agents to the city. After encountering fierce resistance, Rifaat’s forces ringed the city with artillery and shelled it for three weeks. Afterward, military and internal security personnel were dispatched to comb through the rubble for surviving Brothers and their sympathizers.[4] Then followed several weeks of torture and mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers, killing many thousands, known as the Hama Massacre. Estimates of casualties vary from an estimated 7000 to 35,000 people killed, including about 1000 soldiers. [5] Journalist Robert Fisk, who was in Hama shortly after the massacre, estimated fatalities as high as 10,000.[6] The New York Times estimated the death toll as up to 20,000.[2] According to Thomas Friedman[7] Rifaat later boasted of killing 38,000 people. The Syrian Human Rights Committee estimates 30,000 to 40,000 were killed. Most of the old city was completely destroyed, including its palaces, mosques, ancient ruins and the famous Azzem Palace mansion. After the Hama uprising, the Islamist insurrection was broken, and the Brotherhood has since operated in exile. Government repression in Syria hardened considerably, as al-Assad had spent in Hama any goodwill he previously had left with the Sunni majority, and now was compelled to rely on pure force to stay in power.
Now the Hack is just spamming the thread with cut and pastes.
This is Troll with a capital “T”.
SPQR (72771e) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:32 amAnd who says moral relativism isn’t alive and well?
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:32 amA teeny, tiny fraction, daleyrocks.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:34 amI do not believe that Hax is capable of observing and “analyzing” any evil, any depotism, any mal-practice of religion, anything at all without equivocating with a tu quoque “as the US,” or “as Judaism 4000 years ago” or “as Israel” or quibbling with some other small detail in the larger truth.
Example – Palestinians are brainwashing their children with cartoons and puppets to kill Jews and eat them, reinforce mythical blood libels, ensure that a generation will grow up thinking that the highest calling is to die whilst killing Jews. It’s evil. Pure evil. Any affront to any liberal Westerner.
Hax’ first inclination – sure, extremists do bad things, but “unsurprisingly” some jew-hater quibbles with MEMRI’s translation. Just so he can argue about something. What an ass.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:39 am“Any affront” should read “An affront”
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:41 amCarlitos, it’s interesting to sit down and ask how each equivocation directs, politically. How many skew to the Right? How many to the Left?
If it was just about argument, it would go both ways.
Though I do agree this is just Argument Room stuff.
Because Syria and the US are very, very similar.
Sounds like Pacifica Radio stuff.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:42 amAlthough Hax is frustratingly slippery on addressing the specific arguments y’all have raised, I like seeing someone challenge folks here on Islam being a force for evil. Just as Hax makes sweeping and unsupported generalizations about Islam, I sometimes see conservatives make sweeping generalizations the other way. (Not so much the folks here, for the most part — I think you all are holding your own quite nicely, and supporting your arguments well.)
Here are the overarching points where I think I might find some agreement with Hax:
Every religion I know is open to some interpretation. There is lots of crazy shit in the Bible, for example. To some extent, how the texts are interpreted is a very important factor.
Because the texts in all religions have crazy aspects, I believe that generally, the more fundamentalist you are, the more you’re likely to espouse crazy theories.
And so you have adherents of Islam, like Sufis, who are less fundamentalist and more spiritual. Islam does not compel them to be madmen.
Nevertheless, each religion is different. They are not blank slates where you simply make of them whatever you want to. The teachings of Jesus are very different from the teachings of Muhammed.
And it is UNDENIABLE!!!1!!! (i.e. Hax might deny it, but it’s still true) that Islam currently has a more worrying, dangerous group of fundamentalists than any other religion in the world. Women are treated worse than in any other religion. Large groups of people in numerous countries are raised with a Nazistic, anti-Jewish philosophy that causes them to support violence targeting civilians in jaw-dropping numbers. Anyone who has read about the subject knows that you can’t lazily attribute this purely to poverty, politics, etc. It’s a philosophical/religious outlook rooted in a fundamentalist reading of a religion that provides plenty of grist for this evil mill. It takes in plenty of people who aren’t mired in poverty. Plenty.
It’s too bad that the challenges here are being raised by a commenter whose style of argumentation is so flawed. Hax demands data, and when it’s provided he doesn’t honestly grapple with it, but brushes aside much of what he is given. He argues from emotion and gathers some data to support his emotionally-rooted positions, and ignores the contrary data (just look at how he dismissed the material provided by carlitos earlier in this thread).
But, you know, I’m not banning someone just because they aren’t as intellectually honest as I wish they were. The issues raised are still important; he makes some decent points, if imperfectly; and if you don’t want to argue with him, you don’t have to.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:43 amSyria, as a strategic imperative, supports groups that engage in terror, much as the U.S. and many other countries do.
Why, one could say that bin Laden, as a strategic imperative, supports terrorism, and so did George W. Bush (of course he supported nothing of the sort, but I can say this in plenty of places in L.A. and get nods of agreement), and THEREFORE and THUSLY, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are essentially TERRORIST PEAS IN A POD!!!1!1! Really no different — other than that bin Laden is swarthier.
The awful thing is that there are people who will don Serious Expressions and agree with exactly what I have just said as a dark joke.
Really, espousing a moral equivalance between the U.S. and Syria — do you realize how that makes you look?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:49 amHacks doesn’t know that.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:56 amHamas and Hezbollah are teeny tiny ruling parties of their respective governments.
JD (36bd97) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:56 amAgain, Patterico, this is your house, but you cannot honestly believe that HV is just arguing his point of view.
He is intentionally playing contrarian. When confronted with inconsistencies in his own posts, he slices grammar thinner than Bill Clinton ever did during Congressional hearings. He threadjacks with abandon. He sneers and snipes (and the “so and so did it first” argument is not convincing, I think).
It’s about the arguments. Not about the discussions. Most of all, it is about speaking Truth to Power (so far as posters here on this blog appear to have power) from his point of view.
You say that this person has been paid to write. Fair enough; I respect that. So let him write a post, rather than this silly “game” he seems to determined to “win,” complete with not very mature slapfests.
