Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

The Glamour Of Islamic Terrorism

83 Comments

In light of today’s events in Paris, this seems to be an even more important point:

Glamour is undermined by mockery. People steeped in multicultural respect will find that mockery difficult. The other thing that undermines glamour is crushing defeat. The Axis had glamour of its own, until Dresden and Hiroshima.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations suffered far too much from a lack of willingness to call the enemy what it is. The people who hijacked the planes were Islam, and they killed in the name of their religion. The same thing happened in Paris today, and they are starting to harvest the fruit of their unwillingness to confront the enemy they have absorbed within their midst over decades. Somewhere, Charles Martel weeps.

Here is the original piece from Virginia.

[Update a while later]

Holy crap. Claire Berlinsky was on the scene:

This was the worst terrorist attack in Europe since the London tube bombings of 2005. If I’m correct — I have not checked carefully — it was also the worst in France since the Nazis were running the place.

I was there only by luck: I had no desire to see this. Luck is probably not the right word. I wish I hadn’t seen it. But lucky, certainly is the right word to use in noting that I was running late, and thus there a few minutes after the fact. Had I not been running late, it’s fairly obvious what might have happened. They weren’t discriminate in their targets.

Do not submit.

Mohammed Cartoon

[Update a few minutes later]

A little more from Claire:

The assailants are as yet at liberty. I hope they’ll be dead by the time you read this. But if not:. You want me too? Come get me. Because nothing short of killing me — and many more of my kind — will ever shut us up.

And if you don’t believe that now, you’ll believe it very soon. Because there are more of us willing to die for that freedom than those of you eager to take it from us. And soon you will find out that those of us willing to die for that freedom are also much better at killing than you.

So come and get me. Je suis Charlie.

If the Islamists understood a little European history, they would, and should, be very afraid. This won’t end well, and many thousands will die, most of them innocent. If the French decide to remove the invasion they’ve invited and ignored for decades, it won’t happen peacefully, or bloodlessly.

[Update a few minutes later]

The Washington Free Beacon lives up to its name, and republishes the offending cartoons.

[Update a few more minutes later]

Thoughts from Larry Correia:

Because of my job I follow a lot of authors, artists, and creative types, so I noticed something this morning. Many of them were compelled to say something about the events in France, but most of them wouldn’t say anything about who did this horrible thing. They talked about tragedy, and violence, and shootings, and terror, but very few would come out and say anything about the actual bad guys. Anybody who did mention the actual bad guys had to put in the obligatory Most Muslims are Peaceful disclaimer and then walk on eggshells to avoid being slandered as hatemongers by their followers who are members of the Goodthink Police.

I felt like writing something here. But then I felt this momentary pang of dread. What if my words make somebody angry? What if I upset them? And that’s when it hit me, every single public figure, every person with an audience, felt that same doubt. That same little bit of fear that evil Islamic lunatics would take offense and kill them. No matter how unlikely or irrational, they felt it.

And that is exactly what evil wants.

Yes. We cannot let them cow us. But of course, it’s a lot easier for me to write this than Claire, who is in the city where these vicious monsters are still at large.

[Update a while later]

…although, thank goodness, Rushdie remains safe, the Islamists have largely been winning this war since. They have successfully intimidated a very large number of writers and artists and journalists and film-makers all over the world into silence (and many live in exile because of threats to their safety), and within Muslim countries they have in addition used blasphemy laws to persecute their enemies and basically make any discussion of religion impossible. All this while religious apologists continue to proclaim to CNN and the BBC that their religion stands only for peace. Tell that to the tens of thousands of victims of religious violence in Pakistan alone. “Oh, the number of extremists is very small; most Muslims are peace-loving people.” The number of actual terrorists is always small. The problem is that a great proportion of Muslims sympathize with these people, which is why it is impossible to eliminate them.

Yup.

