web analytics

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All

Evidently the talking points are out, since I have now heard multiple individuals, especially those of Democrat persuasion, opine that ‘We have been bombing Iraq for 20 years so obviously that doesn’t work!’ Under their breath, they take a jab at GW Bush… as if he was president 20 years ago.  But it is not exclusively a liberal argument.  Another commentator made a similar statement, calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has been involved militarily in the region for decades, under both Republican and Democrat presidents.

To some degree, the point can be conceded, and the question can be asked, “Just how DO we stop attacks like the ones we saw in Paris?”

The answer is really pretty obvious.  The problem is that no one likes the answer.

First consider the fact that these sorts of events are relatively new, originating roughly with establishment of Israel after WW2.  Much can be said about how this all went down, but I would like to highlight the fact that it was the international community that greenlighted that, and yet afterwards left Israel on its own.  Worse, it allowed the ‘refugees’ to stay in the region, throwing up roadblocks against Israel re-locating them.  We continue to reap the results of this.

Now consider the fact that Germany and Japan are as civilized as any other these days, and pose no military threat to any other nation.

What is the difference between these two instances?  Germany and Japan were totally annihilated in World War 2, whereas Israel/Palestine is a situation where things have been allowed to fester for decades.  Intentionally so, by regimes that could easily have absorbed the ‘refugees.’  Accidentally so, by the international community that created the ‘refugees’ in the first place, but then did not have the will to just finish the job.

Really, a lot of the history of the 20th century can be broken down into these two basic categories:  problems eradicated completely by decisive, thorough action, and problems created by not completely addressing the problems.

The same is certainly the case with Iraq and the vicinity.  After the first Gulf War, Hussein was allowed to live.  He used his time to massacre countless freedom-loving people inside his country who rose up thinking that the international community would back them.  Boy were they wrong!

If you wonder why it is that there does not seem to be any significant resistance to ISIS and other Islamic militants, its because the people who were of the sort to stand up and fight were mercilessly destroyed by Hussein as the US and UN stood by and watched.  That is, they are dead.  And the children they would have had and brought up in a liberty-loving ideology never came into existence.

Hussein continued to build up his arsenal and continued to pose a menace, buying off UN bureaucrats (Oil for Food) to impoverish his own people while strengthening his own position.  After he was implicated in 9-11 and an attack seemed imminent, he quietly moved his WMDs (which we are told by liberals never existed) to Syria.   Assad has now actually used them, crossing Obama’s vaunted red line.

These are important factors, but I wish to call attention to the fact that Iraq is indeed still a nightmare, left in a mess by George Bush and Barack Obama, both.  But if GW Bush is to be faulted, it is not for going into Iraq, but by not absolutely finishing the job.

“We’ve been bombing Iraq for twenty years!” blah blah blah.  We only bombed Germany and Japan for five years, and both countries had exponentially superior armament, organization, resources, etc, than Iraq, Syria, Iran, or a ragtag band of Islamic militants.  And yet, we’ve had trouble with the latter, while Germany and Japan are happily civilized and helpful today.

The big mistake–and that is an understatement–falls from the supposedly humanitarian ‘restraint’ that the international community is always calling for.  Now, whether it is because the international community is playing an angle, such as trying to make money hand over fist via ‘Oil for Food’ shenanigans, while duping scores of liberals, or because they legitimately want to be compassionate, the very basic question that should be asked is whether or not this ‘humanitarianism’ has ever actually brought us peace… or just years and years of more bloodshed.

And the answer is that these ‘humanitarian’ efforts have only resulted in getting lots of people killed.

Now, the ‘humanitarian’ insists that they want to help people, and prevent people from getting killed, but there is this little thing called ‘reality’ that proves that their good intentions amount to nothing.  After all, killing ONE man, Saddam Hussein, back in 1991, would have spared the lives of tens of thousands almost immediately and a half a million children supposedly killed by international sanctions on Iraq.  But hey, you just keep calling yourself the one who really cares about people, ok, champ?

Of course, the story goes on from there.  Hussein made himself a huge target after 9-11 (which also probably would not have happened if we had dealt with Iraq completely after the first Gulf War), prompting yet another invasion which yet again came to a conclusion that was nothing like the conclusion reached at the end of Germany and Japan.

And here we are today.

Just to spell out the difference for those in Rio Linda, in the case of Germany and Japan, full out war resulting in complete annihilation of the enemy and obtaining an unconditional surrender has brought us decades and decades of peace (vis a vis these two countries) that persists to this day.  Not committing fully to the establishment of Israel, or finishing up Iraq, or destroying the regime in North Korea, or… I mean, the list is long, here… has led to countless murders, imprisonments, slavery, torture… you name it.  The evidence of history is that so-called ‘humanitarians’ are complicit in decades of bloodshed and tyranny.  Well done!

Regardless of whether or not you think Israel should have been established or if you think we should have gone into Iraq the first time, or the second time, once the action is initiated, history shows that the absolute worst thing you can do is stay your hand until complete and utter surrender has been obtained by the enemy.

This is truth.

This is reality.

This is the way the world really works.

Sorry, but it is.

Now, bearing all this in mind, let us consider the present situation.

What we have to do here, whether we like it or not, is fix the problem once and for all.  The examples of Germany and Japan show that, in fact, it can be done.  It need not linger on for decade after decade, such as in the case of Israel and Palestine, or in the case of Iraq and so on.

Does it mean continued ‘bombing’?

It’s not quite as simple as that, but it is as simple as coming to grips with the real nature of the enemy and then acting accordingly.

Now, there is something very interesting about the difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS.  In the former, there was, ostensibly, only the goal of ridding infidels from the region.  (Anyone who has studied the Wahhabi sect knows that the word ‘ostensibly’ is well-chosen.)  In the latter case, there is the more explicit goal of conquering the whole world and establishing another Caliphate.  Holding territory and expanding into new regions is part of the program.

But of course, this latter point is part and parcel with the religion of Islam as a whole, which is the point I’m driving at.

This global agenda has similarities with the global agenda of Germany and Japan in World War 2, the global agenda of 20th century communism, and even the global agenda of contemporary secular humanism, although luckily for us, this last group temporarily is manned by ‘humanitarians.’  The ‘global’ aspect is what made these other regimes the clear and present danger that they represent today, as opposed, say, to what we see in North Korea.   North Korea is only ‘communist’ by appearances.  For all practical purposes, its really just the personal plaything of the Kim family.  They are a menace to their immediate neighbors, but is otherwise content to be left alone.

ISIS, and Islam more generally, is characterized by a desire to conquer the whole world.  Which means that, unchecked, they will come for you.

The ‘humanitarians’ would have us believe that Islamic militants are goaded along by poverty, or colonial imperialism, or what not.  These are only pretexts for violence, and the Islamicists use the ‘humanitarian’ arguments as shields behind which to move into action.  This is precisely what is happening in the current ‘refugee’ crisis in Europe.  Islamicists enjoy using the good intentions of others against them.  Speaking amongst themselves, however, both today and in centuries past, their objective is perfectly plain:  subjugating the planet for Allah.

Ultimately, then, the battle to end the threat of Islamicism means defeating Allah, just as defeating Germany and the Nazi movement meant exterminating Hitler and defeating Japan meant humiliating the Japanese god, Hirohito.   Compare and contrast with leaving Hussein alive after the first Gulf War, and looking to Germany and Japan today, versus Iraq and the middle east today.

You see, from the Muslim point of view, Allah’s will will be done.

The false god must be brought down.

It is akin to the fall of Pharaoh, in the book of Exodus, who likewise thought himself a god, and had to be revealed as a false god before the grip on the Israelites could be released.

This has to be a priority consideration for any attempt to really end the threat of Islamicism in the way that Nazism was ended, but of course this means getting into areas that a lot of people are loathe to do.  You know, liberals and even a few conservatives like to think about fighting Islamicism through ‘economic’ means, and what they really are doing is trying to find a ‘secular’ solution to what is really a pernicious ideology, enmeshed in theological and philosophical aspects.   You cannot end Islamicism without effectively proving to Muslims that their god is toothless.  Mohamed spread Islam with the sword and proved his case by pointing to his success.  Only by reversing the process can he be overturned.

But there is no way that process can be overturned unless the people who wish to do the overturning have the courage of their convictions.

And for that, you actually have to have convictions.

If there is anything about contemporary society in the U.S. and abroad that is clear, it is that people are so ‘open-minded’ that they have trouble making up their mind about anything.  They certainly never reach the level of confidence necessary to act.  It’s all, “What’s true for me may not be true for you… and that’s OK.”  The Islamicists love this, because they begin and end their day with, “What’s true for me… is true.”  It’s simple and straight-forward and the stuff of action.  “What’s true for me may not be true for you” means perpetual inaction.

In order to eventually take action, one has to actually come to certain conclusions and believe that one has good reason for taking action.

It is this ideological ‘certainty’ that facilitated the defeat of Germany and Japan.

