A collection of videos answering questions about Islam, Muslims, & the relationship between "us" and "them". (including the idea that a good number of "them" are not loyal, patriotic Americans.)
After watching that Dutch video suggesting that Islam is a religion of hate bent on taking over the world (If you've not yet seen it, check almost any Rightwing blog for the link), another view...
read more | digg story
Brilliant gambit, sir
-
This account of the decision to cut Hey Seventeen loose is entertaining in
many respects, including BasedMikeLee assuring him that everything would be
ju...
4 hours ago
.gif)
12 comments:
Repsac3:
Here's some food for thought:
"There is widespread denial, across the political spectrum, of Islam’s threat to our civilization. The far left has become so consumed by its hatred of our culture that it has abandoned its traditional hostility towards religion in the face of the revival of one of the most barbaric and oppressive religious ideologies in history. Having assumed a policy of anti-anti-Islam, the left has made what Horowitz calls an Unholy Alliance with our enemy, defending it at every opportunity. The anti-rational nihilistic post-modern left is a heavy weight on the whole left side of the spectrum, drowning out any sane voice of moderation. Such fashionable academic nonsense has already corrupted popular politics."
See Liberty and Culture
Yeah, I'm familiar with the writings at "Liberty & Culture." My impression is that rather than the Kool-Aide, Jason is a victim of the gas Pipes. I think he's a racist, but that doesn't mean he's completely wrong... Like Wilders, he's advocates painting a window frame with a very, very wide brush, and not caring whether one will be able to see through the window, afterward.
I believe there are Islamic extremists. I don't believe that Islam is extremist.
Repsac3: Attacking someone as racist doesn't disprove that they're wrong. It only proves your own incoherence and ad hominems. Jason Pappas is not racist.
You CHOOSE TO DISCOUNT Jason's points, because they challenge your beliefs. Note you didn't even read my own post before using the same logic:
"Yes, there are dangerous radical Islamists who justify their actions by pointing to statements in the Koran, but to believe they are correct, and to therefore paint this as a struggle between the Islamic east & the Judeo-Christian west is to use far too large a brush, in my opinion."
You're confused between "Islamic" and Islamist." The latter IS THE GROUP alleged to have perverted Islam to destruction, nihilism, oppression, and universalism (eliminate non-Muslims).
My source: The Bouromands:
"As Western experts and commentators have wrestled with these questions, their intellectual disarray and bafflement in the face of radical Islamist (notice we do not say “Islamic”) terrorism have become painfully clear."
Others routinely argue that the religion's been hijacked, although the Koran does contain passages directing belivers to destroy non-believers. So, a pure follower of Islam, strictly following Koranic teachings, opposes the modernism of the West. This is certainly a major threat, as evidenced by the history of terror against the Western democracies.
Your support of these groups put you on the side of Islam and socialism against the United States and its allies.
Hi Donald, long time no see. Do you think Islam actually opposes the "modernism of the West," or do they simply oppose having this modernism imported into their countries?
Dinesh D'Souza writes that the real problem is that traditional Muslims feel threatened by the inexorable march of Western secularism into their societies. They become radicalized in an attempt to stop it. I find his argument convincing, though I suspect you will not.
Neo, you grow tedious...
Yes, I read that Bouromand quote, as well, though I cannot recall if it was at your site or his, just now... These quotes only prove that you folks run in packs and echo each other...
How does "attacking" someone as racist prove "incoherence and ad hominems"?
I chose to discount Jason's "points" because I disagree with them, just as you or he choose to discount mine, for much the same reason. There's nothing wrong with seeing things differently...
You're confused between "Islamic" and Islamist." The latter IS THE GROUP alleged to have perverted Islam to destruction, nihilism, oppression, and universalism (eliminate non-Muslims).
I'm sorry, Neo, but I am not so confused. If you reread what I wrote, I used both words in their proper places, and differentiated between the two.
What I said was, although IslamISTS claim that their hatred & violence is rooted in the Koran, they are perverting the Muslim faith in doing so, and for people (like Wilders, or Pappas) to make this a struggle between the Judeo-Christian west and the islamIC east, is wrong.
I think I was pretty clear.
Are you? In your first comment here, you quote Pappas, saying There is widespread denial, across the political spectrum, of Islam’s threat to our civilization." Now, while he didn't use either "-ist" or "-ic" in that sentence, which do you think most folks understand him to mean? (...and then you can explain why we're all wrong for thinkin' that...)