When a person genuinely tries to claim that Muslim women are, overall, treated no differently than women from other faiths, that is just too much. It ceases to be a game, then.
But it is your house. I would rather see this guy actually try debate honestly. What he is currently doing does not fit that definition, in my opinion.
Everyone else’s mileage may vary.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:05 amArguing with Hacks is the same as wrestling in a cess-pool: You get very tired, never can get a good grip on your opponent, and end up covered in shit!
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:11 amWhen a person genuinely tries to claim that Muslim women are, overall, treated no differently than women from other faiths, that is just too much.
But he didn’t say that. He said the opposite.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:13 amComment by Eric Blair — 2/20/2009 @ 11:05 am
What would it say to lose DRJ, and gain HV?
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:13 amIn response to you, he did. People tend to play nicer with the host.
JD (36bd97) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:14 amBut you see, Patterico, that is the deal with this guy. He writes:
Then he has also written:
Repeated in another post:
“
When pressed, he attempted to distinguish between “domestic violence” and “spousal abuse.” I’m sure he will also begin to distinguish between “treatment of women” and “spousal abuse” as well.
Would you not agree that such an argument is missing the point?
It is an essentially contrarian viewpoint, designed to play word games while bizarrely accusing Republicans of extremist statements.
I understand your need to be fair, but this is a game to the fellow. Nothing more.
I suggest you engage him on his linking Syrian-sponsored terrorism to US policy for a while and see how you feel on this “game” question.
But it is your house.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:24 amSure, coupled with the equivocal “but in Brazil and Russia and Haiti they also blah blah blah” as usual.
Hax still hasn’t taken any stance on the topic of this post, other than “extremists use propaganda” coupled with musing as to whether Israeli youths are similarly programmed. Phonetically at least, his moniker is apt.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/20/2009 @ 11:27 amI suggest you engage him . . .
I think I’ll pass. I don’t think I have anything to learn from him on this topic. He is arguing, as far as I can tell, that the ills y’all attribute to a radical view of Islam are explainable by reference to other factors. To me that suggests ignorance — as I’ve suggested, the contrary evidence is ubiquitous — and it’s not a productive endeavor for me to try to educate him.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:18 pmI should add that I understand Islam is not a monolith, but calling the Islamic Jihad part a tiny minority that exists only because of poverty in light of all the evidence otherwise is absurd.
ML (14488c) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:18 pmI will say that you guys are equating treatment of women generally with domestic violence. He is pointing out that they are not equivalent concepts.
I would point out to him that they are related.
But even if you succeed (as I think you have) in showing that the Islamic world is inferior in its treatment of women (or in any other respect, such a support for terrorism), he can always retreat to his fallback position, that religion is being used as an excuse.
I already addressed that in my comment 499, and I don’t think it’s worth saying more than that.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:21 pmPatterico – I believe I previously raised culture/religion/law argument and pointed out the amazing coincidences between violence against women among those living in muslim cultures and those following Islam. Crickets.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 12:35 pmPatterico #510: wise move, on all counts.
I’m old enough to remember “prancing ponces” (thanks, Dmac!) continually deriding Ronald Reagan for his bellicose statements, while giving every possible pass to the Soviet Leader du Jour….no matter what they said or did that didn’t fit Teh Narrative.
“Why, Andropov likes jazz” seemed to be the catchword.
“They love their children, too” as Sting famously sang.
Meanwhile, people who had lived under those regimes and tried to talk about it were ignored or attacked by the American Left.
So I have a long term distrust of the twee intellectual posing that is behind moral relativism.
And in the final analysis, I still maintain that this is some kind of “game” to the person involved.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/20/2009 @ 3:00 pmMy better half would not like you using her name in such a negative connotation, Eric 😉
It makes it the most sad because presumably this Hacks gets paid to publish the written word. Ugh.
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 3:16 pmOkay, JD. Many apologies. I’m trying to come up with a version of “nattering nabob of negativity” instead.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:31 pmNo one’s “equating” the U.S. and Syria. The countries political systems are virtually opposite and they just don’t compare on many other scales as well.
I simply noted that both the U.S. and Syria have supported terrorists as a strategic imperative.
That’s a statement of fact, not an analytical observation, so if it’s not true, it’s easy to show that.
But Patterico didn’t challenge the veracity of my statement. Instead, he inflated it into this straw man:
“Why, one could say that bin Laden, as a strategic imperative, supports terrorism, and so did George W. Bush (of course he supported nothing of the sort, but I can say this in plenty of places in L.A. and get nods of agreement), and THEREFORE and THUSLY, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are essentially TERRORIST PEAS IN A POD!!!1!1! Really no different — other than that bin Laden is swarthier.”
and..
“Really, espousing a moral equivalance between the U.S. and Syria”
Saying the both the U.S. and Syria have supported terrorism isn’t saying they are morally equivalent, unless you believe that support for terrorism is the only yardstick, and I”m sure you don’t believe that, Patterico.
Maybe “strategic imperative” is a little unclear.
What I mean is that it terrorism is supported and the RATIONALE is that it’s a strategic imperative. For example, when the U.S. supported radical Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the “strategic imperative” was repelling the Soviet invasion.
Likewise the Cold War moral blank check was also used by the U.S. to buy supporting Saddam when he was at the peak of his atrocities.
In the weeks and months after Saddam’s regime used poison gas to mass murder Kurds in Halabja, the Reagan administration went to bat in Congress for the Baathists, while Democrats sought to put sanctions on the regime and end agricultural credits and other subsidies the U.S. was providing, including parts and the very helicopters that would later be used to mass murder rebelling Shia’s in southern Iraq.
You claim I argue from emotion, but these are facts. You can say they’re irrelevant or inaccurate, but you can’t call them feelings. Feel free to rebut them, if you can.
Another spurious claim is that I “ignore” data.
What data would that be?
Eric serially misunderstands my statement that there is no data linking Muslims to domestic violence, either because he hasn’t bothered to think carefully about it or just doesn’t know the difference between correlation and cause.