Some think that the problem is ‘certainty’ itself.  They think that if only everyone was uncertain, no one would do anything untoward.  But the perpetually ‘uncertain’ person is only prey to the ‘certain’ person.  No ‘certain’ person was ever defeated or defanged by ‘uncertain’ people.  No, it takes ideologically ‘certain’ people to defend the ‘uncertain’ ones.  Just as the nation of pacifists only exists because other nations are willing to do violence on their behalf, contemporary ‘humanitarians’ are only able to spew their relativism because people more in tune with actual reality go out and risk their lives.

These ‘humanitarians’, and the relativistic nature of contemporary society itself, is fueling the Islamic bloodshed.  Not only is it refusing to take action, but it stands in the way and obstructs people from taking the necessary actions.

These actions include equipping themselves and their own communities with a more robust ideology than their own, in order to obtain the kind of reasonable certainty that can rise and defeat Islamicism.

To sum up, in order to end Islamicism you need to:

1. Come to terms with the fact that Islamicism is only going to be defeated by humiliating Allah by completely annihilating any and all who do war in his name.

2. Come to terms with the fact that it is proper and right to do so, and not doing so will actually, in the long term, result in thousands, if not millions more dead.

3.  Come to terms with the fact that one cannot remain uncertain forever–one has to come to certain conclusions that they believe are reasonable and true and enforceable.

Heck, these days, I would settle for just being reasonably certain that ‘self-preservation’ is a valid principle.  But, given the conduct of Europeans and American liberals, it seems that they really are unsure about whether or not they are allowed to defend themselves.

4.  Obtaining the right kind of certainty means coming to grips with the fact that there is much more truth in certain theological and philosophical systems than people are currently comfortable with.

To put it bluntly, secular humanism simply does not correspond to the way the world really is, whereas Christianity does.

I am not calling for a war in the name of Christianity, here.  I am pointing out that secular humanism and its fangless ‘humanitarianism’ only has merit at all because it has borrowed capital from a Christian worldview–the very one that drove the United States, Canada, England, and Australia to batter Germany and Japan into utter submission.  There are derivative aspects of the Christian worldview that, like it or not, are the only firm foundation for taking action against evil regimes or ideologies.

To begin with, the Christian worldview can speak about ‘evil’ as if it was a real thing, not the simpering and insipid weak-kneed descriptions of terrorist incidents as if they were unfortunate expressions of misunderstood individuals who really just need a hug.

But it is Christianity that is under relentless attack in the West, rather than the Islamicists.  Why?  Well, Christians are an easier mark for simpering children.  Christianity has a reputation for not endorsing every sexual behavior under the sun, and that’s not cool, but they won’t cut off your head.  You gotta be careful with the Muslims, ya know?

And therein lies the problem… and the solution.

Islamicism must be completely defeated, while there is still time, but only the Christian worldview is manly enough to do the job.

If you’re not ok with that (and I don’t expect many to be ok with it) I totally understand.  No, really, I do.  Just get ready for the Caliphate to set up shop in your own town sometime in the perhaps not-too-distant future, because, from where I sit, there is nothing else on tap that can, or will, stop the Islamicists from doing their worst.  Or best, as they see it.

The exception, ironically, appears to be Russia.

But not, I think, because it is a secular state.

Share

35 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Dannyboy on November 17, 2015 at 10:33 am

    That was an interesting read. I agree that the question of how to stop attacks like the massacre in Paris is a pressing one, although certainly not the only one that should concern us. How do we deal effectively with conflicts like the one which currently exists in Syria, is another possibly linked question. These are important things to consider.

    I think you take risks with the Germany/Japan analogy when it comes to ISIS. There is a big difference between fighting a nation state and fighting a diffuse group of ideological extremists, and the ways that you best defeat them will be correspondingly varied. Raining deadly violence upon them is a tempting option, but may also strengthen them – both locally, as civilian casualties swell the ranks with bereaved and justifiably-angry relatives, and internationally, through the perception that the West is at war with Islam. That second point is particularly relevant here since it appears to be your stated aim.

    Exactly how involved ISIS were in the planning and execution of the Paris attack is not yet clear. All of the attackers thus far identified as I write have been of European birth. A Syrian passport found at the scene quickly turned out to be a fake, suggesting that the jihadi attackers wished to stoke a backlash against refugees even further by implicating them. This fits very nicely with the prevailing analysis of ISIS divide-and-conquer tactics – Western hostility against refugees being a recruiting bonanza for them if it can be further increased.

    Your categorisation of the current “”refugee”” crisis (that’s your inverted commas in inverted commas, by the way) as being an Islamist infiltration of Europe is horribly misguided. More than half of the people currently dying as they try to cross the Mediterranean are women and children (all secret Jihadis, no doubt) and statements released by ISIS in Syria disparage them as traitors and attempt to discourage others from leaving. Be careful not to walk down the ideological road that muslim fundamentalists want to steer you towards. People fleeing from ISIS (and Assad) are potential allies in this fight, UNLESS we treat them in the shameful (and, dare I say it, un-Christian) way that you and basically every conservative governor in the US wants to. What a waste of goodwill and talent!

    Regarding your plan to defeat Islamism by “humiliating Allah”, I can hardly think of anything more calculated to actually cause a clash of entire civilisations, rather than a clash currently orchestrated by relatively small factions within two civilisations. Returning to your Japan analogy, you might reflect on WHY Hirohito was allowed to stay on as emperor after the military defeat of his country. It was felt that the removal of the emperor might cause the fanatically loyal Japanese to fight to the last man, both soldiers and citizenry. Perhaps there’s a useful lesson there after all.

    Muslim “humiliation” is nothing new. The Islamic world has largely stagnated over the last few hundred years, while the West has outpaced them technologically and culturally. This might have created a feeling of grievance in any culture, but in one with a strong religious tradition which gave the unjustified expectation of supremacy, it was made worse. Secular and democratic Arab political movements largely fell to covert or overt Western interventions, because dictators and fundamentalists are (or at least used to be) so much easier to control. Now the most obvious outlet for the historical humiliation of Muslims has swung back to being an extreme religious one. And your solution is further humiliation. Not a smart idea.

    I think it goes without saying that ISIS have to be militarily defeated, but they also have to be ideologically defeated, and your proposed solution would only flock millions more to their banner. I am thoroughly opposed to the teachings of Islam, and I think the people who claim that ISIS has nothing to do with those teachings, and/or are not Muslims, are deceiving themselves. However, it has to be recognised that perceived attacks on Islam increase the identity of young marginalised men with the more extreme elements of their faith. We need to welcome refugees from the barbarity of ISIS, and encourage & support Muslim reformers (Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, etc), NOT further feed the narrative which both Bin Laden and ISIS wanted to entrench that the West is at war with Islam.

    So, “decisive and thorough” action is only any good if it is calibrated not to make the problem worse. I think your solution would make it much worse, but I’d be interested to hear your responses and discuss it more.

    “…one cannot remain uncertain forever–one has to come to certain conclusions that they believe are reasonable and true and enforceable.”

    I agree with this.

    • End Bringer on November 17, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    We see you clearly prove SJ’s assessment on the secular humanitarian hand-wringing, and liberal ‘uncertainty’, that has greatly aided the continuation of Middle Eastern crisis after crisis over the years, DB.

    Yes, one can agree the situation in the Middle East is not quite the same as Germany and Japan was in WW2. They had a more defining power structure, while Islamists tend to be more mercurial for one thing. But one has to note that’s only in methodology of approach. One also has to remember that AFTER WW2, the US stuck around for years after and became a guiding power that helped both nations rebuild and enjoy independence to this day. Defeating powers like ISIS militarily is only half as important as committing to staying, which is mostly why we see these situations over and over again after Western nations pull up camp and abandon the region only for the next crisis to pop up.

    But as noted that takes conviction and certainty, which is extremely lacking by secular humanitarians and liberals (unless the issue is who can legitimately boink with who/what).

    You seem to be hung up on how we treat the current refugee crisis, and express the same song and dance about how too extreme actions will just result in “hurt feelings,” galvanize the radicals (interesting to note Hirohito had to deal with a coup by his own hardliners even if he was left in a severely diminished government role) and further recruitment to ISIS’ side; as if the current dithering we see by Western powers (especially by Obama) has been any hindrance at all to terrorist attacks, as well as ISIS gaining support, and achieving their goals, which in turn gains them more support.

    Unfortunately your bleeding-heart over the immediate situation and consequences, causes you to miss how SJ lays out how we need to prevent these situations from occurring another half-dozen times for future generations that see millions of people dead as a result, Middle Easterners as well as Westerners.

    The truth is even if all your concerns about ‘millions flocking to the banner’ for taking a stronger aggressive approach against Islam as practiced in the Middle East are valid, we just might have to grit our teeth and bare it.

    The question is are you more concerned about immediate consequences or are you more concerned with a long term solution? Because as we’ve seen over the past decades, half-hearted measures end up prolonging the problem so that more suffer and die in the long-term than results in any amount of short-term fall-out.

    And as SJ said, the only real permanent solution is one that runs counter to secular humanitarianism.

