It’s not just terror bombings:
In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were treated to a parade of “experts” who assured a worried public that jihadists were perverting the meaning of the term, that the term really and truly only referred to a peaceful, internal struggle — the quest for goodness and holiness. We’ve learned to laugh at this nonsense, but in so doing I fear that we’ve wrongly narrowed the term. To us, jihad is a bomb. It’s a beheading.
No, jihad is an eternal, all-encompassing unholy war against the unbeliever. It is waged in the mind of the believer, to fortify his or her own courage and faith. It is waged online and in the pages of books and magazines, to simultaneously cultivate the hatred and contempt of the committed for the kafir — the unbeliever — while also currying favor, appeasement, and advantage from the gullible West. Jihad is the teaching in the mosque. It is the prayer in the morning, the social-media post in the afternoon, and the donation to an Islamic “charity” in the evening.
There is jihad in predatory, coordinated sexual assault, there is jihad when Western camera crews are chased from Muslim neighborhoods, and there is jihad when Muslim apologists invariably crawl from the sewers of Western intelligentsia, blaming Europeans for the imperfections in their life-saving hospitality. So don’t make the mistake of believing that Europe or America only “periodically” or “rarely” deal with jihad. We confront it every day, just as the world has confronted it — to greater or lesser degrees — ever since Muslim armies first emerged from the Arabian peninsula. While not all Muslims are jihadists, jihad is so deeply imprinted in the DNA of Islam that the world will confront it as long as Islam lives.
While millions, most Muslims are peaceful, Islam itself is an infection that has haunted the world for over a millennium. There have been long periods of dormancy, but it occasionally flares up when given an opportunity. I don’t know how this will end, but I’ve been saying for years that the end will not be pretty.
Related: A Muslim explains how he discovered that the Quran encourages violence.
Andy McCarthy analyzes the timing of the latest attacks, and Theodore Dalrymple wonders what to do with the terrorist camps in the heart of Europe.
A Muslim explains how he discovered that the Quran encourages violence.
Former Muslim. You missed the part at the end about accepting the Gospel,
Was he not a Muslim when he made the discovery?
“A Muslim explains.” The verb “explains” is what we call present tense.
“Jihad Everywhere”, but in the U.S. toddlers are deadlier than terrorists.
So, by your rationale, there are an acceptable number of murders by terrorists?
As a nation we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and pass laws and regulations affecting hundreds of millions of people in order to counter the threat posed by terrorists. We do nothing to counter the threat posed by armed toddlers. That suggests there’s an acceptable number of murders by toddlers.
Nice fudge. If this is an attempt of satire, then you are doing a very poor job. If somebody in your neighborhood is walking around with a rifle and claiming to shoot people, will you shrug, go back to NPR and say, “hey, more toddlers will die anyway.”
Now, this is satire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ2G111spck
Well, Jim’s defense of Fast and Furious was all those Mexicans were going to die anyway.
His contradiction here is that he is willing to go to great lengths to take away gun rights and persecute gun owners but thinks we shouldn’t do anything about people trying to exterminate us and the rest of the world.
As a nation we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and pass laws and regulations affecting hundreds of millions of people in order to counter the threat posed by terrorists
Since when are you worried about spending money? You’ve yet to complain about the 20 trillion dollar debt. Until you become a fiscal conservative, any spending or regulation whining from you is moot.
He’s probably worried that money is spent on national defense or suppression of “minority” predators that might otherwise be spent on bennies.
The money we spend is a measure of how threatened we feel by terrorism. As a wise man once said, don’t tell me what your priorities are, just show me your budget, and that will tell me all I need to know about your priorities. The U.S. budget indicates that avoiding deaths-by-terror is a very high U.S. priority. Avoiding deaths-by-toddler is not.
just show me your budget, and that will tell me all I need to know about your priorities
Actually, the budget is a poor metric. Teaching people gun safety doesn’t require a big government program, confiscation of guns, persecution of gun owners, or whatever else Democrats want to use the government for in the service of attacking their political opponents.