When I say “data linking Muslims,” I mean data showing a cause-and-effect relationship between Islam and domestic violence and/or spouse abuse and/or terrorism.
I can be very specific about what data would show that. We’d need to show that wherever Islam is practiced, there is a higher rate of such things than there is where Islam isn’t practiced.
For example, do Muslims in India have higher rates of domestic violence/spouse abuse than the non-Muslim majority?
Do Muslims in America have higher rates than non-Muslims?
That is the kind of data we’d need to show a causal link between Islam and domestic violence.
The data I have provided shows the opposite. Domestic violence/spouse abuse is a huge problem in many non-Muslim countries and appears to vary with broader social dysfunction, not with religious affiliation.
Carlitos recycles the claim that I haven’t taken a position on the children’s show, but I have, both specifically and generally.
Generally, I’ve commented about the high level of social and political dysfunction in the Islamic world. I think aiming propaganda at children is an obvious example of that.
I condemn such propaganda without reservation, wherever it is, but somehow I doubt that will matter to carlitos. I fully suspect that he’ll repeat, at some point, that I somehow have failed to condemn it.
And Patterico tries another straw man, though in this case, through rhetorical slight of hand, rather than inflation. He writes:
“He is arguing, as far as I can tell, that the ills y’all attribute to a radical view of Islam are explainable by reference to other factors.”
The key is “radical view.”
I am the one, not Eric or ML or Carlitos or Pablo, who INSISTS that the ills are attributable to a RADICAL VIEW of Islam.
Pablo and the gang are arguing against that, insisting that bin Laden’s view of Islam is not a radical departure, but an accurate embodiment of the religion’s mainstream.
Patterico writes:
“it is UNDENIABLE!!!1!!! (i.e. Hax might deny it, but it’s still true) that Islam currently has a more worrying, dangerous group of fundamentalists than any other religion in the world.”
No denial here. Islam is in crisis and its dysfunction is manifest over ALL THAT OIL. Dealing with this problem and the extremely dangerous group of “fundamentalists” (I’d quibble with that word, but it’s imprecise enough for hand grenades) is one of the biggest challenges facing the industrial democracies and developing world alike.
Patterico writes:
“ Women are treated worse than in any other religion.”
Overall, I can’t disagree with this, nor can I embrace it as a meaningful assessment. It is undeniable that women are treated worse in the Islamic world than “in any other religion.” Islam embraces the superiority of males — traditional to virtually ALL societies — more throughly than does Christianity or Judaism. But the gap in what Islam demands — as measured by the practices of its most enlightened, developed believers — and what the other major religions demand in terms of male superiority is small.
It is only when we compare the treatment of women by radical “bin Ladenist” Muslims to that of mainstream Christians that we find such a gaping difference.
Again, the essential question is: which side are you on? The bin Ladenist, or the modern mainstream Muslims fighting tooth and nail to drag their faith into the 21st century?
Pablo kicks the ball into his own goal nicely on this one. He writes:
“Unless you’re a Muslim, you’re not with either side.”
Indeed, Pablo. You’re not on either side and can never be.
Can you see why that means you should stop promoting the bin Ladenist view of Islam as the only correct one?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:46 pmHappy, Mr. Frey? No good deed goes unpunished, after all.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:54 pmThere are so many strawmen there, you could feed entire herds of cows.
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:00 pmI see the term “moral equivalence” bandied about a lot here, but I’m not sure I understand what it means.
What would its opposite be? And do y’all — carlitos and pablo — embrace that opposite?
Is it an absolute view, i.e. if you believe in “moral equivalence” does it mean you believe everyone on the planet is a moral equal?
I see it used a lot, but I can’t quite get a grip on what it actually means.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:08 pmPerformance art, I guess.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:18 pmThanks Eric.
Guess that makes you my audience. Enjoy yourself and don’t forget to tip the host. 😉
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:29 pmRealism. Yes.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:35 pmHacks, can you see why I’m not going to bother reading that bushel of word salad or waste my time rebutting it? If you can’t, I’ll put it in a nutshell. You’re a hack, and I have better things to do than dance with you.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:38 pmIt is the pinnacle of irony that Hacks complained about others attributing positions to it that it has not held, when that is its standard practice.
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:25 pmA wise man once said …
Truer words were never spoken …
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:37 pmJust to be clear: I’m not saying y’all are promoting bin Laden’s agenda, just that you’re promoting his interpretation of Islam as the only correct one AMONG ALL OTHER INTERPRETATIONS.
You don’t, of course, believe Islam is the correct religion, just that bin Laden’s view of it is the correct one.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:25 pmPablo: How is “realism” the opposite of moral relativism?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:26 pmI’m missing your point.
No smoking is allowed while you are around Hax, the guy builds a strawman forest in just one paragraph.
ML (14488c) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:33 pmOf course you are.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2009 @ 4:52 amMore brazen misrepresentations by Hack I see.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:19 amMoral relativism is a less-recognized form of depravity. It is the front door to full-blown depravity. Moral relativism forces a LCD approach to life.
Moral relativism has several tenets, two of which are “There Are No Absolutes” and “There Is A Lie In Every Belief.” Both of those tenets are self-defeating.
Very simply, the absolute statement that there are no absolutes proves there is at least one absolute. And the absolute statement that there is a lie in every belief means there is at least one belief that has no lie. As such, not all religions are equal. Not all beliefs are equal.
And rather than helping the world sink to LCD status, I would rather help bring the world to much higher standards. Likewise, I hold any with positions of authority to higher standards than those under the authority.
And, quite frankly, a religion which kills, tortures, terrorizes to proselytize is of far less value than a religion which uses love and personal choice and integrity to proselytize.
Yes, people like Hax (and well-meaning people who aren’t informed on matters like scriptures) will point to all the evils done in the name of the Judaeo-Christian God to prove Jews and Christians are just as evil as all other highly religious people. That convolutes the fact those “Christians” who acted in such fashion were doing so despite the tenets of the Bible. I am not as well-versed in the OT without using the NT, but even so, atrocious acts by Jews (not self-defense acts people like Hax would point to) do not fit within the OT. And, yes, the OT is a huge part of the Jewish scriptures.