[Update a few minutes later]

Christopher Hitchens speaks from the grave about today’s Paris massacre:

This is not new. I’ve written about this many times. It’s reverse ecumenicism. It first became obvious to me when the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989. The reaction of the official newspaper of the Vatican was that the problem wasn’t that the foreign leader of a theocratic dictatorship offered money, in public, in his own name, to suborn the murder of the writer of a book of fiction in another country, who wasn’t an Iranian citizen. The problem was not that.

You and I may have thought, bloody hell, this is a new kind of threat. But it’s an old level of threat. Blasphemy is the problem. That was also the view of the archbishop of Canterbury. The general reaction of the religious establishments to that and to the Danish case—and, by the way, of our secular State Department in the Danish case—was to say the problem was Danish offensiveness. A cartoon in a provincial town in a small Scandinavian democracy obviously should be censored by the government lest it ignite—or as Yale University Press put it, instigate—violence.

Instigation of violence can only mean one thing. I know the English language better than I know anything else.

Yes, blasphemy is the problem. But now it’s only when it comes to one totalitarian belief system.

[Thursday-morning update]

This is for people attempting to make an equivalence between Christianity and Islam:

MuslimClerics

Can anyone point out the equivalent of this in Christendom?

[Bumped]

83 thoughts on “The Glamour Of Islamic Terrorism”

  1. The Economist had an article claiming that one of the reasons that ISIS is still around is that they pay better to their troops than the Iraqi army does. It seems they are quite well funded and get this the funding source supposedly comes from selling oil from wells under their control in Iraq and Syria. The rest of the funding comes mostly from Gulf countries (you know the usual Saudi Arabia and Qatar).

    Also some armed groups in Chechnya have supposedly proclaimed allegiance to the ISIS ‘caliphate’. I guess they want some of that oil money to proceed with their stupid war in Russia as well.

  2. I now view islam as more of a totalitarian political movement than a religion. And like other totalitarian political systems it has to be eradicated.

  3. OK, I’ve had enough. Time to send a few snipers to Saudi to shoot some Madrassa teachers in mid “death to America” rant. Blow up a few Terror funding mosques. If that doesn’t work nuke Medina, and let everyone know if this doesn’t stop, Mecca’s next.

    It’s what they’d do to us if the situation were reversed.

    1. That’s much too limited. Every imam who preaches jihad should be targeted for assassination, in every country in the world.

  4. If the Islamists understood a little European history, they would, and should, be very afraid. This won’t end well, and many thousands will die, most of them innocent

    Yup.

    I’ve long been of the opinion that in Europe, if there’s nothing to stop it before that – and God willing there will be – it’ll end up with machineguns and troops in the streets.

    The worst thing about pretending there are no problems is that when you can’t avoid it any longer, the reaction is far, far worse.

  6. I don’t know about going Total War on Islam, it is much more preferable to target the trouble makers regardless of what country they reside in.

    It is always remarkable to see the difference of treatment that different religions get from our friends to the left.

  7. The Axis had glamour of its own, until Dresden and Hiroshima.

    That’s twisting reality, the Axis lost their “glamour” when they started to lose on the battlefield, destroying a major Muslim city would do NOTHING to reduce these terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda, who’re most likely responsible, aren’t based in major cities.

    The affect of attacks on innocents, eg. 9/11, the Blitz, the recent attack on the Pakistani school and even Hiroshima, has always been to galvanize the fighters representing those victims to retaliate, which is of course exactly what we are seeing in the knee-jerk calls for revenge against any and all Muslims.

    And if that were to happen, the hatemongers win, and those that get killed indiscriminately just because they’re American or French or Muslim are the innocents who lose.

    2. The affect of attacks on innocents, eg. 9/11, the Blitz, the recent attack on the Pakistani school and even Hiroshima, has always been to galvanize the fighters representing those victims to retaliate, which is of course exactly what we are seeing in the knee-jerk calls for revenge against any and all Muslims.

      Care to tell us about the Japanese attempts to get revenge for Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

      1. When Emperor Hirohito was preparing Japan’s surrender senior Army officers were plotting a coup, and tried to carry it out, they would rather have just kept on fighting, despite the huge loss of civilian life. To those soldiers Hiroshima was another excuse to keep fighting and killing the enemy.