It is amazing how fast Democrats have gone from claiming that there have been no terror attacks under Obama and that we are safer than before, to terror attacks killing Americans and our friends doesn’t really matter and that we should focus on implementing Democrat’s unrelated policies instead of dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism.
We do nothing to counter the threat posed by armed toddlers.
Who is “we,” Jim? Most of us counter the threat by not giving guns to armed toddlers. Organizers like the NRA counter the threat by sponsoring gun-safety classes.
If you do nothing to counter the threat, that’s unfortunate, but please do not generalize.
The “we” in question is our elected national government (note the qualifier: “As a nation…”). But even including private acts, there’s no comparison between the time and money spent on anti-terror efforts and that spent on toddler gun safety.
That’s some sloppy thinking Jim. Not only does the government not need to do everything, it can’t. There are too many worthy causes. Defending your fellow citizens from extermination is a high priority and this specific challenge is expensive because of how difficult it is.
Also, your argument ignores that different problems have different scales of impact, different challenges, and the amount of money spent can have greater or lesser impact regardless of the total spent in relation to the total spent on other things.
Had any other group that was not a political ally of the Democrats conducted world wide attacks like this, Democrats would be the first ones calling for the group’s eradication. But instead of fighting our country’s enemies, Democrats prefer to use their violence against fellow Americans and defend those who want to exterminate us.
There’s a difference between a nation and a government, Jim.
Hence the bumper sticker, “I love my country but fear my government.”
In any case, you said “nation,” not “government.” Now you’re trying to switch arguments in mid-horse.
If your point is that the Obama Administration is doing nothing to prevent toddler shootings (in contrast to the NRA), I won’t disagree with you.
If that wasn’t what you meant to say, I have no idea what you’re talking about — and, apparently, neither do you.
Ok Jim, a thought experiment.
If evil Republicans killed 14 Democrats each year, should we not expend any resources on that?
We spend $180B on police, and yet the murder rate is tiny, even in Chicago. Surely that money would be better spent elsewhere?
Or maybe not. Maybe you need to spend money sometimes in order to keep things at a low rate. Perhaps the low rate is an indication of the money being spent correctly? You can’t prove any of this one way or the other.
There’s a difference between a nation and a government, Jim.
Right. Government is the mechanism by which the nation takes action.
I have no idea what you’re talking about
Simply that our reaction to the threat of terrorism is grossly out of proportion to its death toll. It’s almost as if someone wants us to be scared.
Right. Government is the mechanism by which the nation takes action.
Wrong. Government is only one mechanism by which nations take action. There are many others. The fact that you’re unaware of those mechanisms does not mean they don’t exist.
I already mentioned the NRA, which is one of those non-governmental mechanisms.
Simply that our reaction to the threat of terrorism is grossly out of proportion to its death toll. It’s almost as if someone wants us to be scared.
Why are you back to terrorism? You already changed the subject to toddlers, who you believe are the bigger threat, and your concern that “we” (the government) are doing nothing to protect you.
If you want us to be scare, you’ll have to try harder. Right now, we’re simply laughing at you.
If the present acceleration of growth continues, we will be seeing a LOT of deaths from terrorists in the near future. See bar graph below.
Counting the entries in a crowd-sourced list of “attacks that have received significant press coverage” anywhere in the world is not a particularly valuable metric, much less one with any predictive power about the number of U.S. deaths to expect going forward.
Denial won’t make the problem go away.
What problem do you think I am denying? The problem that terrorists kill (and presumably will continue to kill) tens of Americans each year? I don’t deny that.
What problem do you think I am denying?
You are literally denying the scale of what is taking place. If not, feel free to qualify your statement.