To ignore the heavy major instructions within the Quran in order to justify actions of its adherents while at the same time ignoring the heavy major instructions within the OT and NT to point out out-of-context portions to claim “they’re all equal” is intellectual dishonesty.
I do not speak of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, et al because I have no information regarding those beliefs. But no intellectually honest person can claim the Quran and the Bible are on equal footing where the respect for life is concerned, or, more specifically where the respect for Jews is concerned.
Hax has no leg to stand on, nor does Hax have an original thought.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:24 amJohn, think back to high school. Think back to folks on the debate team. Think about folks who weren’t popular deciding that, boy howdy, they will show those darned football players that they can’t think very clearly! That Debate Cub Boy is cooler!
Doesn’t this seem like a similar situation? This guy is just playing word games, and is acting in an increasingly immature fashion.
Thread after thread, it is all the same.
I think it is interesting to read your well-intentioned responses, but HV’s snarky little exercise in what the thinks is Socratic oppositional reasoning has gone on a bit long.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:30 amHeh, EB, the thought of Hax debating Socrates is humorous. Socrates would destroy Hax. Without trying. While Socrates was Athenian, I can’t help but watch while Socrates says to Hax “This is Sparta!” as S demolishes every word that comes out of H’s mouth.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:41 amAnd, quite frankly, a religion which kills, tortures, terrorizes to proselytize is of far less value than a religion which uses love and personal choice and integrity to proselytize.
— Christ rejected force and died for his religion.
— Mohammad embraced force and killed for his religion.
The vast moral gulf between the two is apparent even to a convinced heathen like me.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:53 amBradley, there is an interesting bit on Breitbart’s “BIg Hollywood” website. The young guy making the video points out that if everyone acted like Jesus Christ (sans miracles) as described in the New Testament, would the world be a better or worse place?
However, if everyone acted as Muhammed is described as acting in the Q’uran….well, they would be jailed, for one thing.
Ah, but times were different…which misses the point.
Anyway, that is why I like Irshad Manji’s book, “The Trouble with Islam,” calling for a reformation. Relativists are too busy not blaming others while blaming themselves. Manji makes some great points. And the criticism she receives is most telling.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:36 amYou give to people like HV what they want: attention. He’s not here to learn or even to teach – he’s here to get attention, because attention = love.
If you ignore him, he will leave.
He’s not an honest debater – he’s proven that over and over again – and yet you all still respond as if he’s a responsible adult.
Like Dr. Phil would say, “how’s that working for ya?”
Ignore him; eventually he’ll trot over to another site where he can edumacate the illiterati.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:41 amNow that the troll has enlightened us with its vast knowledge, it can say, “I work is done here.”
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:49 amGood analysis, steve, but I would add one thing learned from raising small children: for some people, receiving negative attention is somehow good.
Kind of the Oscar Wilde (speaking of ocelots) thing: better to be infamous than not famous at all.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:50 amThat was a funny one, wasn’t it, Bradley.
There is a variant of traditional Islam called Sufism. The Sufis have a long list of “Sufi Tales” that are very amusing. “I work here is done” could easily be one of them.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:51 amSteve’s right. You guys really should ignore me.
But I know you can’t.
Hilarious.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 9:10 amHax – You’re like an STD. Should people infected with an STD ignore it? Lies and stupidity shouldn’t remain unchallenged.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/21/2009 @ 9:29 amSidenote: My own usse of the dialectical method (socratic) has had Hax ignoring it. Hax can never, under any circumstance, support his positions in the face of the dialectical method because every position Hax takes is untenable. And that is the reason Hax never speciically states his position.
of course, anyone with a brain knows all the positions Hax advocates are hopelessly flawed in the light of the facts. That doesn’t prevent Hax from promoting more and more positions which are completely destroyed by mere knowledge of facts.
Hax fornicates under consent of the king every chance he gets. Who cares who is harmed or killed due to his fornicating under consent of the king? Who cares what facts are ignored while he is fornicating under consent of the king? His overriding narcissistic nature is all that matters. Any who do not worship at the bacteria-infested toes of Hax’s clay feet are worthy of Hamas’s terror targetting.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 10:33 amJohn, the guy is just playing games. Dmac has the right idea. As for your “fornication” metaphor, I suspect you give the guy too much credit.
Unless you refer to the solitary version.
Eric Blair (057cc9) — 2/21/2009 @ 11:09 amIt is a Master Baiter, Eric.
JD (4a1b82) — 2/21/2009 @ 11:37 amMoral relativism is a less-recognized form of depravity.
And it’s even more perverse or depraved when the relativist believes his intentions are noble and benevolent. Relativism also is far more likely to emanate from those who are ass-backwards when it comes to judging people and situations. In figuring out who’s truly good, who’s truly bad. Who’s truly innocent, who’s truly guilty.
The left, in that regards, tends to be at the front of the line when it comes to poor judgment and mischaracterizations, quite evident in the mindset of a particular person (ie, the one who say’s he should be ignored) in this forum.
Mark (411533) — 2/21/2009 @ 11:45 amBecause, until now, you had. As usual, you snipe at everyone’s point without taking a position yourself. Here is my your contribution to the subject of this thread. Please show me the ‘condemnation’ in your words.
Your first point – gee, look at the lying Jews:
Then, after being asked repeatedly to comment on the topic at hand, a neutral post without condemnation, that implies that the posters here are lumping “moderate Muslims” in with extremists.
Then, more quibbling about translations, again hinting that MEMRI may be misleading with their translation:
More translation word games, and intimations of bigotry on this site. Still no condemnation of Palestinian brainwashing children via television.
Then, you found an obscure anti-Muslim videogame for us to chew on. Here is what we call moral equivalence, by the way, since you asked.