According to Reza Aslan, there are 10 million Muslims in the US, alone. They are the fastest growing religious minority in the US. In fact, there's more Muslims in the US than Jews. (Maybe we should look into having some Islamo-Christian values.)
The question I have is, what is your reaction to that? Because People like Pipes, Pappas, and Wilders have some ideas about what we should do about that, and it ain't pretty.
Your support of these groups put you on the side of Islam and socialism against the United States and its allies.
My support of who, exactly?
(Are you going to toss out this same bullshit line every time, without ever bothering to specify either the group or my support of them?)
Prove your case, or stop makin' silly accusations...
Getting testy, there, Repsac3!!??
You support any and all of the radicals arrayed against the U.S., and you've said so, in so many words. You agreed with Reverend Wright's comments for example, remember:
"Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about Wright [and his hate sermons]... In context, they really are not all that offensive..."
That's from BioBrain's post.
So, "GOD DAMN AMERICA!!"
Nope, not offensive at all.
"CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST!!"
Ditto.
"AMERICA IS THE NUMBER ONE KILLER IN THE WORLD!!"
Hey, you've got no problem with that.
"WE STARTED THE AIDS VIRUS!!"
Sing it, chile'!!
But I believe you, Repsac3. You're no radical. YOU'RE NO RADICAL AT ALL ... It's just, well, The Shift ! BRILLIANT!!!
You're next on the Nobel list, Reppy. Stockholm's got your number. Yo, Bono, bro ... was' up!!?
Hey, like you said, those Kos folks calling for gassing Lieberman: Just an aberration, right? But you don't denounce 'em, you defend it. The "peaceful" activists, no? Kos isn't really radical. Why should he have to monitor his own website for vile anti-Semitism? Go Kos! Yeah, progressives. I back you in your totalitarianism!! It's just a few commenters on your page. Should be welcomed and encouraged. Just a litle bit o' progressivism. F-YEAH!! No...YOU HAVE NO PROOF ... NO EVIDENCE. That damned, LIEBERMAN. MY DOG'S WORTH MY THAN THAT M-F-CKER, right?
Hey, the eco-terrorist don't back Gore, only "the movement." Remember that. They only said so, but you say they don't. Great analytical skills, Reppy!! What logic!! Except, Gore's a current Democratic Party superdelegate, so domestic terrorists couldn't possibly back the Democratic candidate, right? No link whatsoever. They only said they were looking to back mainstream candidates in the Democratic Party. Gore in fact!! No way the eco-freaks would back your man Obamessiah. No siree, boy!!
Hey, and you're right about that progressive thing. Hey, Tom Hayden must have some hackers posting his old Port Huron Statement up on a website with his name on it. He couldn't be endorsing that same left-wing radical revolutionary stuff today. Nope, that's too 1960s!! Nope, even when Hayden himself describes his own philosophy as a conscious effort to rescue revolutionary socialism from the Soviet fate!! Couldn't be radical though. I'm too dense for that, Reppy!!!
But nope! You're right, Repsac3! No radicals today. No siree, bob!
Hey, you're just one smart cookie there Reppy.
Did that book come in the mail yet? It really does say that " a radical may defined as a person who is extremely dissastified with the society as it is and therefore is impatient with less than extreme proposals for changing it. Hence, all radicals favor an immediate and fundamental change in the society. In other words, all radicals favor revolutionary change."
Nope, I must be crazy. Not clear at all, no sir! You're brilliant Repsac3!!
Aaaahhhhh!!!!
You're going to call me racist now, Reppy? That's your style. Yep, just broad-brush those analysts, and then deny it all. Hey, but at least you've got that "Islamist" thing down. You had me fooled, Reppy boy!! OPINION VERSUS FACTS!!! HOOAHH...F-YEAH!!!
repsac,
"In fact, there's more Muslims in the US than Jews."
prove it. every statistical evidence i checked declares just the oppisite
You support any and all of the radicals arrayed against the U.S., and you've said so, in so many words.
Nothing in the way of specific groups or words, just you reading what you wish to find into what I say... That's pretty much what I expected.
You agreed with Reverend Wright's comments for example, remember:
No, I agreed that in context, the two Bio specified (& I saw) are far less offensive than they appear on FoxNews.
Hey, like you said, those Kos folks calling for gassing Lieberman: Just an aberration, right?