        1. The coup failed because the officers could no longer rally the support necessary to continue the fight and thus overthrow the goverment. The civilian population, that up to the point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki believed their leaders that Japan would prevail, no longer believed in the lies the Army officers were telling them, and were no longer interested in being part of a mass suicide attempt. Larry’s point holds.

    1. I guess when Hillary stopped that movie about her from being released she was worse than Falwell and Islamic militants by that standard. It doesn’t take religious motivation to be upset with what someone says about you but MSNBC won’t hold Hillary to the same standard.

      Annnnd, what about Dr Mann? I guess he is motivated by his religion though…

      1. Further, I don’t recall Falwell, having pressed his case in court and losing, then deciding to put a hit on Hustler and a few people busting in to kill Larry Flynt. It didn’t happen. That’s because were talking about a civilized man living in a civilized society, a nuance that appears beyond the comprehension of MSNBC analyst.

  9. “Yes, blasphemy is the problem. But now it’s only when it comes to one totalitarian belief system.”

    Only one? You heretic! You, who deny the prophesy of Michael Mann!

  10. I’ve been in France recently and you just can’t believe in the amount of Muslims they have in their major cities. It is still a minority but quite a large one.

    1. I’m still surprised how many devout followers where in London. We have Muslims in Houston. Around the Mosques they will wear appropriate clothing, but women will still have their faces shown. Two coworkers are Muslim women. One is fairly conservative with her hair covered, and the other typically looks (and acts) ready to leave work and head to the night club for drinks. In London, the women I saw had full burqas. It was striking to me, because if any Christian or western culture demanded their women wear such things, there would be outrage from feminists. But when it comes to Muslims, there is an unique silence or suggestions that others ought not be prejudice or blasphemous.

  11. I blame the violence of these thugs on Islam to the same degree that I blame abortion clinic bombings and murdered doctors on Christianity. Religion inspires horrible acts in all sorts of people, but there’s no sense in saying that the religion is the singular cause rather than a contributing factor.

    1. OK, then you’re pretty much in denial, as the rest of the Left is.

      Can you point out an example of where someone has bombed an abortion clinic, or killed a doctor, screaming “Praise Jesus”?

          1. Eric Rudolph wrote the following to the authorities:

            We declare and will wage total war on the ungodly communist regime in New York and your legislative bureaucratic lackeys in Washington. It is you who are responsible and preside over the murder of children and issue the policy of ungodly perversion that’s destroying our people. Death to the New World Order.

            He signed it “Army of God”. Not exactly your secularist manifesto.

          2. Not sure specifically what religion Eric Rudolf was, but please remind me. Did Eric Rudolf murder journalists (or anyone) because they mocked God? Or was he trying to prevent what he (and many millions of people in this country) viewed as the murder of unborn children?

            This discussion is about blasphemy. About the Enlightenment. I’m not going to defend Eric Rudolph, but if you want to talk about “lone wolves,” he was certainly one.

          3. Not sure specifically what religion Eric Rudolf was, but please remind me.

            He considered himself a Christian of some kind. Whether you personally recognize it as such or not doesn’t matter. There are many muslims who don’t accept ISIS, al Qaeda, or the thugs who criminally killed in Paris (who knows, maybe they’re ‘lone wolves’ too). We can’t assume that they’re all sympathetic to the perpetrators of this crime.

            Did Eric Rudolf murder journalists (or anyone) because they mocked God? Or was he trying to prevent what he (and many millions of people in this country) viewed as the murder of unborn children?

            Read his statement: He saw the modern (enlightened) state as an affront to God, not just abortions but homosexuality as well. Sorry Rand, I really try to be respectful here on your forum, but that last statement sounds like an apology for a serial killer. I don’t think that’s what you really intend, so I hope I’m misreading it.

          4. There are many muslims who don’t accept ISIS, al Qaeda, or the thugs who criminally killed in Paris (who knows, maybe they’re ‘lone wolves’ too). We can’t assume that they’re all sympathetic to the perpetrators of this crime.