Then, more accusations of bigotry from you, the infamous muslim public opinion survey, “the data are in;” extremists are a “tiny minority” that you eventually concede is 15% of more than a billion people… Let’s see, any condemnation of Palestinian children’s programming, either specific or general? Nope.
Instead, more polls, more data, Hax musing about American Christian violence as a ‘baseline’ with which to compare Muslims, Hax is going to go find “incitement” at the comments of 2 other websites (not this one), and then he gets defensive:
Hax, none of what you “produced,” be it X, Y or Z, was a condemnation of Palestinian children’s programming, either specific or general. Where next?
Comment 204 – finally a concession that Muslim society is “much less than half sick,” OK… Nope, still no comment on Palestinian TV. Instead, we go to defense of Islam, someday we will have thriving Islamic society in middle east (hey, what’s another 1400 years to keep trying!), We armed Bin Laden; we armed Saddam…leftist talking points, word games, moral equivalence, radical Islam is a problem, but we’re still bigots, are we ever going to talk about TV? Why yes, no we are ‘just asking questions’ like a 9/11 truther might:
Yeah, hate is too blunt a word, since the bunny rabbit wants to eat Jews. We only eat the ones we love!
Let’s see, the posts in the later 200’s find us talking about radical Islam, tautology, reverse tautology, no real Scotsman, strawmen… still looking for a condemnation of Palestinian TV brainwashing children, either specific or general, but you will take up JD’s point on Hamas “at some point.” That’s good. Oh yeah:
and some more equivocation intimating that all religious movements are bad:
Let’s see, I’m in the 300’s – interpretation of holy texts, Hax posts violent stuff from the Old Testament (shocka!), nope, still no condemnation of Palestinian TV using animatronic bunny rabbits to teach their children to kill and eat Jews.
I’m in the middle 300’s now … Let’s see, oh yeah, Israel helped create Hamas, so they must bear some blame (shocka!), more ‘radical fringe,’ “tiny minority (200 million!) of Muslims, blah blah blah, more equivocation – “The Koran is a bad book, but so’s the Bible” etc. Still waiting for that condembation of the Palestinian bunny rabbit, or taking a position of any sort on the topic of the thread.
421 is a good one – the violence is due to geopolitical unrest, which no doubt explains the bombings in London, New York and Buenos Aires.
Most of the comments in the 400’s featured ignoring and obfuscating regarding Islam’s treatment of women, saying that “Islam isn’t the problem” and yet “Islamic scholars are divided (!) as to the question of beating one’s wife.” This nonsense is finally taken back with petulance in comment 469 – Bravo! Yet, no condemnation or position on Palestinian TV.
Let’s see – after that we have discussion on reformation, pedantry as to analysis vs. opinion vs. facts, wikipedia wall o’text, and then …
In 509 – I point out (correctly) that Hax still, after 500-plus comments has not unequivocally taken a position on the very subject of the thread that spawned 500-plus comments:
And Hax – FINALLY AFTER 517 POSTS – responds:
Yes, Hax, because until post number 517, you had failed to condemn it. Or even take any position at all. That was my point. Thank you. I’ll say this for you – you have stamina.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/21/2009 @ 1:57 pmcarlitos, you give the troll too much credit.
Stamina has nothing to do with a troll’s throwing up a mash of pseudo-philosophical ideas, ignoring criticisms and misrepresenting the positions of others.
You and others here have taken the trouble to analyze the troll’s contentions, show the contradictions and lies, and explain its method. Now that takes stamina.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:13 pmI agree, it’s far less exhausting to wallow in lies than it is to maintain the high ground of truth.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:27 pmcarlitos – The evidence is in. Very well done!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:33 pmI would dare Hax to beat what Carlitos posted, but Hax reminds me of that old story of the child whose parents were going through a divorce.
The judge asked the child “do you want to live with your mother?”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:55 pm“No.”
“Do you want to live with your father?”
“No.”
“Then, who do you want to live with?”
“I want to live with Hax. He doesn’t beat anyone!”
This guy said it better than I could.
carlitos (6128f3) — 2/21/2009 @ 3:45 pmThe whole way liberals work is to redefine manners and morals in such a fashion that conservative common sense automatically becomes hateful. If you note that women and men are different, you’re misogynistic. If you denounce the destruction of marriage in black communities, you’re racist or moralistic. If you call for the defense of America against the world-wide Islamist menace, you’re a bigoted warmonger. If we take this garbage seriously even for an instant, we spend our whole lives playing catch-up, saying sorry, going on defense.
You see, the left can only win if it can redefine terms and reject all facts out of hand. There is no way the left can win when facts are common knowledge or definitions are not corrupted.
This is why Hax rejects true facts and constantly tries to redefine terms or redefine the topic of debate. He cannot win unless he starts out by torturing truth and facts.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 4:14 pm^ And yet quite a few on the left must suspect — at least deepdown — there is something truly screwed up, funky or suspicious about their ideology, since so many of them often shy away from the label of “liberal” and instead characterize themselves (or their beliefs) as “progressive.”
Mark (411533) — 2/21/2009 @ 4:36 pmCarlitos: Let’s stick to the facts. You said I hadn’t taken “any stance on the topic other than X”, when clearly I had and I noted that, and demonstrated that again.
Later, at length, you change that into a claim that I failed to “unquivocally condemn” the propaganda soon enough.
You can’t change what you said that way.
You need to decide, Carlitos. Which is it?
If your complaint is that I didn’t specifically condemn the propaganda in my earlier comments, of course you’re right and I never made any attempt to deny that. But if that’s the case, your detailed recap becomes rather obviously pointless and misleading.
If your complaint is closer to what the record shows your initial comment was on the subject, which is that I “hadn’t taken any position other than X.” then, you’re flat out lying.
You tell me, Carlitos, which is it?
Is your gripe that I didn’t condemn it soon enough or that I didn’t take any position other than X?
You’ve taken a lot of time to recap and comment, surely you can answer that simple question.
If you can handle that, you might move on to this:
The first time you brought up the subject, I responded without hesitation to clarify that I condemn the cartoons.