    • Anthony on November 17, 2015 at 2:16 pm
      Author

    Thank you, EB.

    Very well said.

    Precisely right.

    To DH:

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Here are some responses, although EB’s can stand in at some points.

    “There is a big difference between fighting a nation state and fighting a diffuse group of ideological extremists,”

    Yes, I believe I called attention to this, myself, did I not?

    I wrote: “Holding territory and expanding into new regions is part of the program [for ISIS].”

    ISIS is well on their way to being a nation state, and if not for the fact that Assad is a bad ass, it probably already would be.

    But you are not thinking ahead far enough. There was a time, for example, when China was infested with a ‘diffuse group of ideological extremists.’ Eventually, the U.S. recognized their occupation as legitimate. The amount of tyranny and bloodshed resulting from allowing the ‘diffused’ group to take power is off the charts. I refer to both their rise to power and their actions once they had power.

    ISIS is more clear about their intent to obtain nation status, and has in fact acquired territory to that end. But they are only being a little bit more honest than Islamicists in general, who pretty uniformly would like to see the whole world under Sharia.

    “through the perception that the West is at war with Islam. That second point is particularly relevant here since it appears to be your stated aim.”

    Islam is already at war with the West.

    The idea that declaring war right back on them would only create new recruits is a myth made by liberals that Islamicists are pleased to mobilize behind. It is a stated aim of the Koran to bring the whole world under Muslim dominion. It has nothing to do with injustice, or poverty, or any of the other ‘secular’ rationales you think explains Islamicism. It is a philosophical, ideological, and theological position that drives them. The rest is just pretext.

    Stop falling for the pretext, my friend.

    “Your categorisation of the current “”refugee”” crisis (that’s your inverted commas in inverted commas, by the way) as being an Islamist infiltration of Europe is horribly misguided.”

    Well, you need to read more broadly, then. Over the last 20 years, I have seen many comments out of Islamicists to the effect that one of their most potent strategies is to ‘out-breed’ the West. Seems to be working!

    “People fleeing from ISIS (and Assad) are potential allies in this fight, UNLESS we treat them in the shameful (and, dare I say it, un-Christian) way that you and basically every conservative governor in the US wants to. What a waste of goodwill and talent!”

    It is not ‘Christian’ to knowingly put 300 million people at risk, sorry.

    The issue about ‘refugees’ is far more complicated than you present it. I note with interest that the US has saw fit to bring in countless Muslims, and of course, gays, claiming oppression and seeking asylum, but when I tried to bring in a Christian acquaintance from Egypt during the time when there really was deadly peril, the job proved to be impossible… in large part because of the sheer number of other Christians doing the same thing.

    Now, for some strange reason, the ‘sheer numbers’ of people involved doesn’t matter. The only difference seems to be the overall composition of the the ‘sheer numbers.’ They were predominantly Christian, and now they are predominantly Muslim.

    To say that this raises deep suspicion about what is going on is to put it mildly.

    On top of that, there is the simple fact that many of us have no confidence whatsoever that the Obama administration–even if it was not being purposely malevolent–could actually effectively screen out the bad seed from the good seed. Every week we are regaled with yet another illegal immigrant who, after being deported several times, has managed to kill, maim, rape, etc. If the Obama administration cannot even manage affairs on our own border, it strikes us as asinine to believe they could vet people from the Middle East.

    A more capable administration that had proved that it was competent and took the rule of law seriously probably would not face this resistance.

    Remember, too, that ISIS is largely Obama’s creation. He raised them up and equipped them in his bid to extend the Arab Spring into Syria. (Probably, the death of our ambassador is linked to this somehow.) He made a mess of the middle east that has resulted in untold bloodshed and suffering. And he has doubled-down on the policies, and hopes to alleviate his mess by importing it here. Yea. No confidence in this dude at all.

    All this goes into the use of quotes around the word ‘refugees.’

    I am very much in support of good and honorable people coming to the U.S., provided it is through legal avenues and that the interests of the people receiving those people are taken into account reliably and robustly. For example, I don’t think we should have to worry that the people we are bringing in are actually going to kill me or my fellow citizens. How extreme of me!

    And truth be told, I’ve always been a big fan of siphoning the truly worthy people from the rest of the world… the hard workers, the innovative, the asylum-seekers who have a real understanding about the evils of what they are fleeing from… More for us, less for you. 🙂

    “Regarding your plan to defeat Islamism by “humiliating Allah”, I can hardly think of anything more calculated to actually cause a clash of entire civilisations, rather than a clash currently orchestrated by relatively small factions within two civilisations.”

    See above. This is a smokescreen. The clash is already under way.

    This is the kind of talk liberals were chattering about in, say, 1925. In the meantime, the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets all were pressing forward for their own version of global domination. They didn’t even hide it.

    I am willing to allow that there could have been ways to head off the bloodshed to follow in the 20th century, but allowing toxic ideologies to fester until they couldn’t be avoided has been proven to be a complete failure. Your only hope for avoiding “a clash of entire civilizations” is to become a conservative and get the rest of the West to join you. I’m not saying it will work–like I said, Islam has already declared war on the world, and many bitter roots have already spread near and far. But liberal approaches will absolutely ensure it comes, and it will be yet another nightmarish event in World History.

    “I think it goes without saying that ISIS have to be militarily defeated,”

    Yes.

    “but they also have to be ideologically defeated,”

    Yes.

    I’m pretty sure I made this point pretty vividly, myself. Why are you only focusing on the military aspect?

    “and your proposed solution would only flock millions more to their banner.”

    Smokescreen. They are already to ‘their banner.’ Your liberal eyes just can’t see it. Or won’t.

    I think it is YOUR perspective that is going to make things much worse.

    The main difference is that I have thousands of years of history on my side and a clear-eyed understanding of human nature as it really is, while you have 60 years of failed ‘humanitarian’ philosophies to appeal to. These philosophies were powerless to prevent Communism from spreading throughout the globe, incapable of stopping what happened in Rwanda, and were exploited by your own fellow travelers in Iraq (the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal.) Honestly, its a miracle the globe isn’t a nuclear wasteland right now.

    Maybe Kissinger did something right? 😉

    • Dannyboy on November 17, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    The main point here seems to be whether all of Islam is at war with the West, or just some factions of Islam. You both appear to think it’s the former, and berate me for failing to see the necessity of decisive action which would probably lead to the deaths of millions of people, in order to save the lives of millions of people. Tempting!

    As mentioned, I am not a fan of Islam, but there are very clearly some interpretations of Islamic scripture which make their devotees perfectly placid and civilised members of society. Overtly attacking their entire religion, as you two seem to (insanely) want to do, would push more and more people to embrace interpretations which really would make them dangerous to the rest of us. I am more in favour of supporting and encouraging the moderate interpretations, so I’ll just have to hope that the sound of rattling sabres emanating from your respective armchairs doesn’t get in the way of that.

    “ISIS is well on their way to being a nation state, and if not for the fact that Assad is a bad ass, it probably already would be.”

    The second part of that statement sounded almost complimentary. I do so very much hope that you did not mean it that way. The first part is not at all clear, but the important thing is that at the moment, they are not one. I am all in favour of action taken to maintain this situation, but that does not include declaring war on Islam in general.

    “The idea that declaring war right back on them would only create new recruits is a myth made by liberals that Islamicists are pleased to mobilize behind.”

    No, it’s a very reasonable conclusion based upon the stated motives of a whole host of jihadis over the last decade, plus a very basic understanding of established sociological principles & effects. Feelings of group persecution, of being under attack, are extremely reliable motivators of increased devotion and identification with your in-group. Why do you think it works so well as a narrative for you poor persecuted US Christians? 🙂

    “It is a stated aim of the Koran to bring the whole world under Muslim dominion. It has nothing to do with injustice, or poverty, or any of the other ‘secular’ rationales you think explains Islamicism. It is a philosophical, ideological, and theological position that drives them. The rest is just pretext.”

    Speaking of ISIS specifically, yes I agree. But over a billion Muslims worldwide seem to think that bringing the world under Islamic domination is not their number one priority. Some of the tenets of Islam are deeply problematic to me, as are some of the tenets of Christianity. Followers of Islam pose the greatest threat at present, although, gotta say it, your master plan – if enacted – would put you (and therefore ALL Christians, by your logic) into uncontested first place for being the greatest threat to the rest of us.

    As for the refugee situation, I can’t even. People are trying to escape from a war zone. Thousands have died trying. Most are women and children. Those are just the facts. It’s a shame that you don’t seem able to see them.

    “I am very much in support of good and honorable people coming to the U.S….”

    You mean Christians?

    “I don’t think we should have to worry that the people we are bringing in are actually going to kill me or my fellow citizens. How extreme of me!”

    Given that it is based upon a categorisation of ALL members of a religion (women and children included) as evil & dangerous, I’d say so. It’s very Old Testament of you though. Perhaps we should slaughter them all down to the smallest infant, leaving only the virgin girls alive for unspecified purposes? Nudge nudge, wink wink.