            Since no one has claimed that all Muslims are sympathetic to the perpetrators of this crime, you pathetically raise, only to strike down, yet another straw man.

            Are you capable of nothing else?

            He saw the modern (enlightened) state as an affront to God, not just abortions but homosexuality as well.

            How many high-level Christians endorsed his views, and actions? Can you name a single one?

            This is getting pretty pathetic. Do you really have no shame?

        2. What about the pro-life demonstrators that get fire bombed by leftists? There are a lot of violent acts from pro-abortion people that never crack the national news or PBS because Democrats don’t like to report news that reflects poorly on their cause.

        3. You keep bringing up bombings of abortion clinics as if that is a common occurrence. It isn’t, and in the rare cases when it does happen, it is universally condemned.

          While Wikipedia is often a questionable source, the tally there seems reasonable. According to that article, since 1980 there has been:

          – 6 attacks resulting in 7 deaths occurred in the US. All of them are reprehensible.
          – 5 instances of attempted murder. All of them are reprehensible.
          – 19 instances of arson, bombing, or property damage. All of them are reprehensible.
          – 2 attempted anthrax attacks. Both are reprehensible.

          Now, compare and contrast the number of abortion clinic bombings (reportedly by Christians) with the number of terrorist attacks by Muslims that happen every year around the world. Even if you limit the comparison to the US alone since 1980, you’ll find a vast difference in the numbers of attacks and especially in the number of deaths.

    2. ” but there’s no sense in saying that the religion is the singular cause rather than a contributing factor.”

      Do you know even the slightest bit of nothing about Islam and the host of Islamic militant groups?

    1. I condem both Army of God and Al Qeada in Yemen. I also condemn the violence and property destruction of ELF, OWS, and Greenpeace. And those Catholic Priest that sexually assaulted young children should be thrown in jail for the lives they ruined.

      That out of the way, can we focus on Muslims trying to punish blasphemy and how it affects freedom of speech, or must we equate political cartoons to abortion in order to satisfy certain mindsets that morality must be relative? Must I prove I have no sin or association with sin in order to cast the first stone that shooting an artist because you are offended by there work is inappropriate? Or even if the artist “asked for it”, can I not point out that the cops and delivery man were completely innocent of blasphemy, bombing abortion clinics, participation in the Crusades, and fighting a war in Yemen, and thus had no reason to be executed? Should we mention Furgeson as rational for shooting the French cops?

      Tell us Andrew. Because otherwise I’m struggling with the value of your commentary. Do you understand that the UN is considering calling blasphemy a crime, not because of the Spanish Inquisition, but because Muslim nations want to punish those who mock the prophet with sentences to include death? Is the UN a radical few that don’t represent the majority view of people around the world? Is the UN considering making abortion a crime?

      1. I condemn both Army of God and Al Qeada in Yemen. I also condemn the violence and property destruction of ELF. And those Catholic Priest that sexually assaulted young children should be thrown in jail for the lives they ruined.

        Couldn’t find anything worth mentioning on Greenpeace acts of terrorism, though I could mention them as victims of terrorism including murder.

        1. I’m non religious, but I’ve never been comfortable with people who get a buzz out of causing religious offense, one example I’ve heard of being a museum exhibit of a condom over a small statue of the Madonna (the mother of Christ one) I still wonder if maybe religious symbols shouldn’t get the same protection under civil law as commercial symbols.

          1. I’m critical of you because I think you are much better than those two particular posts. I don’t care about Eco-terrorism other than to recognize that “yes, there are many other forms of terrorism”.

            However, I do disagree with blasphemy laws, and grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers to nip it in the bud via the first amendment. Zealots can see blasphemy in almost anything. I recognized this as a child attend a Christian preschool. Yet, while some Christians have perverse views, the overall religion (despite arguments made by you and Dave) isn’t working with governments at all levels to make Christian law the only law. There’s been flexibility there for centuries now. Except Islam is trying to enforce Sharia anywhere they can, including via the UN. Under Sharia law, nothing that happened yesterday was morally or ethically wrong other than perhaps the killing of the delivery guy.