2,966 people died in 1 day of attacks in the US. It’s been 15 years since we had an attack of that scale, but amortized (as Jim wants to do, yet it is absurd), that’s still over 185 deaths a year. Yeah, I’d say Jim is denying the facts. Further, if you want to bring in the defense budget, then we can go into world wide terrorism. If terrorism isn’t a problem, then exactly why are we bringing in Syrian refugees? Bottom line, Jim is reprehensible as well as an idiot when it comes to numbers.
that’s still over 185 deaths a year
Right, 185 (or lower if you include years before 2001), and dropping. Meanwhile, Americans drown in a bathtub, hot tub or spa an average of once a day.
If terrorism isn’t a problem, then exactly why are we bringing in Syrian refugees?
Terrorism (and civil war) are a problem for them if they stay there, and we can help them and ourselves by letting them come here. That doesn’t mean terrorism is a major threat to Americans. Americans in the U.S. have never been safer.
That was the method used by Democrats for deaths in Iraq.
You can’t seriously be so ignorant of the world wide jihad.
Hmm, now that I checked the list. I am not sure what the criticism is. Are you concerned that they left events off or do you contend the sources cited are lying about events? You could probably pick some off the list that are lies right?
An increase of the frequency and severity of attacks is a pretty good indicator of the current state of things and a predictor of future events absent any changes.
You might be interested in these two sites that track terrorist attacks and terrorist groups, since you seem to doubt that there is any terrorism taking place.
Rantburg
The Long War Journal
I have three criticisms:
1) There’s no consistent criteria for inclusion on the list. The only criteria is that the event was reported in the media, and someone decided to add it.
2) There is no reason to believe that the list is close to being complete. Do you really think there were only 8 Islamist terrorist attacks in the 1980s? That makes comparisons between years pointless.
3) The list conflates dramatically different sorts of events. 9/11, with almost 3,000 killed, counts the same as a suicide bombing that killed 3 people, or a car bombing that didn’t kill anyone.
Just because the jihadis are not very effective doesn’t mean that we should not hunt them all down and exterminate them like the pests that they are.
Are you seriously an apologist for terrorists? Asshat.
If they are ineffective then why should we “hunt them all down and exterminate them”? John Quincy Adams said that the U.S. “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Why, exactly, should the U.S. be in the monster-hunting business?
But Jefferson tried to negotiate with the Barbary Pirates and he was forced to fight them.
Sometimes there are monsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
They were just pirates using religion as a justification for their crimes. Scum using some noble greater good to justify their thieving and thuggery is . . . more than common, it’s pretty much a universal practice for low-lifes.
Nobody doubts that there are monsters. The question is why it’s necessarily in our interest to go hunting them.
They were just pirates using religion as a justification for their crimes.
Sort of like Muhammad?
using some noble greater good
Is it really a noble greater good to view the enslavement of others as your religious duty?
Sort of like Muhammad?
Sort of like the religious everywhere. Even Catholic priest who’ve been caught kiddie fiddling have tried to justify their actions in the name of their God. Ditto for leaders of state throughout history and across the planet.
Is it really a noble greater good to view the enslavement of others as your religious duty?
Given human beings ability to rationalize their actions, enslavement is a bit run of the mill, European and American slavery was justified by many in religious terms, and after slavery in the US was abolished so was segregation.
They were just pirates using religion as a justification for their crimes. Scum using some noble greater good to justify their thieving and thuggery is . . . more than common, it’s pretty much a universal practice for low-lifes.
If that is true, were the muslims who purchased these slaves also using religion as a justification? Did the slaves who were sold in the markets across the Islamic world get purchased by nice muslims or just dirt bag muslims?
If that is true, were the muslims who purchased these slaves also using religion as a justification? Did the slaves who were sold in the markets across the Islamic world get purchased by nice muslims or just dirt bag muslims?
I doubt the slave owners needed a justification outside of the slaves usefulness to them and I imagine that, in the absence of emancipationists the same would apply to American and European slave owners.
“I doubt the slave owners needed a justification ”
You are trying to have it both ways by saying their religion is their justification and that it isn’t really their motivation. You do this by implying that slavery was motivated by religion in the USA.