    “They are already to ‘their banner.’ Your liberal eyes just can’t see it. Or won’t.”

    I know and have worked with quite a lot of Muslims. It’s amazing I’m still alive.

    “I think it is YOUR perspective that is going to make things much worse.”

    Of course you do. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    “The main difference is that I have thousands of years of history on my side and a clear-eyed understanding of human nature as it really is…”

    I don’t know whether it’s the self-effacing humility of this statement or the fact that you can say it with (I assume) a straight face while being wrong about so terribly many things that made me guffaw with laughter. It’s definitely one of the two. 🙂

    “…while you have 60 years of failed ‘humanitarian’ philosophies to appeal to. These philosophies were powerless to prevent Communism from spreading throughout the globe, incapable of stopping what happened in Rwanda”

    Rwanda? You mean THE MOST CHRISTIAN COUNTRY IN AFRICA? That Rwanda? Yeah, shame on secular humanism for that one!

    Peace out

    • Dannyboy on November 18, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Here’s a few of the things you’re wrong about:

    1) ISIS thrives off the current bombing campaign, which allows it to present itself as the true guardian of Islam against the “Crusader West”. And here you are, obligingly strapping on your Pope Urban II outfit. Talk about falling for the pretext.

    2) A large majority of the Muslim world dislike and do not support ISIS – check out this recent Pew poll: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

    Now, are the numbers registering a favourable opinion pretty horrifying, especially in Pakistan? Yes, they absolutely are. But in no other country is that sentiment in the majority, so perhaps you should pick your enemy with a little more specificity before you contribute to making the problem worse.

    Spreading Islamophobia (a term which, like anti-semitism, can be misused but does nevertheless refer to a real phenomenon) suits ISIS perfectly, because it helps to attract more recruits from recent diasporas and established migrant communities. This is not a liberal fiction, it is well-documented fact.

    ISIS is not the primary cancer, it’s a secondary. A very aggressive and in some ways successful metastasis of a transnational online extremist Islamist movement WHICH YOU CANNOT BOMB. It consists of loosely connected pockets of parochial Golden-Age-of-Islam nostalgia, mixed with anger at how little of what Islam promises has actually come to pass, and “humiliating Allah”, as you grandiosely advocate, can ONLY make that worse. You don’t defeat small ideological social movements with heavy-handed military interventions which dramatically increase their recruitment potential. That’s like trying to make a man-eating tiger go away by feeding it children.

    Far Right Christian & nationalist extremist movements also have benefitted from the internet age in this way, incidentally. And guess what, you won’t close down Stormfront.org by bombing Christian Identity militia compounds in Idaho either.

    “Over the last 20 years, I have seen many comments out of Islamicists to the effect that one of their most potent strategies is to ‘out-breed’ the West. Seems to be working!”

    You see my friend, this is one of those associative leaps that you often make in support of your preexisting beliefs which do not do justice to your intellect. Islamist intentions to outbreed Europeans have no connection to the intentions of Syrian Muslims fleeing for their lives from despotic and jihadi violence, unless you have any non-speculative evidence to the contrary. Do you have any such evidence?

    • Dannyboy on November 18, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    By the way, the Russian intervention – which you appear to admire – has mainly hit non-ISIS targets. Damaging the relatively-moderate anti-Assad rebels who are threatening Russia’s main trading partner in the region. ISIS will use this intervention against Russia nonetheless, to recruit among the already marginalised and oppressed 16million muslims living in the occupied Caucuses. Putin shoots himself in the foot by trying to look tough and to one-up Obama. Put in charge, you two would apparently make the same mistake.

    • Anthony on November 23, 2015 at 8:26 am
      Author

    Phew. There are so many things you are wrong about here I really can’t even begin. I don’t have time, I’m afraid.

    I do find it funny that, as per the usual, you appropriate to yourself the right to interpret religious texts authoritatively, notwithstanding the way that the religious themselves interpret it. Eg, in my case, calling me ‘unchristian.’ In the larger case, trying to explain away Koranic verses which just cannot be explained away.

    This brings us to some very basic logic and some very basic literacy.

    You see, not a few of those passages are so explicit that there really can be no doubt as to what the ‘good’ Muslim’s goal should be and what their conduct towards unbelievers should be.

    A person who claims to be a Muslim nonetheless who rejects such explicit Koranic teachings sorely tests the proposition that they are Muslims at all.

    Indeed, it is precisely on this reasoning that Muslims have been known to slaughter their own.

    Supposing that only 10% of the 1 billion self-identifying Muslims are willing to boldly go whole hog with the Koran, that is still a solid 100,000,000 people.

    (Here comes the basic literacy part)

    These 100,000,000 people are completely within their rights as good Muslims, because the passages in question are really, really, really, really, clear. So clear, even a liberal should be able to get their gist.

    Some of these are cataloged here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

    Each passage seems to be linked to another page with 3 separate translations of the same passage.

    How interesting to me that you, in your great liberal hubris, see fit to produce lists of passages from the Christian bible that you think amount to a justification for violence against unbelievers or the establishment of a Christian kingdom–and yet no Christians are out there blowing up cafes, shooting up theaters, rounding up nonbelievers and cutting off their heads, flying planes into buildings, etc, but when it comes to the people who actually ARE doing such things, you have the nerve to say, “but there are very clearly some interpretations of Islamic scripture which make their devotees perfectly placid and civilised members of society.”

    So, the people you think SHOULD be subjugating the world, aren’t, and the people you think shouldn’t be, ARE.

    This suggests almost a clean break from reality.

    It’s amazing you live through the day. 😉

    In my next comment I have a more important point to make.

    • Anthony on November 23, 2015 at 9:18 am
      Author

    Your whole line of response indicates a perception of my comments that are not accurate. I will allow that you have some warrant for your misunderstanding, but there are things in my original post that should have curtailed your responses, anyway.

    For example, you say, “A very aggressive and in some ways successful metastasis of a transnational online extremist Islamist movement WHICH YOU CANNOT BOMB.”

    When I explicitly said,

    Does it mean continued ‘bombing’?

    It’s not quite as simple as that, but it is as simple as coming to grips with the real nature of the enemy and then acting accordingly.

    Since you failed to respond to what I actually wrote the first time, its hard to see how it would fare better a second time, so consider this comment more for the lurker than for you.

    Your problem is that you think I’m calling for the immediate begin of World War III. You think that when I say ‘humiliate Allah’ I mean only with guns, and forthwith.

    No. I repeat: “It’s not quite as simple as that.”

    And the reason it is not as simple as that, is because there are ideological and theological components to this matter that are much more critical than currently taken into account.

    One should be militarily equipped, indeed. You concede this–you even say, “I think it goes without saying that ISIS have to be militarily defeated,”

    But then you go on to say,

    “but they also have to be ideologically defeated,”

    As if that wasn’t actually my point. You go on immediately to say,

    “and your proposed solution would only flock millions more to their banner.”

    Somehow, in your brain, MY point: “I think it goes without saying that ISIS have to be militarily defeated, but they also have to be ideologically defeated” becomes YOUR point, and my alleged ‘proposed solution’ becomes open warfare.

    It is befuddling.

    But it is instructive, because it raises a distinction between two important ideas that theoretically (since you abrogated to yourself my own argument) you accept as legitimate: one must be militarily equipped but one must also be ideologically equipped.

    Hence, my comment in the original post:

    4. Obtaining the right kind of certainty means coming to grips with the fact that there is much more truth in certain theological and philosophical systems than people are currently comfortable with.

    To put it bluntly, secular humanism simply does not correspond to the way the world really is, whereas Christianity does.

    I am not calling for a war in the name of Christianity, here. I am pointing out that secular humanism and its fangless ‘humanitarianism’ only has merit at all because it has borrowed capital from a Christian worldview–the very one that drove the United States, Canada, England, and Australia to batter Germany and Japan into utter submission. There are derivative aspects of the Christian worldview that, like it or not, are the only firm foundation for taking action against evil regimes or ideologies.

    To begin with, the Christian worldview can speak about ‘evil’ as if it was a real thing, not the simpering and insipid weak-kneed descriptions of terrorist incidents as if they were unfortunate expressions of misunderstood individuals who really just need a hug.

    To be ideologically equipped means, to begin with, “coming to grips with the real nature of the enemy.”

    The interesting thing about ideologies that people like myself understand but people like you never seem to is that people don’t just wake up in the morning and, on a whim, say, “I’m going to go shoot up a cafe!” Ideologies work themselves out over time: decades, centuries, and even further.

    The merits of Western Civilization that you enjoy so much were, for better or worse, brought to you by a thorough saturation of those regions in people who had the Christian worldview. Western Civ was not born in a day, week, month, year, decade, or even century.

    Islamic Civ has been developing for almost as long.

    Try to lift your eyes from today’s daily propaganda (eg, the “Syrian Refugee Crisis”) to the long view, spanning 1,000 years, plus.

    How do the countries and regions that have been saturated with Muslims look compared to the regions that had been saturated with Christians?