            If by chance, you still think your previous posts are valid, I ask that you reread my previous sentence and tell me where I’m wrong, and give examples of any Christian church, other than Westboro, that is pushing the same thoughts.

          2. Affording the right to not have someone’s religious symbols blasphemed will require a legal definition of religious symbols. May not be as easy as you think. If a group forms the Church of Our Heroine Hillary Rodham Clinton, can political cartoons of Hillary be banned on the say-so of the High Priestess of the Church of OHHRC? If a group forms the High Church of Holy Former Students of Texas A&M University, could telling Aggie jokes become illegal?

          4. Except Islam is trying to enforce Sharia anywhere they can, including via the UN. Under Sharia law, nothing that happened yesterday was morally or ethically wrong other than perhaps the killing of the delivery guy.

            The majority of Muslims believe Sharia should apply to Muslims only.

            pg 22
            http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

            As I said in a previous thread, I find the diversity amongst Muslims of their opinions on what Islam requires of them fascinating, nothing like the myth of a monolithic belief system Islamophobes portray.
            According to many Muslims “Under Sharia law, nothing that happened yesterday was morally or ethically wrong . . .” is incorrect.

          7. Nobody thinks that Muslims have a “monolithic belief system.” Or at least no one here. That’s another straw man.

            Maybe I’ve been getting somewhere. In the past commenters here have often claimed “Muslims” rather than “some Muslims” stereotyping all of them, rather than recognizing the range of views that exist within Islam and that the whole lot are not responsible for the actions of a relative few.

            Where I want us (humans) to be in a hundred years is not recovering from, or still fighting, a bloody religious war, so I argue against the hatemongering and stereotypes from all sides, I’m strong on everyone’s an individual, so I’m hoping that the will of the moderates, those that just want to live their lives in peace, will prevail.

          8. Where I want us (humans) to be in a hundred years is not recovering from, or still fighting, a bloody religious war

            So you support returning the caliphate?

          9. I still wonder if maybe religious symbols shouldn’t get the same protection under civil law as commercial symbols.

            To paraphrase Dan Ackroyd, Andrew, you ignorant slut.

          10. Andrew: “Where I want us (humans) to be in a hundred years is not recovering from, or still fighting, a bloody religious war”

            Rand: “I want that too.”

            Leland: “So you support returning the caliphate?”

            I’ll leave it to Rand to answer your (stupid) question.

          11. I’ll leave it to Rand to answer your (stupid) question.

            Rand’s not the fool believing that just because he doesn’t want to fight a religious war then the Jihadists will stop there war. Tell us, Andrew, do you know what the word Jihad means? Do you know why that name is used to describe certain people? Do you think western media/society coined the phrase and hung it on certain people?

            The Jihadists want a return of the caliphate. That is their clearly stated end goal. Until it is reached, they do not plan to call off the Jihad. You can make silly arguments to me, but I think those guys are a bit more honest than you on this subject.

          12. Rand’s not the fool believing that just because he doesn’t want to fight a religious war then the Jihadists will stop there war.
            http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=58358&cpage=1#comment-354979
            Yes, ISIS needs wiping out, and there’re several Muslim countries trying to do just that,

            “Tell us, Andrew, do you know what the word Jihad means?”
            Heh, it can mean damn near whatever you want it to mean, from an inner struggle, to an outer struggle, violent or non-violent.

          1. Greenpeace recently defiled the Nazca ruins in Peru

            All ‘leftists’ I know were outraged by the actions of the idiots who vandalized that site. If we want to chalk up straw men arguments, that’s on the list for sure, because ‘leftists’ were not monolithically behind that ridiculous action.

            On the plus side, maybe we have something to agree on!

          2. “All ‘leftists’ I know were outraged by the actions of the idiots who vandalized that site.”

            That is how the rest of us feel about the Westboro Baptist style of activism that environmentalists et al engage in.

            “‘leftists’ were not monolithically behind that ridiculous action”

            Not that specific one but GP has nearly monolithic support overall.