Given my initial comments on this thread, were you under the impression that I did not condemn the cartoons?
If not, what is the point of your comments? Are you merely criticizing my etiquette, rather than the substance of my comments?
Or, if you thought I would not or could not condemn the cartoons, why do you think you got it so clearly wrong?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:18 pmCarlitos, I think it is near heroic of you to don hip boots and go wading through this thread, holding your nose and (hopefully wearing gloves) picking out various bits of the record as needed for display. Again, the guy is just being a contradictorian. It reminds me of the famous exchange from Monty Python:
Now tell me that all that doesn’t remind you of HV’s exchanges. With some accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry thrown in (while making anti-Semitic or anti-Christian statements, amusingly).
Carlitos, you spent time and effort on this…but my guess is that the guy will snark some more, tell you that you must have a crush on him because you continue to post about him (it is all about him, naturally), insist that you are misrepresenting his own words…and then finally issue a condemnation of how you are so judgmental of Muslims….
Sigh.
Still, excellent job actually taking seriously the posts of someone who is just playing games. This guy doesn’t deserve your time and trouble, but I appreciate your doing so.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:18 pmNow that was funny! I am like the Great Karnac or something. Although it was pretty predictable….
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:19 pmHere’s a question for those who claim they aren’t moral relativists.
Is Christianity morally superior to Judaism?
If so, why? If not, why?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:22 pmIt’s Karmac the Magnificent, Eric.
And the key to Karmac is that he answers with questions.
Which, apparently, is why it went right over your head.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:24 pmAt some point you will simply have to give up because HV isn’t intellectually honest. He’s here to make you respond to him and him alone; he gets all the attention and you waste your time (literally a waste) trying to think of a way to respond to him. As you all know by now, HV isn’t going to be honest in his argumentation. So why bother? Do you think he’s honest?
He’s not.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:25 pmThanks Steve.
Looks like you can’t ignore me either.
That kinda gives up your game, doesn’t it?
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:29 pmThe troll is desperately trying to change the subject away from its portrayal of Islamist terrorism as no different than what happens in any other religion.
Don’t fall for its game.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (who still wants DRJ back) (a18ddc) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:31 pmOh, you are correct, steve.
But it is funny to see how poorly he responds to being called predictable. And his lack of maturity (though he has been trying to get that under control) is amusing—since he attacks other people for the same characteristic. The projection and irony is a rich diet, indeed.
Except when he plays “Argument Clinic,” it’s true.
I’m just curious about his “real” writing, since Patterico had mentioned that he has been paid for it—presumably not for a bizarre Truther publication. For all we know, this is just a weird hobby, and he is actually a careful and insightful analyst and prose stylist.
This is why I keep suggesting that he write an entire article, and see if Patterico will post it. It would be much more productive than his usual antics. It might even be interesting and informative.
Maybe someday. But until then: carlitos is still correct, and a it was a nice deconstruction indeed.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:34 pmOh, you betcha, Bradley. But then, you have fenced with many a troll in the past, as I recall.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:35 pmWell, I don’t see how it’s possible that he’s paid as a writer, because an editor would want one sentence to be based upon another – you know, logical flow and all that.
His stuff isn’t writing – it’s typing.
It’s more likely it’s generated phrases than it is human thought.
One of the things I learned long ago is that someone who really isn’t interested in learning isn’t interesting to talk to. I’m not always in command of the facts, so I listen and adjust my thinking based upon facts.
When someone comes along and trots out stuff that isn’t based upon anything more important than “look at me, mom!” I just find it tiresome.
However, this is Patterico’s blog, and he sets the rules. Just about anyone can post, even the ones who post in bad faith.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:40 pmThis is an interesting place, steve. And it is indeed Patterico’s house.
There are some things that I share with other posters here, in terms of politics, and some things I do not. But even when I disagree, none of the regular posters here have ever been outrageously rude to me. There have been some trolls around here, however, who do not fit that mold.
But generally speaking, this is a surprisingly accepting place of different ideas, so long as they are presented in a civil fashion.
John Hitchcock is a very conservation Christian. He and I will not agree (based on his posts) regarding evolutionary theory. But I also know that, should he and I “debate” it, he will listen to what I have to say, disagree in a civil fashion, and—here is the important point—not insult or rail against me if we “agree to disagree.”
Folks like JD, AD, Dmac, and daleyrocks can toss out some fantastically ornate insults….but never toward a person who treats them in a civil fashion, no matter how they disagree.
I mean, look at the much-missed DRJ. She held many beliefs I do not share. And she would, from time to time, take an unpopular position (ironically, defending trolls, more than once). And look at how politely every regular poster treated her.
This is an interesting place to post and read. It’s sad that some posters think it is some kind of place to play insult games.
Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/21/2009 @ 5:54 pmsteve and Eric,
Just because a writer is paid doesn’t mean the writer is good. I’ve seen a number of AP stories that were less-than-stellar examples of writing/reporting.
I particularly remember one article about Oceanside and the Marines, written by former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer winner Charlie LeDuff. The article falsely described the area, as: “all but empty, a ghost town, the Santa Ana winds blowing scraps and plastic bags through the alleys, the sounds of the pressing machine and the smell of solvents seeping out of the dry cleaning shop”.
Very poetic, and very false.
At the time, I lived just a few blocks from Oceanside’s downtown, and wondered what LeDuff was talking about. It was not even close to being a ghost town.
In my own reporting, I had found that while some businesses had indeed been hurt by the Iraq deployment, more hadn’t been affected. I got the sense LeDuff arrived knowing what he wanted to write, and wouldn’t let mere facts get in the way of the narrative.
But what does someone on the scene know, compared to an omniscient New York Times reporter who can fly in and know everything in a few days? He’s got a Pulitzer, so he must be right. Just like Chuck Phillips.
Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (who still wants DRJ back) (a18ddc) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:02 pmTrue, that, Eric.
I enjoy listening/reading a wide variety of posters. I like posters like aphrael who brings in stuff I don’t consider or think about.