    Would you rather live in France, or Pakistan? England, or Saudi Arabia? The United States, or Turkey?

    You behave as if these differences are accidental, as if the fact that one region has been dominated by the Christian ideology and the other by Islamic ideology is a merely interesting footnote to history.

    But “wisdom is proved right by her children.”

    Seeds planted put down roots, and bear the fruit of the seeds planted. Every time–but sometimes it takes a long time. Some plants yield their fruit immediately, but other plants take much longer–centuries.

    There is a reason why secular humanism has been able to flourish in Western Civ while it languishes in Islamic Civ, and it has nothing to do with secular humanism. Just as pacifists can only exist in a society where men are prepared to do violence on their behalf, secular humanists can only exist where certain virtues and values exist. And by saying they ‘exist’ I mean, the people in such societies have to actually believe them, right down to their core.

    Christian ethics, spread out over the centuries, permeating the West, gave safe haven to inquiry, questioning, and challenging. In the West, you can be an atheist and not worry about being slaughtered. Not so in the places where Islamicism permeates:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/27/american-atheist-blogger-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh

    (There have now been several)

    But the Christian ideology no longer holds sway in Europe, and diminishes every day in the United States.

    The secular humanists have been in charge since World War 2, and their only success has been against Christianity–pretty much just because Christians won’t behead the secular humanists. But the secular humanists began their rise already in the 1800s. This, too, did not occur over night.

    If we haven’t arrived yet, we will soon reach the day when the only ideology left to stand against Islamicism will be the secular humanist one… and it will be woefully inadequate to the task.

    This is the big point and contrast that I’m calling attention to in this post.

    No, the ‘war on Allah’ will play out over decades and even centuries. It will never end until whole regions become saturated with people who are grounded in knowledge of the world as it really is, and not how they wished it was. But, if people began to take it seriously now, and dealt decisively with threats as they emerged (eg, ISIS), KNOWING that they are right to do so, rather than letting them fester, the threat can perhaps be mitigated.

    I personally have no belief that anything of the sort will happen any time soon.

    I expect my grandchildren to be coping with an Islamicized Europe.

    It is my intent that people understand why things developed the way they did. At some point, people will figure out what is necessary. Hopefully it won’t be too late.

    • Dannyboy on November 23, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Howdy!

    So, you see no comparison between the post hoc rationalisations that YOU use to justify NOT doing all the horrific things advocated in your holy book (not that I’m trying to discourage you from engaging in these theological contortions – on behalf of the rest of the world, please do carry on), and whatever mental gymnastics liberal muslims use to explain away the verse of the sword (for example) and remain peaceful and productive members of society? How surprising! This is not a literacy issue I’m afraid, it is an issue of your refusal to grant muslims the right to apply civilised interpretations to their holy texts, just the same as the ones that you pretend you don’t apply to yours. Essentially you are theologically lining up with ISIS here, endorsing the idea that there is only ONE correct reading of the Qu’ran, and that it is a jihadist one.

    Fundamentally, I don’t CARE how religious people rationalise the inevitable conflicts between their primitive dogmas and modern secular morality. The only important thing is that they recognise the most bloodthirsty, genocidal and anti-human bits as requiring an allegorical or only-appropriate-to-a-certain-time-and-place interpretation. You have done that, as have many muslims, so you’re all alright with me. ISIS want to bring the past into the present, so they need to be put away (one way or another) for the safety & security of the rest of us. The rest of the muslim population, just like all the non-theocratic Christians, don’t.

    “A person who claims to be a Muslim nonetheless who rejects such explicit Koranic teachings sorely tests the proposition that they are Muslims at all.”

    I don’t care. I DON’T care. No doubt there are some people who would claim that you’re not a real Christian because you don’t advocate the death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers. Are those people fewer in number than their Islamic equivalents? Yes. Does that mean we need to target all muslims? No – that’s absurd and counter-productive. We need to support & strengthen muslim moderates, not weaken them.

    “How interesting to me that you, in your great liberal hubris, see fit to produce lists of passages from the Christian bible that you think amount to a justification for violence against unbelievers or the establishment of a Christian kingdom–and yet no Christians are out there blowing up cafes, shooting up theaters, rounding up nonbelievers and cutting off their heads, flying planes into buildings, etc, but when it comes to the people who actually ARE doing such things, you have the nerve to say, “but there are very clearly some interpretations of Islamic scripture which make their devotees perfectly placid and civilised members of society.””

    This paragraph seemed worth quoting in full for its extreme wrongheadedness. There are sections of both Christian AND Islamic scriptures (and, of course, Jewish ones) that unequivocally call for religious violence against unbelievers, homosexuals and other minorities. I am entitled to notice this, and to draw attention to it whenever anyone tries to claim that THEIR particular religion is the origin of all human morality. That is not in the LEAST bit inconsistent with defending the religious freedom of believers in any of those faiths, or critiquing the supreme foolishness of making war on their religion en masse – which you DID advocate, dance around it all you want – based upon the behaviour of a minority of extremists.

    “It’s amazing you live through the day.”

    I’ve thought that before often, mostly when being sniped at by people who were almost certainly Muslims. Funny thing though, the people who were my allies in that situation, who befriended and protected me – they were also Muslims. Now I might not agree with them on many theological issues, but they were and are as anti-theocratic as I am, and they were friends & comrades. If you have a war to fight they’re the kind of people you want on your side, and you’d be a total dumbass to unnecessarily alienate them.

    And don’t act like you’d be a floating neutral if someone declared war on Christianity, with the express intention of “humiliating Jesus”. However anti-theocratic their actual aims were, you’d be lining up against them. Well, that’s the kind of stupid mistake you’re making here.

    In your second response it’s certainly good to see that you can apply the kind of heavily selective interpretation techniques that you employ on the Bible (but apparently forbid to Muslims) when it comes to your own writing. Advocating the “humiliation” of Allah, praising the actions of Russia (who are bombing Syria – sometimes ISIS and sometimes not), and drawing analogies to the defeat of Nazism (bombing) and the near-defeat of Saddam in the first Gulf War (bombing), gives absolutely NO indication that you support further bombing of ISIS and/or other Muslim countries because you also said: “Does it mean continued ‘bombing’? It’s not quite as simple as that”.

    That is neither a yes or a no. If you don’t want me to be confused about what you are advocating then perhaps you should tell me what you are advocating.

    You agree that ISIS also need to be ideologically defeated, but I am strongly under the impression that you think this should be done from a Christian view point (because, reality – according to you). I don’t think it is controversial to say that this is a bad strategy. Trying to ideologically defeat them from an atheist viewpoint would also be a very bad idea, incidentally. Islam needs to be dominated by a tide of secular muslim theology. The kind that does to the Qu’ran what YOU do to the Bible – interpret it in the light of modern civilised morality, and discard a literal interpretation of commandments which proscribe ethically-horrific actions. I am all in favour of this kind of casuistry, because it makes a safer world for the rest of us,

    “The interesting thing about ideologies that people like myself understand but people like you never seem to is that people don’t just wake up in the morning and, on a whim, say, “I’m going to go shoot up a cafe!” Ideologies work themselves out over time: decades, centuries, and even further.”

    I agree with that. I feel like that somewhat negates your point.

    You attribute all the current social, political & technological differences between historically Christian and historically Muslim countries to those country’s respective religions. Are you familiar with the term “confounding variables”?

    It is interesting that you identify secular humanism as a sign of positive progress in Western countries. I rather agree! 🙂

    “In the West, you can be an atheist and not worry about being slaughtered. Not so in the places where Islamicism permeates”

    Dude, do you know that it’s “Islamism”, not “Islamicism”? If you’re making some sort of political point with this misspelling then I’m afraid it is opaque to me.

    And yes, I am very well aware of the common fate of secular bloggers in Muslim majority countries. I am also aware that this is not an outcome which indicates the supremacy of Christianity over Islam, since Christian scriptures advocate the SAME treatment of apostates and heretics as those which Muslim “scholars” cite to justify such parochial & insecure barbarity. The difference is that Christianity has been brought to heel by the Enlightenment and secular civilised society. I am all in favour of anything which contributes to a similar neutering of Islam. I can’t wait for the day that your Muslim equivalent complains that Ramadan is being eclipsed by Spring Break and that Islam is under attack because they can’t call for a mild interpretation of Sharia without being criticised. These are the things that a reasonable atheist hopes for. 🙂

    “I expect my grandchildren to be coping with an Islamicized Europe.”

    Well that would be grim. If anyone wants to make ANY religion compulsory in a European country then they have me for an enemy. Perhaps you ought to be less partisan in your allegiances.

    • Timaahy on November 23, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    This is not a literacy issue I’m afraid, it is an issue of your refusal to grant muslims the right to apply civilised interpretations to their holy texts, just the same as the ones that you pretend you don’t apply to yours.

    Yeeeeeeeeeep.

    • Anthony on November 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm
      Author

    lol why are you applauding him, Tim.