        3. Greenpeace has an entire TV show dedicated to terrorism on the high seas.

          Terrorism from environmental groups dwarfs that of anyone motivated by ending abortion.

        4. Greenpeace recently vandalized the Nazca ruins in a little publicity stunt of theirs.

          Other than Greenpeace there have been a couple of violent acts of so called ‘green’ terrorism. Like the guy who fired a RPG-7 into the Superphoenix reactor building in France in 1982:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

          The French take this kind of shit seriously so I doubt the perps will get away with this.

          2. “vandalized” might be a bit strong as they only left foot prints

            Apologist for destruction of native lands and culture? Peruvians disagree with you.

          3. Andrew, are you daft? “Footprints” that can be seen from the air, running across the Nazca lines. It doesn’t take a bulldozer to be a vandal.

          5. More damage than I realized, but some reports are exaggerated, there are paths leading into the site that have been used by researchers and other visitors for years that some reports are blaming on GP.
            A stupid act but not intentionally destructive.

          6. Yes, it is important to note that any damage done will be from over turned rocks and such. The actual display was just plastic being held down by rocks, IIRC.

            The damage could be small but long lasting due to the geography and climate there. It is remarkable because of how hypocritical it makes the activists look.

          7. The actual display was just plastic being held down by rocks, IIRC.

            From the GP video they made while doing it, it’s evident that they brought in small paving stones, they didn’t just grab the rocks on site.

    2. ” their actions are condemned by the vast majority of Muslims.”

      I do not think that is true. Polls showed enormous support for ISIS. Heck even non-Muslim leftists support a lot of the same positions as the Islamic militants. I think these Islamic militants get so much support from the left because their politics are so closely aligned. And they share hatred of the same groups.

      It is past time to move beyond the dogma of apologists and to deal with the reality of the way to world is.

    3. “Their actions are condemned by the vast majority of Muslims.” Seems to me you’re asking the wrong question. I would like to know the fraction of Muslims who _support_ them, and how strongly. Then compare with the fraction of Christians who support Christian terrorists and how strongly.
      There are apparently tens to hundreds of millions of Muslims who support terrorism on one level or another. I don’t know how many Christians support terrorism, but I’d venture to guess that it’s not within several orders of magnitude.
      The issue here in this is not, is terrorism bad, or, are Muslims bad. It’s, at what point does Muslim terrorism become enough of a threat to European civilization that Europeans choose “nationalist” political parties that will start bulldozing Muslim neighborhoods? I thought that stage would be reached in Paris a decade ago when a hundred cars were getting burned every night, but I guess enough of them managed to shrug off somebody else’s car. Still seems likely to me that enough Muslims are intrusively destructive enough that sooner or later Europeans are going to crush them.
      On this I can’t agree with Mark Steyn. Europeans are not – eventually – going to allow themselves to be overrun. Muslims are not going to have the military capability to resist. It will be a mess, and all Muslims and many Europeans will suffer.

    4. You’ve got to be kidding me. Army of God’s actions amount to a few piddly paragraphs. The link to their website goes to a page with 90’s level of html and the pictures links are broken — they are irrelevant in the overall context. This is no way compares to Islamofascism that has mullah’s leading “Death to America” chants to throngs of 1000’s of people. Or, violent islamic groups like Boko Haram who just recently razed an entire village to the ground and massacred 2000 people. Islam caters to countless deranged psychopaths bombing marathons, assassinating police officers, beheading soldiers in the streets, and gunning down an office full of people because of a fucking cartoon.

    1. Gee Andrew, I know haters are going to hate, but two posts in a row?

      Do note that Rand has long proclaimed to be non religious. He neither is a Christian nor devout follower of Global Warming. Speaking of global warming zealots, should we mention their terrorist organizations like ELF and fire bombing attacks too? Arguably they don’t get much mention either, and they have a Wikipedia list about as long as the ones you found. I’m sure, being the non-hypocrit you are and against terrorism of all kinds, you found those links too and just choose not to to include them, right?

    2. And there are also environmental terrorists and black terrorist groups (links not supplied, quite easy to find by yourself.) Every group has extremists.