In the USA, religion wasn’t the motivation, although in some cases was used to rationalize it. The recent claims that slavery was a Christian invention is just to attack modern day Christians as being deligitimate, and to displace blame for slavery from the people who practiced it, Democrats.
The current slavery of ISIS is literally religiously motivated and the slaves are not working in the fields but rather used as sex objects. Their usefulness is only in serving as objects to be abused by jihadis.
Slavery never died out in the Muslim world because it is literally part of their religion.
Jim, you have a very strange perception of who is the hunter and who is the hunted.
When a buffalo gores a wolf with its horns, it’s not because buffalo are hunting wolves.
Why, exactly, should the U.S. be in the monster-hunting business?
1) They kill Americans in the USA
2) They kill Americans in other countries
3) They kill our friends in their countries
4) They kill our friends in other countries
5) They want to exterminate the Jews
6) Genocide
7) Slavery
8) They inflict brutality on a level and viciousness on people they conquer unseen in hundreds of years.
This isn’t like Libya, where Obama and Hillary overthrew a government for no reason related to our national interests. Dealing with ISIS is cleaning up the mess created by Obama and Hillary. The GOP is on board with it but Democrats are all, “Enh, who cares about sex slavery, burning people alive, genocide, and crucifixions. What’s important is that we use violence to stop Trump.”
Indeed. What is the US interest in fighting ISIS? That band of terrorists will continue to expand and metastasize, raping, killing, and looting as they go, until they sting someone with the means and will to destroy them. And if not the US then likely someone with far less concern for innocents, or even leaving a nuclear mess.
Please wodun, you expect Jim or Andrew to care about slavery? Next you will think they care about the treatment of women under Islam.
It was Christianity that brought about the end to slavery in the US as well. When has Islam done anything remotely similar?
Where do you think Abolitionism flourished anyways? The great atheist meeting halls of New England? Preached by the great atheist John Brown?
Jim, you have a very strange perception of who is the hunter and who is the hunted.
Check the context. fred k proposed that we be the hunter, I’m asking why we would want to take on that role.
Jim writes:
“……in the U.S. toddlers are deadlier than terrorists.”
I’d respond to that more – if it wasn’t so ridiculous:
accident vs premeditated murder, for one thing.
“Jihad Everywhere”, but in the U.S. toddlers are deadlier than terrorists.
Do you think that would be the case if all that money wasn’t spend on suppressing terrorism?
Do you think it would take all of the money spent on fighting ISIS to stop accidental shootings?
Does the money have to come from the same account we use to fight ISIS or could it come from giving welfare benefits to illegal aliens, bogus government funded research, handouts to green energy companies, grants to Democrat activist groups, or any number of other things we spend money on?
Defense spending is only about 20% of the budget. Why not target other areas for this BS game of choice? Why does every problem require a government solution?
What exactly do you think the government should do to reduce gun accidents? Why do you think it will take 20% of the budget?
Did you read my comment carefully?
Just in case you still don’t get it, I’m suggesting to Jim that his argument is silly because without the money and effort that’s gone into suppressing terrorism in the US there would have been a lot more of it.
My apologies. You are right about not choosing my targets more carefully. On this point anyway 🙂
I suspect that some of our anti-terror spending has saved lives, and some has been counter-productive and cost lives. I have little doubt that the same money spent elsewhere would have saved far more lives.
Addressing homicide has always had a higher priority than preventing accidental deaths, dealing with attacks by outsiders has always been a higher priority than standard criminal violence. It’s instinctive, it’s about a society protecting itself rather than um, “just” protecting the individuals within it.
There’s a lesson in that this applies to all countries, that’s why invading other countries and killing people usually puts the invaders in a really bad position when it comes to them subsequently trying to build bridges with the local people.
They’re the invaders FFS!
So, I started looking at this page, and noticed what seemed to be pattern. Just counting the raw number of attacks in a given year, I came up with this bar graph.