    The FACT that there are no Christians carrying out the deeds that he says Christians should be carrying out is evidence that he is completely wrong in his own assessment.

    How strange that out of a billion Christians, he can find nary a one who agrees with his interpretation… or his, assertion about how Christians should interpret things.

    I, on the other hand, can point to–conservatively–100,000,000 Muslims who agree with me on how to interpret those Koranic passages.

    Obviously, it isn’t basic literacy. If it was, you’d be taking my position. 😉

    “Well that would be grim. If anyone wants to make ANY religion compulsory in a European country then they have me for an enemy. Perhaps you ought to be less partisan in your allegiances.”

    lol, my dear man. You’ll already be dead, with your head on a stake. Your last words, likely, “Damn. He was right.”

    Don’t worry, I will mourn your loss, and buy more ammo.

    “The difference is that Christianity has been brought to heel by the Enlightenment and secular civilised society.”

    Why, you may make it as a fiction writer, after all!

    But it doesn’t matter to my point. I can allow it, and it will still stand. If the Enlightenment brought Christianity ‘to heel’ it is only because there were aspects of Christianity that allowed this to happen.

    “Secular civilized society” will never bring Islam to heel.

    Never.

    • End Bringer on November 23, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    “As mentioned, I am not a fan of Islam, but there are very clearly some interpretations of Islamic scripture which make their devotees perfectly placid and civilised members of society.”

    And as we continually point out the fact that more often than not the areas of the world where Islam is interpreted as a more “placid and civilized” religion is in the regions where Islam is a distinct minority of belief, and has no more influence on society than any other theological and ideological belief. That Islam is the dominant religion of the land in the Middle East while simultaneously the region is continually plagued by bloodshed is a correlation you simply choose to ignore as mere coincidence.

    But it is not.

    “Overtly attacking their entire religion, as you two seem to (insanely) want to do, would push more and more people to embrace interpretations which really would make them dangerous to the rest of us. I am more in favour of supporting and encouraging the moderate interpretations, so I’ll just have to hope that the sound of rattling sabres emanating from your respective armchairs doesn’t get in the way of that.”

    As SJ said, this is a fantasy liberals cling to as an excuse to hide the clear fact their secular humanism is completely impotent to Islam’s forceful doctrine. As proven by those like ISIS already having no trouble recruiting in spite of the liberal’s many, many attempts to wag their finger at them as disparagingly as they can.

    “Followers of Islam pose the greatest threat at present, although, gotta say it, your master plan – if enacted – would put you (and therefore ALL Christians, by your logic) into uncontested first place for being the greatest threat to the rest of us.”

    What? The master plan of destroying those already ‘doing war in Allah’s name’ and coming to grips with the fact that there are indeed basic and universal truths that apply to everyone everywhere, and thus requires adherence to a more robust ideology?

    SJ’s right, this seems to come down to not only a personal failure of basic literacy, but also a failure to grasp basic reality.

    “By the way, the Russian intervention – which you appear to admire – has mainly hit non-ISIS targets.”

    One can chalk that up to the difference between ‘leading from the front’ which tends to allow one to do whatever they want, and ‘leading from behind’ which shows one can’t do more than criticize.

    “Essentially you are theologically lining up with ISIS here, endorsing the idea that there is only ONE correct reading of the Qu’ran, and that it is a jihadist one.”

    It’s more rejecting the notion that words only mean whatever the individual wants them to mean regardless of what they actually say in the context they were written. Which is more often than not, a purely secularist belief and goes a long way in explaining why those like you and Tim, can never seem to grasp what is actually written on this blog, let alone what’s actually written in the Bible and Koran.

    And of course just further and further demonstrates how SJ is 100% right in his assessment – Liberals truly don’t have a clue about the real nature of the Islamic threat, or how to deal with it in a realistic and final manner.

    • End Bringer on November 24, 2015 at 11:05 am

    I found this article to be particularly relevant to the issue of certainty SJ brings up. Perhaps if one needs to make a firm decision on where they ideologically stand they need to start with this issue first, and work from there.

    http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/French-ex-atheist-only-God-can-make-sense-of-the-evil-in-Paris

    • Dannyboy on November 25, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving to my American friends!

    Tony,

    “The FACT that there are no Christians carrying out the deeds that he says Christians should be carrying out is evidence that he is completely wrong in his own assessment.”

    I didn’t say that Christians “should” be carrying out acts of terror. I said that there are both violent and non-violent interpretations of both Christian AND Islamic scriptures. Now, on balance, I think that the totality of Islamic scriptures is significantly more predisposing to acts of barbarity than the totality of Christian scriptures (notwithstanding the fact that some of the worst ethical injunctions ever recorded are in the Old Testament). However – here’s an important point, so pay attention – having a predisposition to heart disease (for example) does not mean that person either HAS heart disease, nor that they will necessarily develop it. There are factors which can diminish predispositions, and there are factors which can exacerbate them, and in the case of fundamentalist Islam it’s a no-brainer that declaring war on the religion as a whole falls into the second category. It is a nicely self-fulfilling prophecy that you and other US conservatives hawks are engaging in here. Declare the predisposition to be indicative of the disease and then prescribe a course of treatment almost guaranteed to spread the infection.

    “I, on the other hand, can point to–conservatively–100,000,000 Muslims who agree with me on how to interpret those Koranic passages.”

    This is a great insight into a truly circular argument. Perhaps, following the example of Ben Carson, “conservatively” should now be interpreted to mean “factually incorrectly”, because scrolling just a little way up this conversation reveals where you derived that “estimate” from:

    “Supposing that only 10% of the 1 billion self-identifying Muslims are willing to boldly go whole hog with the Koran, that is still a solid 100,000,000 people.”

    So, you moved right along from a thought experiment based upon TOTAL speculation and numbers pulled out of your [redacted], to treating the results of that imaginative exercise as if they were a solid fact which you could point to in order to disprove a strawman version of what I actually said. Brilliant sir, quite brilliant!

    ““Secular civilized society” will never bring Islam to heel.”

    Alright. I’ve never known you to make an incorrect prediction yet! 🙂

    …..

    EB,

    “That Islam is the dominant religion of the land in the Middle East while simultaneously the region is continually plagued by bloodshed is a correlation you simply choose to ignore as mere coincidence.”

    I don’t think any of the three monotheisms comes out of the Middle East/”Holy Land” looking too good. But the fact that there are brutal and oppressive interpretations of Islam (not something I was disputing), nor even the relative prevalence of those interpretations, are not cogent responses to my point that there are also interpretations of Islam which make their devotees perfectly placid and civilised members of society. Maybe you didn’t address what I actually said because it’s so obviously true.

    “And of course just further and further demonstrates how SJ is 100% right in his assessment – Liberals truly don’t have a clue about the real nature of the Islamic threat, or how to deal with it in a realistic and final manner.”

    Nice to know that Christians are once more leading the way in terms of “final” solutions to the vexatious problems posed by certain ethnic and religious groups.

    …..

    So, what do you two think of Donald Trump? I’m genuinely interested to know.

    • Timaahy on November 29, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    So, what do you two think of Donald Trump? I’m genuinely interested to know.

    Me too!

    • Timaahy on November 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    I don’t think it’s yet certain whether the Planned Parenthood shooter is Christian… but I guess that’s when you jump in and say, “Well of course he wasn’t, look what he did.”

    Taking your figures at face value, can you not grant the other 900,000 Muslims the same courtesy?

    • Anthony on November 29, 2015 at 7:06 pm
      Author

    lol, I don’t know what to say about all of this except that it illustrates my point. Islamicists are going to go on killing and you libs will forever be unable to put 2 and 2 together, and then, one day, there won’t be any libs.

    All in all, one would think that would be a good day. Unfortunately, the libs will have been replaced with jihadis, so not so much.

    Naturally, there will be some libs who continue to live in areas that didn’t drink the Koolaid, who will be insulated from their dangerous beliefs, but I think even at that point many of them will have carved out a large exception when it comes to the ‘Muslim problem.’

    Now, to defend myself about the ‘conservative’ figure of 100,000,000. In point of fact, this number was roughly approximated from your own figures, DH.

    Do you remember providing this link?

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

    In only 3 out of the 11 countries was support for ISIS less than 10%, prompting you yourself to say,

    Now, are the numbers registering a favourable opinion pretty horrifying, especially in Pakistan? Yes, they absolutely are.

    In going with the figure 10% out of the world’s 1 billion Muslims, I was actually being generous. You, on the other hand, are being willfully blind.

    Of course, your link only references ‘disdain with Isis.’ I would imagine even Bin Laden would have been irritated with ISIS, if only because it was stealing his thunder. The more appropriate surveys would touch on whether or not it is proper to seek ‘Sharia’ law or appropriate to conduct violent jihad.

    Here is a link that is representative of dozens and dozens I have encountered over the years:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

    In England, Muslims would like to see Sharia law, to the tune of 4 out of 10. This particular article cites the additional troublesome fact:

    The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the “feelings and motives” of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

    Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

    A fifth equals 20%, by the way. And if 91 percent feel loyal, that leaves 9% that doesn’t… eerily close to the 10% figure I went with.