      The point that you are missing is the number of Muslims who agree with this. I can’t understand why you attempt a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. There is absolutely no equivalence.

    3. That is an incredibly small list. A comparable list of Islamic groups would be thousands of pages long. But since you felt the need to post it in defense of Islam, let me point out that Christian militant groups in Africa are a response to Muslims engaging in genocide. Christians have been abandoned by their governments, the world community, and leftists.

      Have you ever asked yourself what happened to all of the Christian populations in the Middle East? They are almost extinct from centuries of repression, persecution, and extermination. Maybe Christians in these countries wouldn’t have to form militant groups if the world didn’t stand silently by or even cheer on what is happening.

      1. There are Christian places of worship in Muslim Middle East countries that have been in use by Christians for hundreds of years.

          1. Yes, ISIS needs wiping out, and there’re several Muslim countries trying to do just that, but as you say, first time in 1700 years.

          1. Where I want us (humans) to be in a hundred years is not recovering from, or still fighting, a bloody religious war

            I want that too. Unfortunately many tens of millions of Muslims are in it to win it. A religious war doesn’t go away just because one side pretends it doesn’t exist.

          2. Ever heard about the so called male Chinese problem where due to the one child policy China has a large male population that is not going to get married in China ever and how some claim this will inevitably lead to a war where China invades the neighboring countries?

            If you believe that is a possibility add this to your little list of possible war causes: Saudi Arabia had a birthrate of over 6 at least into the 1980s. Saudi Arabia is a country where polygamy is permitted. This means women are largely hoarded by the rich and there are a lot of young single males. Compute how many of the perps of 9/11 actually came from Saudi Arabia.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

            Makes the so called Chinese threat pale uh?

          3. “Makes the so called Chinese threat pale uh?”

            The world is a big market though. There are a lot of women out there.

    1. Buddhists have been into the action for a long time. Even heard of Zen Buddhism?

      Meditative techniques for eliminating doubt and techniques for speeding up reflexive actions not surprisingly have a lot of followers in military or militarist circles…

      1. Yep, good point on Zen. But Buddhism is not even an iota as violent as Islam, which was my point.

        Also, saying that reflexes are improved by meditation is not the same as meditation leads to reflexes honed for the purpose of the military. Not every martial art has a Buddhist basis.

        And, yes, I have heard of Zen. Doshite ano baka na shitsumon kiku ka.

      2. Sure. But there are other religions with military or militarist origins. One good example would be Sikhism which mainly originated as as kind of backlash against the Muslim invasion of India.

        Again with Zen Buddhism, besides the influence it had on Japan, the Shaolin temple in China was long associated with martial arts.

        The Catholic church did have the military orders (e.g. Templars, Hospitaller) at one time.

  15. Sure, the Christian terrorism, eco-terrorism etc discussion is a silly distraction from what what this thread should be about.

    1. Enh, small distraction. It is always useful to remember that no group is without sin because we all have to forgive historical transgressions in order to move into a brighter future. I always enjoy reading the comments on threads like this because there are so many commenters here who are more knowledgeable about history than myself, so there is always something to learn.

      In America, we like to lump people in as white or black or whatever. Underlying those basic categories lay a diverse tapestry of heritage and culture.

      Think of all the European countries that have been bitter enemies over the past several thousand years that inflicted on each other the worst suffering humans can imagine, yet we all gave up those ancient grudges and live in the USA as Americans. We did it by adopting a common culture that was not our own and by contributing our own (mostly) beneficial cultural practices.

      We were so successful that people think of us as one thing now, white, rather than Swedes and Italians or whatever.

      The same thing can happen anywhere if the people who live there want it to.

    1. More about a reply to people who’re claiming that Islam is uniquely evil because it’s adherents commit a disproportionate number of terrorist acts.

      Incidentally, while looking through all the Internet stuff on terrorism, I came across the fact that those peace loving Buddhists in parts of Burma regularly put the boot (and machete) into members of their local Muslim community.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Burma

Comments are closed.