Rather striking. Recall bin Laden’s statement:
Clinton was weak. GWB was a strong horse. Obama, weak again. And, the results show.
So GWB was “a strong horse”, and yet the overwhelming majority of terror fatalities on U.S. soil occurred while he was president. You might want to reconsider your theory that “leader I consider strong” implies “fewer U.S. terror deaths.”
Things changed after 9/11. Are you including or not including 9/11? And if you are not, are you ignoring what Obama calls “workplace shootings” (while the attacker cries allah akhbar)?
He’s no doubt including 9/11 because if he excludes it, the number is practically zero and he knows it….
Unlike the reign of his hero Obama.
And since the 9/11 attacks marked the beginning of the US response (clinton = feckless) it’s ridiculously infantile to include 9/11. Only morons would fall for that methodology.
Next you know Jim will claim they were really screaming “aloha snack bar”. 😉
Peter, I’m very glad I didn’t have coffee in my mouth when I read that.
The 9/11 attacks were planned and prepared under Clinton. They were counting on knocking out the weak horse.
The first World Trade Center attack was planned under H. W. Bush.
…and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ordered the FBI to declare that it was entirely domestic, and not to pursue any foreign ties.
After which the Gorelick Wall (after Clinton official Jamie Gorelick) made such investigation by the FBI impossible.
Excellent graph. The clear trends say a lot.
I think being smart is a better strategy than the weakness of Chamberlain or strong arm tactics of Mussolini, or Obama and G. W. Bush if you prefer.
I think being smart
What does that even mean? Calling everyone else stupid, isn’t exactly being smart. Its like the underpants gnomes only skipping the first two steps.
What does that even mean? Calling everyone else stupid, isn’t exactly being smart. Its like the underpants gnomes only skipping the first two steps.
Wow, today you’re not being smart, You’re blasting away blindly not properly identifying your target or thinking ahead.
Usually you are smarter than that.
Wow, today you’re not being smart
I am pretty much never smart but saying that today is a particularly bad day for me doesn’t explain your proposed strategy of “being smart”. To me, a lot of the people claiming to “be smart” are not thinking very far ahead.
We can see the “be smart” strategy blowing up all over the world. The only gains being made against ISIS come when the GOP forces Obama to take action. Under Obama’s prefered “smart” strategy of doing nothing and installing militant Islamist governments, things would be much much worse.
Wow, Jim seems really perturbed by strong anti-Jihad writings. I started calling him “Baghdad Jim” because of his dogged reiteration of Hive party lines in the face of all facts and logic; but now it seems even more deserved than I may have suspected.
Jihad is not compulsory for Muslims, it’s actually a response to war being made on them by unbelievers, stir a bee hive and you’re likely to get stung.
This tit-for-tat exchange with Christianity goes back a long way, and the string of invasions and conquests of Muslim countries by various Christians countries has been pretty constant for hundreds of years, with the US leading today where the Russians, British and French lead before.
it’s actually a response to war being made on them by unbelievers
BS
Trying to blame the USA for Islamic terrorism is merely supporting/defending Islamic terrorism and not in any way truthful. Your thinking that jihad is justified really explains your other comments but also points out why anyone would be wrong in giving your solutions any credence. You are saying people deserve to be the victims of jihad and should just accept being enslaved.
Let me explain why you are wrong. Many of the victims of jihad are not Americans, they are other Muslims. Why are Muslims attacking other Muslims if they are upset with the USA? Conquest is part of their culture and they practice it on themselves, it has nothing to do with the USA.
Islam was born in conquest and after the death of Muhammad, there was fighting between different factions over who the real Muslims are. Its been going on for around 1,500 years. The last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire and they disappeared only a short time ago, if they disappeared at all.
the string of invasions and conquests of Muslim countries by various Christians countries
Who lived in those lands before the Muslims? Why do Muslims continue to persecute and exterminate populations that predate the existence of Islam? Why do you view Muslims as justified in over a thousand years of extermination and persecution but not other’s response to it? I mean, if Muslims are not responsible for their own actions, why is anyone else?