    And this is IN ENGLAND.

    If you think that these figures would be BETTER in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, you are off your rocker. A simple google search could easily dissuade you.

    So yea, my 10% figure is totally legitimate. A vast understating of the real situation, too.

    As for Trump, I can’t see myself campaigning for him, but given a choice between him and Hillary, I would vote Trump without guilt. Trump is a reflection of my complete disgust with the Republican establishment. COMPLETE DISGUST. If they don’t like Trump, they can get their heads out of their asses and stop catering to people who would never vote for them, anyway.

    I’m not holding my breath.

    • End Bringer on November 29, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    “Maybe you didn’t address what I actually said because it’s so obviously true.”

    I didn’t see a need to address it because SJ already put it as plainly and as obviously as possible – If even a conservative 10% of all Muslims find the “brutal and oppressive interpretations” valid, that leaves you with 100 million Muslims, while you can’t find ANY major Christian movement that holds the same view, despite your belief that there should be one.

    If you can’t deal with reality proving you wrong, nothing I say is going to change your mind.

    “Nice to know that Christians are once more leading the way in terms of “final” solutions to the vexatious problems posed by certain ethnic and religious groups.”

    Now should you really be throwing stones on this given the liberal predilection for assigning which groups of people are unwanted/undesirables and thus deserving of being killed in mass?

    “So, what do you two think of Donald Trump? I’m genuinely interested to know.”

    He’s extremely politically incorrect, which I like. He’s also tactless and crude to certain people and topics I don’t believe are deserving of scorn, which I don’t like.

    Meh, he’s not my ideal candidate, but unlike Hillary there’s actually a possibility Trump could indeed make a fine President once in office. After all, if he steps out of line, BOTH Democrats and Republicans would probably love to impeach him. What other candidate could we be confident would have that kind of incentive to behave lawfully?

    • Anthony on November 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm
      Author

    There are many polls and surveys and studies that I’ve seen over the years that indicate that there is a HUGE percentage of Muslims who have no compunction whatsoever in taking the Koran on its face… or, what was the sentence…

    “I think that the totality of Islamic scriptures is significantly more predisposing to acts of barbarity than the totality of Christian scriptures…”

    DH, with the runner up prize for Master of the Understatement. (Silas still is the winner; see the most current comment stream).

    Uh, yes, “significantly more predisposing” is about right.

    I would LOVE to see a comparative body of polling and survey of Christians, who also number a solid billion, on analagous positions. Something tells me we’ll be waiting a LONG time and observe lots of mental gymnastics before we ever come close to approaching 100,000,000.

    If you put together all the Dominionists, pseudo-Christian KKK, violent pro-lifers together, I bet you still wouldn’t reach 100,000. Globally.

    Why?

    Because the atheistic interpretations of the Scriptures or the rationalizations by some Christians that violence is appropriate, from the Scriptures, ARE WRONG.

    And why the converse with Islam?

    Because the Jihadi interpretation is RIGHT.

    If basic principles of literary interpretation matter, anyway.

    The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

    • Dannyboy on November 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Hello Americans! I hope you had a jolly good turkey day.

    “Now, to defend myself about the ‘conservative’ figure of 100,000,000. In point of fact, this number was roughly approximated from your own figures, DH.”

    No, it isn’t. You helpfully referred to a link that I provided, and have therefore read, and can therefore comprehensively pwn you on.

    “In only 3 out of the 11 countries was support for ISIS less than 10%…”

    Ouch – comprehension fail! People expressing a favourable opinion of ISIS to pollsters were less than 10% of the sample in EIGHT out of eleven countries surveyed in that study. You may be looking at the “don’t know” category by mistake. Such errors of interpretation do happen occasionally (even to dudes with PhDs), and are both understandable and excusable, but somewhat less so when accompanied with patronising & superior commentary about MY wilful blindness and stupid failure to correctly comprehend what you have (actually totally wrongly) perceived. Then you receive the epic fish-slap of scorn. Take it boyo! 🙂

    “Of course, your link only references ‘disdain with Isis.’ I would imagine even Bin Laden would have been irritated with ISIS, if only because it was stealing his thunder. The more appropriate surveys would touch on whether or not it is proper to seek ‘Sharia’ law or appropriate to conduct violent jihad.”

    It’s certainly heartening that you two are apparently wholly uncritical of polls that you *think* support your position. Polls, judging from our previous US-politics-related conversations, have hitherto been deemed considerably less reliable than your gut instinct, or heavily-biased-towards-the-status-quo referendum results. Apparently if the US public is shown by polling to be increasingly liberal in their attitudes towards gay marriage then that is evidence only of a) progressive propaganda-based manipulation of public opinion, or b) liberal fixing of opinion polls. Amazingly, when polls appear to say something negative about Muslims, you are quick to parse them as being entirely reliable. What a wacky happenstance!

    You showcase polls showing that 20% of UK Muslims would like to see Sharia law implemented in Britain, which only leads me to wonder what you think of US polls showing 59% support among republicans for establishing Christianity as the national religion in America (in plain defiance of the constitution):

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf

    You’ll have to explain the difference to me there.

    And a similar amount of UK Muslims apparently “have sympathy” with the “feelings and motives” of the London 7/7 suicide bombers (although 99% thought they were wrong to do what they did). Do you have any sympathy with violent anti-abortion protestors? I’d be honestly surprised if you didn’t. Doesn’t make me want to declare war on you somehow – aren’t you glad that I’m more reasonable than you are?

    Islam has a problem with violent radicalism right now. That is not in question. Declaring war on all Muslims on the basis of that remains a stupid and counter-productive course of action, regardless of your transparently-motivated attempts to rationalise it.

    “I would LOVE to see a comparative body of polling and survey of Christians, who also number a solid billion, on analagous positions. Something tells me we’ll be waiting a LONG time and observe lots of mental gymnastics before we ever come close to approaching 100,000,000.”

    Well, there are approximately 380 million Christians in Africa, and polling (which, as we have established, you now place 100% confidence in) suggests that approximately 60% of them support the institution of Biblical law:

    http://www.pewforum.org/2010/04/15/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa/?beta=true&utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F

    Hmm, 60% of 380 million – I THINK that’s more than 100,000,000.

    Or maybe you’ll be less keen on the reliability of polling in this instance? Or are there some convenient apologetics on the subject of why CHRISTIANS don’t really mean it when they express support for the imposition of theocracy? I can’t wait to hear it.

    Re: Donald Trump

    I am honestly quite glad that I don’t have to choose between Trump and Clinton at the polling booth, as it seems increasingly likely that you two will have to. That’s a rock & a hard place if ever I saw one. But while I certainly don’t and won’t be supporting the two-faced corrupt dynastic democratic candidate, I do genuinely enjoy and look forward to you guys justifying your grudging partisan support for the oafish, bullying, no-nothing, race-baiting, laughing-stock, proto-fascist, conspiracy-theorist, sexist braggart republican one. Here’s to much future fun!

    “….unlike Hillary there’s actually a possibility Trump could indeed make a fine President once in office.”

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahah! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Anthony on November 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm
      Author

    Upon further reflection, I’ve decided that DH wins the understatement of the year award, hands down. I went to bed last night realizing my complete error. Really there is no comparison. 🙂

    In other news, I have finally figured out why I am not getting notifications of DH’s comments. The notifications have been going right into my junk account. These email filters are just too good these days! 😉

    • Anthony on November 30, 2015 at 4:12 pm
      Author

    Apparently, even my blog has a nose for comment quality, as DH’s comment went to the ‘pending’ section for some reason. It was not viewable until my last comment, even though it appears before it. So, now let’s take a gander at it more closely.

    • Anthony on November 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm
      Author

    Ok, so I dashed my estimate of 10% off too quickly as based on that article, but really, it is much ado about nothing. In 6 out of the 11 examples, the following favorable numbers are:

    8, 14, 8, 11, 11, 9.

    The average of these… about 10%.

    I picked a low, safe number, for the sake of conversation, and it remains safe. I wonder–the high numbers of people who ‘don’t know’… does that support your position, or mine?

    I mean, really.

    Interestingly, rather than trying to flesh out what you think is a more realistic understanding of the true support for a plain reading of the Koran, you are much more interested in trying to disparage Christianity. Again.

    So, unless you are willing to say this…

    “Islam has a problem with violent radicalism right now. That is not in question.”

    About Christianity, I think that it is safe to say that your actual comprehension of the PROBLEM IN QUESTION is very low. You apparently lack the ability to make reasonable analogies and keep things in proper proportion.

    “Declaring war on all Muslims on the basis of that remains a stupid and counter-productive course of action, regardless of your transparently-motivated attempts to rationalise it.”

    Well, that wasn’t my argument, as I’ve already said. You again characterizing it as such does not make it my argument.

    And since I’m not going to defend an argument I didn’t make, and you refuse to be corrected, I have nothing more to say about that.