I dislike posters of any political stripe who only insult and derail conversations, who have axes to grind and plenty of grist in their minds.
It’s boring to listen to an idiot whether it’s live or in print.
I can have those kinds of conversations right here in Seattle just by going down to Pioneer Square.
Dishonest argument and derailing cheapens the debate; in some cases it discounts it completely. I don’t believe in groupthink, so I can’t say “we should all just agree to ignore HV.” But he does thrive on attention, and the more outrageous and unthinking he is, the more attention he gets.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:03 pmBradley, you do bring up a great point. I assumed there was some allusion to writing for a living for a prestigious publication, but if it’s the NYT, well, then, that explains it.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:07 pmI couldn’t find my post where I pointed out liberals will demolish the stated premise or completely change the topic in an effort to avoid the truth, but that would fit in quite handily here.
And that proved not only is Hax a moral relativist but he is incapable of staying on topic for any purpose.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:26 pmEB, I’m not sure what a conservation Christian is, but if you don’t agree with ID, you’re a dork and I’ll never break bread with you again. So there. 😛
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:31 pmCan you see why strawmen are a fire hazard, Hacks? Can you see why you should stop promoting yourself as one worthy of substantive response?
I can.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:34 pmOh, heck, John. There I go again, posting in a hurry. But you have to admit it is a little bit funny!
The funniest part is, the first time I read your reply, I thought you were telling me I needed to agree with “JD”!
And I was all set to call you a racist.
Eric Blair (55a017) — 2/21/2009 @ 6:55 pmThis week’s witless rhetorical hara kiri award goes to JD, for this fine bit of self-abuse:
“Hax – You’re like an STD. Should people infected with an STD ignore it?”
Comment by daleyrocks — 2/21/2009 @ 9:29 am”
Having a fan club does make it more entertaining to post here. But it does start to get a little spooky when some of its founding members start imagining themselves as carriers of a sexual disease — especially when you consider how they imagine they got it.
I mean, I can understand why Daley might feel like he’s been had, but the direction his fantasy takes is spectacularly self-abusive.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:11 pm573 Eric Blair:
Well, hell…so did I!
I kept thinking, what an odd reason to be a dork …
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:14 pm“I mean, I can understand why Daley might feel like he’s been had, but the direction his fantasy takes is spectacularly self-abusive.”
Hax – It’s unsurprisingly easy to see how your narcissism would cause you to misinterpret that comment as self-abusive to the commenter. Carry on.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:20 pmGiven your endless and widely noticed penchant for projection (eeewww), you might consider not using verbiage like:
Word to the wise, since you consider yourself to be so.
The funniest part, truly, is you snarking at people who continually respond to something online.
Cura te ipsum.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:22 pmA fan club assumes a group of people that appreciate you. Apparently, you’ve missed that too.
Why am I not surprised?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2009 @ 7:37 pmJD: Apologies. I somehow mistyped your name instead of Daleyrocks. As recompense, I’ll try to say something nice about you every day for the rest of this month…
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:13 pmHax,
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/21/2009 @ 8:56 pmPlease find above, in your myriad of posts, an unequivocal position as to the topic of this thread. Highlight it, copy it, and paste it into the “comment” box. Thanks.
Specifically, could you please post what you charactarize below. Thanks.
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/21/2009 @ 9:02 pmcarlitos, it all depends on your definition of:
Eric Blair (55a017) — 2/21/2009 @ 9:53 pmAgain, carlitos, a nice fisking.
Hax demonstrates one of his standard tactics. He can’t defend himself so he attacks another commenter. Carry on.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/21/2009 @ 10:10 pmCarlitos asks: “Please find above, in your myriad of posts, an unequivocal position as to the topic of this thread. Highlight it, copy it, and paste it into the “comment” box. Thanks.”
I answer:
“The Muslim world trails the West badly on virtually every measure of social, economic and political achievement.”
Remember, here’s how Patterico framed the cartoons in his concluding sentence:
“And you guys are worried about the children being raised by Octomom?”
My comments are all either about that, or stuffing the ad hominem back into the faces of my fan club.
You might consider answering the question I had for you Carlitos, if you can.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/22/2009 @ 12:57 amThe topic of the thread: “What Palestinian Children Watch on TV”; Jew hating animal characters teaching the glory of Jihad to Palestinian tykes.
Hacks’ unequivocal position regarding this topic:
I’d like to make another unequivocal statement regarding this topic:
Pablo (99243e) — 2/22/2009 @ 5:21 amAs long as you respond to him, you encourage his disruption.
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/22/2009 @ 6:57 amPablo – my unequivocal take is to note that Generalissimo Franco is still dead. I will recommend this post to anyone interacting with Mr. Vobiscum in the future.
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/22/2009 @ 7:14 amSorry about the mess on the floor guys!
Hax' viscera (ebd4ab) — 2/22/2009 @ 7:15 amEngaging him encourages him, steve. Mocking him is just good fun.
carlitos, I’ve given this some more thought, and I think I’d like to revise my unequivocal position.
I think that both Monica Lewinsky and Khaled Meshaal would agree.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/22/2009 @ 7:25 amPablo, that was brilliant! The link is hysterical.
Eric Blair (55a017) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:05 amOh sure, he’s fun to make fun of. A pure unadulterated idiot.
But responding to his posts as if he’s arguing in good faith? I think it gives him the rush he wants.
“Look at me!”
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:17 am“Show your tits for TBNYU!”
“Free Gaza!”
Very nice.
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:23 amsteve miller, you are right of course. I took it about as far as I could, and don’t feel the need to make any further point.
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:25 am“Hacks’ unequivocal position regarding this topic:
“The Muslim world trails the West badly on virtually every measure of social, economic and political achievement.””
Heh!
But what part relates to Joooooo hating cartoons? I’ve been to non-Muslim parts of the world which trailed the West on the same measures and did not see Jooooo hating cartoons. Why the difference?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:39 amthe TBNYU thread was freakin’ hilarious.