Know who isn’t justifying today’s actions based on events 1,500 years ago?
Trying to blame the USA for Islamic terrorism is merely supporting/defending Islamic terrorism and not in any way truthful. Your thinking that jihad is justified really explains your other comments but also points out why anyone would be wrong in giving your solutions any credence. You are saying people deserve to be the victims of jihad and should just accept being enslaved.
You’re really going overboard with the enraged crap today aren’t you?
I’m not justifying anything, I’m explaining a sequence of events, one leading to another.
You’re may as well claim that if someone points out the cause of a disaster they’re “justifying” the deaths of the victims, rather than explaining the cause of those deaths.
Conquest is part of their culture and they practice it on themselves, it has nothing to do with the USA.
And yet in terms of wars of conquest it’s the European powers that have the history, is it part of their culture? I actually struggle to think of any religious conquests by Muslim countries in recent history (Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was not motivated by religion). China at the moment seems to be interested in expanding the territory she has control over, maybe conquest is part of the Chinese culture? The US has invaded and lead the invasion of more countries since WW2 than any other county, second since WW2 would be the Soviets, maybe Americans and Russians have conquest as part of their culture?
Who lived in those lands before the Muslims?
The People who became Muslims, Who lived in lands now Christian before the Christians? Jews and people who became Christians.
Why do you view Muslims as justified in over a thousand years of extermination and persecution but not other’s response to it?
I don’t justify violence by anyone, Muslim, Christian, or anyone else, I’m arguing that the sequence of violence isn’t going to be broken with more violence, unless you think genocide is a solution.
“I don’t justify violence by anyone”.
Ahh, if you’re defending yourself fine, shoot the robber, but that doesn’t justify going around to his place and shooting his family.
That depends on whether or not the family is participating in the robberies. It is a very western notion that women and children do not participate but that isn’t true of jihadi culture.
“And yet in terms of wars of conquest it’s the European powers that have the history, is it part of their culture?”
It has been a part of everyone’s culture but to say that current wars are ones of conquest by the USA is wrong.
“I actually struggle to think of any religious conquests by Muslim countries in recent history”
Does it have to be a state in the western sense? Religiously motivated conquest is happening all over the ME and Africa.
“I’m not justifying anything, I’m explaining a sequence of events, one leading to another.”
You are placing a value judgement on it. It comes off as Muslim terrorists are excused for what they are doing today because of historical wrongs against them, even though those wrongs were in response to their conquest of others.
Are people justifying the war on terror because of the Muslim conquest of the region 1500 years ago? No, people look at the current warfare as justification to take action to stop what is happening right now.
“I’m arguing that the sequence of violence isn’t going to be broken with more violence,”
It isn’t going to be stopped by reason either. How do you propose we stop the jihad? There are no grievances that can be addressed that will stop the jihad.
“I’m arguing that the sequence of violence isn’t going to be broken with more violence…”
Actually, that is the way it has historically worked. Unless you are Ghandi or MLK, facing down an enemy that is capable of being shamed into submission, it is the only way. Otherwise, you get endless conflict. Remember this Star Trek episode?
Actually, that is the way it has historically worked.
Geoffrey Blainey’s classic study concluded that countries wage war when they disagree about their relative strength, and achieve peace when they agree about their relative strength.
Which reminds me of Stanley Kubrick’s observation that big countries act like gangster while little countries act like prostitutes.
The problem with continuing with the well tested policy of obliterating the enemy is that the world is too small and communications too universal for total warfare, that is warfare without humanitarian rules, pushing the vanquished into starvation, mass killings of those who’d continue the fight along with their families, to be conducted by the victorious countries. We saw this starkly in Vietnam. The US was, on paper, perfectly capable of crushing the North Vietnamese militarily. The problem was they couldn’t do it politically, and in terms of those who would choose to crush weaker enemies the way the allies did to the Japanese and Germans in WW2, since VIetnam that option no longer exists.
it is the only way. Otherwise, you get endless conflict.