Yes, Nero, an aberration... Do you really think I cannot go to a wingnut blog and find some ass threatening the life of a Democrat? And once I did, would I be correct to hold that whole site, every Con, or YOU responsible for the comment of one crazy rightwing ass? Is every Republican out seeking gay sex in bathrooms, just like Larry Craig? Do you all write suggestive letters to young boys, just like Mark Foley? The answer, of course, is NO... The blame for bad acts rest with the bad actor, not everyone in the same (political, social, religious, ???) group.
But you don't denounce 'em, you defend it.
If you believe that my pointing out that the blame should lie with that one commentor, rather than with everyone who ever visited the KOS site is "defending" the comment, you're simply deluded.
If you have any other evidence of my defending this comment, I urge you to produce it.
Why should he have to monitor his own website for vile anti-Semitism?
Some sites censor what their commentors say, some sites don't. Obviously you prefer sites that do.
I can't speak for KOS, but I'm fine with letting folks spew whatever bullshit they want, and then letting others reply to it. I trust that most people are smart enough to put the blame where it belongs, but there will always be a few who just like using that big, wide brush to tar everyone in sight... They too, are a part of the mix, and always shall be...
Tell me this, Nero... Are you responsible for the ideas of Mike Tuggle, et. al. on your blog, or is that somehow different?
Hey, the eco-terrorist don't back Gore, only "the movement."
That's what the article says, though you seem to have a problem understanding it... I posted the quote several times (with a link to the rest of the article, even. Folks can read it for themselves, and see whether it's linking ELF members or folks in the environmental movement to mainstream advocates like Al Gore. They don't need us to interpret it for them.
Hey, Tom Hayden must have some hackers posting his old Port Huron Statement up on a website with his name on it. He couldn't be endorsing that same left-wing radical revolutionary stuff today
Was that what I said, or was it that I asked you to provide the evidence of it being (or at least your thinkin' behind calling it) a "socialist manifesto"?
Nope, even when Hayden himself describes his own philosophy as a conscious effort to rescue revolutionary socialism from the Soviet fate!!
Can't find Hayden saying that, but perhaps you'll be so good as to cite your source.
You're going to call me racist now, Reppy?
Not for anything you've said in the message I'm replying to, but I do have some questions about your advocating the works of Wilders & Pappas (such as the ones I asked you in the message you were (supposedly) responding to... Should you ever get around to answering those questions, I'll let you know whether I believe you're espousing racist thought...
Yep, just broad-brush those analysts, and then deny it all.
Hear an accusation, mirror it back at the one who points it out...
You're getting predictable, Nero... (I know... You'll accuse me of being predictable in your next message, but there's little I can do...)
Perhaps you'd like to revisit the comments that one might've thought you'd be responding to...
How does "attacking" someone as racist prove "incoherence and ad hominems"?
In your first comment here, you quote Pappas, saying There is widespread denial, across the political spectrum, of Islam’s threat to our civilization." Now, while he didn't use either "-ist" or "-ic" in that sentence, which do you think most folks understand him to mean? (...and then you can explain why we're all wrong for thinkin' that...)
The question I have is, what is your reaction to that [the growing number of Muslims in the US]? Because People like Pipes, Pappas, and Wilders have some ideas about what we should do about that, and it ain't pretty.
prove it. every statistical evidence i checked declares just the oppisite
I can find no proof, either way... But the claim was made by Reza Aslan, in the first video to which this post links. He mentions the most recent census, but I cannot find the same info...
Can you supply the link(s) for the info you found suggesting the opposite, because I've not found anything saying he was wrong, either...
Yeah, it seems Reza is incorrect in his claim about there being more Muslims than Jews in the US, according to the most recent census info, anyway...
Religious identification in the U.S. (Scroll to page 67 for "Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population, 1991 - 2001")
If I get a chance to check out his book, I'll see if he cites his source for that claim...
given that he gave false information on something so easily confirmable, i'd be very sceptical about any other claims he made. its not like he couldn't have spent a few minutes looking in up himself. it took me all of five minutes.
like you said: i guess people will hear what they want to hear,,well
the same goes about seeing and thinking.
they will see and think what they want to see and think.
How do we know he didn't just "misspeak," like McCain did in Jordan? (And would you really blow off anyone & everyone who's ever made any misstatement as easily as you seem to be doing here, without regard for their education or experience with the subject matter?)
What else has Reza Aslan said, Griper, of which you are now suspicious?
Post a Comment