Is HV an alumnus?
steve miller (f65f01) — 2/22/2009 @ 9:03 amWatch for the troll’s sleight of hand:
I condemn such propaganda without reservation, wherever it is, but somehow I doubt that will matter to carlitos
After more than 500 posts, at last the troll condemns the cute Islamist kiddie-suicide bomb recruitment programs, although not by name.
But in the next breath the troll adds, “. . . wherever it is,” implying that such horrible programs are produced on behalf of other religions.
Of course, the troll provides no evidence this death-culture recruitment of children occurs in other religions outside Islam.
The troll is terrified of the truth. It always retreats in murky, undergraduate-level philosophical mushy pseudo-condemnations, because it can’t face the real world.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who is sad a troll is here and DRJ is not (0ea407) — 2/22/2009 @ 9:23 amBrad writes: “no evidence this death-culture recruitment of children occurs in other religions outside Islam.”
Not true Brad. Remember this?
“Wonder what you defenders of childhood innocence make of this:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007733.html
“Muslim Massacre” is a video game in which an American hero commits genocide against Muslims.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/15/2009 @ 10:25 pm”
Then there’s this:
“The Pentagon also spends about $6 million a year to flog an online video game called “America’s Army” to attract children as young as 13, “train them to use weapons, and engage in virtual combat and other military missions.”
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/humanrights/crc_report_20080513.pdf
And this:
“The new 72-page report, “Children in the Ranks: The Maoists’ Use of Child Soldiers in Nepal,” describes how the Maoists have continued using child soldiers, and even recruited more children, despite signing a Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Nepali government on November 21. The peace agreement commits both sides to stop recruiting child soldiers.”
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/01/30/nepal-maoists-should-release-child-soldiers
And this:
“The vast majority of Tamil diaspora members and Swiss nationals who attended a cultural festival in Thurgau in Switzerland were shocked to see schoolchildren as young as eight years enacting a drama dressed as child combatants using replicas of most lethal weapons.”
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/ltte-uses-children-fund-raising-propaganda-geneva-cultural-festival-switzerland
And this:
http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/content/israel
”In Hebron, observers reported the systematic use of youngsters under 12 to carry out acts of violence and vandalism against Palestinians and their property.44 Israel’s police commander in the Hebron region said, “We have a major problem here. They [the settlers] understand our weak point – and they use children under the age of criminal responsibility, under the age of twelve. They do this intentionally. They [the children] are the tactical wing, even the strategic wing, of the adults.”45 The Israeli NGO Yesh Din found that of 150 cases of complaints of settler violence opened in 2005 and closed by November that year, 50 involved children under the age of criminal responsibility, all from the Hebron area.46 One adult victim from the Tel Rumeida area of Hebron reported that “settler children attack us, with the parents encouraging them and standing next to them”.47 A number of videos of child settler violence were posted on the Internet in 2006–7.48 Attacks by groups of older Israeli children against Palestinians in the area were reported on a relatively frequent basis.”
Yet Brad says there’s “no evidence.”
I think it’s pretty obvious that he didn’t even look for evidence, which is a pretty bad habit of mind for a journalist.
I found this stuff in 2 minutes flat on Google.
The fact that Brad says there’s “no evidence” without even having bothered to look for it pretty much says it all about where he’s at politically.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/22/2009 @ 12:03 pmHax – Brad wrote the following, not your Dowdified quote:
“Of course, the troll provides no evidence this death-culture recruitment of children occurs in other religions outside Islam.”
The fact that you felt it necessary to Dowdify his quote and then provide evidence that failed to meet his criteria pretty much says it all about where you are intellectually.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/22/2009 @ 12:32 pmOh, my. That was quite the post.
Before a troll remarks on the mote in Bradley’s eye, perhaps he should remove the towering sequoia planted in his own posturing face.
Again: write a serious article, since you apparently have written for money. Post that, instead of these nasty little comments. I don’t know that Patterico would give you some space, but even if he doesn’t, you could create your own blog and spend all this time and energy on promoting your world view. My guess is that you would get many supporters as well as detractors. Wouldn’t that be more productive and enjoyable for you, honestly?
Oh, and snarking at me doesn’t change the point. You continue to post here, too. Perhaps you are Patterico’s Number One Fan, to follow your reasoning (claiming that you have some kind of fan club because posters here find you irritating).
Carlitos schooled you but good, and you still lash out. Change the subject, and post on something. If you can.
Eric Blair (55a017) — 2/22/2009 @ 12:35 pmHax – Follow Eric’s suggestion. Ask Patterico to put something up at the Jury.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/22/2009 @ 12:39 pmThanks Eric and, yes, I’m a Patterico fan. I seldom agree with his political conclusions, but his takes are almost always smart, often the product of original thinking and well worth reading.
I also find that when he responds to me, his counterpunches are clean and enviably well- targeted.
What makes you assume I don’t have a blog?
What makes you assume I don’t enjoy what I do here?
Call it weird, because, it surely is a little, but I find it entertaining to cram your pathetic juvenile ad hominem right back down your throat. I laugh out loud at the detailed homoerotic sexual imaginings and clumsy, witless boasts of my fan club here. Comedy gold. One literally can’t make this stuff up…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/22/2009 @ 1:38 pm“I laugh out loud at the detailed homoerotic sexual imaginings and clumsy, witless boasts of my fan club here.”
– Yawn –
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/22/2009 @ 1:40 pmThe troll’s Dowdification of my quote is a nutshell representation of its M.O. — deny distort and obfuscate. Nothing surprising there.
However, its mocking of “detailed homoerotic sexual imaginings and clumsy, witless boasts”, in the same breath as denouncing, “pathetic, juvenile ad hominen” was a nice garnish of hypocrisy.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/22/2009 @ 2:04 pmBrad complains I give no evidence.
I give evidence.
Brad remains unashamed of his ignorance.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/22/2009 @ 2:49 pmComment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/22/2009 @ 12:03 pm
What’s the relevance of video games to the discussion?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 2/22/2009 @ 3:01 pm