No, that’s simply not so, there are numerous examples of two sides reconciling without the absolute defeat of one, what’s required is simply to convince both sides that peace pays a higher dividend for both than war.
You mention Star Trek, well, I’ll go to a point Bob Heinlein made in TMIAHM, the loonies could reach peace with the major powers by being smart, by hitting them, but not too hard (no wiping out cities) and by offering carrots to convince them that peace would be the more more profitable route.
At the moment the US has gotten into a position in which she has influenced the Iranian population to support a more conciliatory government, the recent Iranian elections saw moderates sweep to power, and those moderate Iranian politicians get to determine the next Iranian Supreme Leader when the current one dies (likely to happen within a decade due to his age and health).
The US is also getting into a position where she will likely, by offering a peace dividend, be able to entice the Cuban people to abandon communism.
I could run off plenty of other examples like Britain’s accord with the IRA and also her numerous former colonies many of which she fought wars with but now has good relations.
Do you think we could have made peace, established a modus vivendi, with either N@zi Germany or Imperial Japan? If so… how?
Nice, fluffy little thoughts. But, maybe you should let the grownups deal with the bad guys.
The US is also getting into a position where she will likely, by offering a peace dividend, be able to entice the Cuban people to abandon communism.
Huh? Are you under the illusion that Cuba is a democracy?
Do you think we could have made peace, established a modus vivendi, with either N@zi Germany or Imperial Japan? If so… how?
No, and I’m not under the illusion that we could make peace with ISIL, I am under the illusion that with the right strategies peace can be achieved between people that hated each other as strongly as the combatants of WW2 did, the people of the Vietnam war did, the people fighting any war can.
Nice, fluffy little thoughts. But, maybe you should let the grownups deal with the bad guys.
I see it a little differently, goodies and baddies is for the games children play, in the adult world we have to deal with looking after real lives, so we think it’s important to get people to put their guns away, rather than go bang bang at each other with them.
Huh? Are you under the illusion that Cuba is a democracy?
Huh? Are you under the illusion that the communist Warsaw Pact still exists?
If the people of Eastern Europe were all for communism those countries would still be communist. The current leaders of Cuba don’t get to rule forever, Raul Castro is 84.
The first crusade took place only a few decades after the muslims were kicked out of Sicily. Sicily was a perfect location for invading Italy and ransacking coastal areas for slaves. I would wager that even into the 19th century, many European advances into Islamic territory were defensive. Many parts of the European coast had to be abandoned even into the 19th century.
Really? So the Muslim conquest of Spain was a response to what?
Jihad is not compulsory for Muslims, it’s actually a response to war being made on them by unbelievers
That’s certainly correct. It’s Belgium’s notoriously aggressive interventionist militarist foreign policy that’s the reason it got hit.
Belgium is part of the coalition against ISIS and had F-16’s deployed against them.
And to head off a couple of idiot comments:
That doesn’t mean that I think Belgium “deserved” being attacked.
It doesn’t mean that I think Belgium shouldn’t have deployed forces against ISIS.
It doesn’t mean that I think ISIS isn’t worth destroying.
My position is that the leadership and followers of ISIS amount to about 1% of Muslims, we need to avoid getting into a position in which we have to go through the other 99% of Muslims to get to them, that would be something that the ISIS leadership would love to happen, so we must not let the Brussels bombings be used to achieve that goal for ISIS.
This is absolutely incoherent. 99% of Muslims are peace-loving, but only if we’re nice to them, and don’t make them feel uncomfortable, at which point they’ll join forces with homicidal maniacs and come after us. Pffft. That’s one of the most implicitly racist arguments I’ve ever seen.
There is nothing we can do to sway the opinions of ISIS members, short of slaughtering them wholesale. Only their religious peers can do that. But, if their peers feel no pressure to do so, they won’t. All your hand-wringing and temporizing does is prolong the agony.
This is absolutely incoherent. 99% of Muslims are peace-loving, but only if we’re nice to them, and don’t make them feel uncomfortable, at which point they’ll join forces with homicidal maniacs and come after us. Pffft. That’s one of the most implicitly racist arguments I’ve ever seen.
Really? I could apply it to anyone, the Japanese probably thought most Americans were peace-loving, then they attacked them in 1941, and suddenly the American’s were no longer so peace-loving.
There is nothing we can do to sway the opinions of ISIS members, short of slaughtering them wholesale. Only their religious peers can do that. But, if their peers feel no pressure to do so, they won’t. All your hand-wringing and temporizing does is prolong the agony.
I said: “It doesn’t mean that I think ISIS isn’t worth destroying.”
As for “their religious peers” are you totally ignorant of recent events (the last 5 years) in Iraq and Syria? ISIS is at war with “their religious peers”.
All my “hand-wringing and temporizing” is intended to explain that there is no world wide Muslim Jihad against the rest of the world, but if naive fools start to believe that there is, there’s a danger those naive fools will follow nasty people who get their kicks from orchestrating violence, or are you so foolish that you think rabble rousing couldn’t happen? If enough hate against people for being Muslims were stirred up it certainly could happen.
Andrew, do not conflate hating violence with hating muslims.
Belgium is part of the coalition against ISIS and had F-16’s deployed against them.
Ahh, so that’s it. Don’t deploy F-16’s, and we will not target you.
Can I buy them and not use them?
If I am the capitol of Europe, and buy them and not deploy them, have I crossed a line?
What can I speak that will allow me to buy F-16’s and not suffer any consequences?
I wish to avoid these suicide bombings, can you provide an instruction manual?
If I promise not to buy F-16’s, what can you guarantee me?
I said:
And to head off a couple of idiot comments:
That doesn’t mean that I think Belgium “deserved” being attacked.
It doesn’t mean that I think Belgium shouldn’t have deployed forces against ISIS.
It doesn’t mean that I think ISIS isn’t worth destroying.
So thank you for the obligatory idiot comment.
And thank you for not answering any of my questions. They seems pretty straightforward. Guess you just don’t have the time. Pity.
As a follow-up, I am a wealthy Druid and have no interest in airplanes. I do wish to purchase a large cruise ship and offer retirement services to my fellow Druids. If we pledge to forgo all alcohol consumption can we gain entry into your reduced insurance pool?
Dear Rand,
There are only two kinds of muslims, since the days of the prophet.
Minority muslims that observe taqiyya because they dare not risk asserting their desire to forcibly convert or annihilate kafir, or
Full blown dominant muslims in a Khilaffah.
The struggle of which one to do as a member of the Ummah is defined as Jihad.
The only solution is,,,
“You’re really going overboard with the enraged crap today aren’t you?”
Probably, sorry I was raged.
Interesting that you are expected to relax to dozens of people being killed for the crime of not being Muslim. Immediately after, you are told you should be relaxed because only about 10 people of your specific tribe (as determined by a guy bad at statistics) get killed like this a year, so what’s the problem. On the same day, we are told that when we capture these killers, we let them go and they kill some more of your tribe. Indeed, the latest attacks were committed by previously arrested convicts. But it is your rage, Wodun, that is taken to task. Personally Wodun, I think you are the sane person responding in a logical way.
Asked for comment, prez Obama said, “terrorism is our 1st priority… cha, cha, cha.”
The cha-cha is Cuban. Cuba was last week.
This week President Obama is in Argentina. The tango is from Argentina. The recent photos show him receiving a tango lesson.
Please, people, try and keep up . . .
As Iowahawk tweeted, that Tango was between Whiskey and Foxtrot.
As an Iraqi man commented shortly after Saddam was deposed by American forces, “Americans bring Democracy, Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?”
people, try and keep up…
But foxtrot is American… what’s that got to do with Obama?
Pass the whiskey.
LOL. Made my day…