    I will say, though, that your inability to recognize why it is that “Islam has a problem with violent radicalism” whereas Christianity isn’t even on the charts–and worse, do your best to try to get it on the charts–is probably a big part of the reason why you can’t understand my argument, and a huge part of the reason why secularists with your viewpoint will never be able to resolve ‘the problem in question.’

    Because resolving a problem requires understanding it the way it actually is, rather than in the way you wish it was.

    Sounds condescending, I know. But its not meant to be condescending. It’s an objective assessment. Anyone who cannot figure out who is killing people in large numbers and who is not, and tries to put the people who are not killing people in the same category as those who are, just can’t be considered credible.

    Yours is not a problem of the intellect. It is a problem of the will. Reality as it really presents itself has implications that are damning to your worldview. And that is something you cannot allow.

    • Anthony on November 30, 2015 at 5:55 pm
      Author

    Polls and surveys are one thing, but they are nothing compared to the gauge of how people really feel… the ‘election.’

    Similarly, its all fine and dandy to talk about what Islam is or is not, or what Muslims say they think about it, etc, but actions speak louder and are more decisive:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

    That serves as an excellent starting point for the lurker who wishes to ascertain for himself the degree and nature of the threat posed by Islamicism.

    • Dannyboy on November 30, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    The numbers of people expressing a favourable opinion of ISIS in the countries you cited do not support your 10% figure. It’s “much ado about nothing” (very dismissive of your own highly-motivated errors) only if the facts are subordinate to your conclusion.

    Let’s break this down:

    Turkey. Muslim population = 75 million. 8% = 6.02 million.
    Nigeria. Muslim population = 74 million. 14% = 10.4 million.
    Burkina Faso. Muslim population = 10.2 million. 8% = 816,000.
    Malaysia. Muslim population = 18 million. 11% = 1.98 million.
    Senegal. Muslim population = 12.69 million. 11% = 1.395 million.
    Pakistan. Muslim population = 193 million. 9% = 17.4 million.

    Total = 38.011 million. % of the global Muslim population = 2.4%.

    That is bad enough – comfortably bad enough! It is not necessary to inflate such figures, yet you seem to feel the need to do so. Do you want to dig around for some other evidence to support your pre-established conclusion? Go ahead.

    At the same time as wilfully misinterpreting polling data on Muslims you deliberately block out similar data on Christians. No, I am not saying that Christians and Muslims are the same when it comes to violence, extremism and theocratic tendencies right now. I am just disinclined to accept your blatantly partisan reasoning on this subject. If 1-in-5 UK Muslims’ desire for Sharia is a matter of concern (and it surely is) then 6-in-10 African Christians’ desire for a biblical theocracy ought rationally to be of equal or greater concern, unless you happen to have some preconceived ideas on the subject which are affecting your ability to be even-handed. But why would that be? I can’t think of any possible reason why you would be biased on this point!

    “And since I’m not going to defend an argument I didn’t make, and you refuse to be corrected, I have nothing more to say about that.”

    Your call. If you simultaneously stand-by and yet also refuse to acknowledge the implications of your annihilationist rhetoric about “humiliating Allah” and waging all-out war on Islam, then I guess I have nothing to say – other than what I already have said – in return.

    • End Bringer on November 30, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    “Your call. If you simultaneously stand-by and yet also refuse to acknowledge the implications of your annihilationist rhetoric about “humiliating Allah” and waging all-out war on Islam, then I guess I have nothing to say – other than what I already have said – in return.”

    Probably because it’s been made clear from this entire discussion that the only lines you read from this blog were “problems eradicated completely,” “good intentions amount to nothing,” and “humiliating Allah,” while the rest you ignored in favor of your predisposed “implications.”

    SJ has found it interesting that instead of addressing a plain reading of the Koran, you choose to disparage Christianity, but what’s really interesting is that in this ENTIRE discussion we see you’ve put all your efforts into disparaging this blog that lays out a fundamental step and a general outlook to ridding (or at least severely reducing) the threat of violent Islamism as it really is, while giving absolutely no counter plan on how YOU think people should go about ending the problem, other than a few throw away comments of ‘they’ll have me for an enemy’ (as if that amounts to anything).

    All this has done is to show that SJ’s assessment is entirely right – The answer to ending Islamic terrorists like ISIS is indeed obvious, even if the methodology isn’t quite as simple as ‘continued bombing’ (something that flies counter to many of your so-called “implications”). The main hinderance is less the Muslims, but people like you DB, that just don’t like it.

    • Anthony on November 30, 2015 at 11:21 pm
      Author

    “At the same time as wilfully misinterpreting polling data on Muslims you deliberately block out similar data on Christians.”

    Your comments about ‘similar data on Christians’ are a complete red herring. A total logical fallacy. Even if Christians has comparative views, that has NO RELEVANCE to ISLAMIC violence. It does not speak well of you that you persist in trying to make Christians the issue.

    The idea that Christianity is manifesting anything comparable as the (literally) daily violence we see associated with Islamicism is completely and utterly absurd.

    I am pretty certain that you don’t even believe this nonsense, but I’m willing to put that to the test.

    First, go into a Christian church loaded to the brim with the most rabid pro-lifers you can find wearing a sandwich board with a picture of a man defecating on Jesus, or, if you prefer, set the Bible on fire. The absolute best would be for you to actually squat over a Bible and poop on it.

    Assuming you escape that den of murderers, go into a mosque or even a public street in London that is frequented by many, many Muslims, wearing a sandwich board of a man pooping on Mohammed, or, if you prefer, set a Koran on fire. Or to really put it to the test, squat over a Koran and take a dump on it.

    Film both of these encounters to me. (Better live stream the latter… just sayin’)

    THEN I will believe that you really believe that whatever threat you perceive is manifested by ‘true believers’ in Christianity is similar to the threat posed by ‘true believers’ in Islam.

    I will pay you $100 if you do this challenge.

    Also, I will donate $250 to your funeral expenses in the ‘off chance’ that you do not survive the challenge–regardless of which religionist group kills you. In fact, if the Christian fundamentalists get you, I’ll donate $500.

    Do you accept this challenge?

    • Dannyboy on December 2, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    Since I am being accused of totally misrepresenting or ‘missing the point’ of SJ’s blog post, let me just summarise its main points:

    – Overwhelming all-out attack is only the way to win a war (cue WW2 analogies of dubious relevance)

    – ISIS is the legitimate incarnation of Islam.

    – Islam, and Allah, must therefore be comprehensively defeated (cue Biblical analogy of dubious relevance).

    – Extended rambling denunciation of secular humanism and ‘uncertainty’.

    – #HumiliateAllah

    – Christianity is super manly but everyone picks on us. I’m telling Mom! Also, Christianity is the best yo.

    – Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria (apparently targeting all non-ISIS enemies of Assad) is totes amazeballs. #GoPutin #ShirtlessStalin #DobbyTheHouseElfRules

    Let me know if I’ve missed anything significant.

    You two delicate flowers, while imputing all Muslims with the seeds of violent Islamism, interpret any criticism of your muscular Christian supremacist rhetoric as “blatantly disparaging Christianity”. No dumbass, I’m just disinclined to accept the premise that successfully opposing one strain of evil toxic violent bu!!$hit requires accepting somewhat less-evil toxic & violent bu!!$hit which thankfully (and not unconnected with the growing historical impact of secularism) happens to currently be exerting a relatively less negative effect upon the world. Well done there, obviously, but don’t expect slavish adoration as a result. Just qualified relief.

    “SJ has found it interesting that instead of addressing a plain reading of the Koran, you choose to disparage Christianity, but what’s really interesting is that in this ENTIRE discussion we see you’ve put all your efforts into disparaging this blog that lays out a fundamental step and a general outlook to ridding (or at least severely reducing) the threat of violent Islamism as it really is, while giving absolutely no counter plan on how YOU think people should go about ending the problem, other than a few throw away comments of ‘they’ll have me for an enemy’ (as if that amounts to anything).”

    Hard not to picture you as the Mouth of Sauron with this confident & self-assured statement of SJ’s opinions and attitude there EB. Regardless, are you under the impression that SJ gave a clear plan for ridding the world of Islamic extremism? Consult the hive mind, and get back to me. Does it definitely involve bombing? What are the other elements of the strategy, apart from “coming to terms” with certain vague assertions? Do you see a comprehensive military strategy that I have somehow missed in this blog post?

    “The idea that Christianity is manifesting anything comparable as the (literally) daily violence we see associated with Islamicism is completely and utterly absurd.”

    I don’t think that I suggested any such thing. Where has that idea come from? Can you give me a quote?

    “First, go into a Christian church loaded to the brim with the most rabid pro-lifers you can find wearing a sandwich board with a picture of a man defecating on Jesus, or, if you prefer, set the Bible on fire. The absolute best would be for you to actually squat over a Bible and poop on it.”

    I am actually not a big fan of unnecessary desecration, even if I do not hold sacred the object or concept that others would feel despoiled by my actions. Sometimes there are valid reasons to push this taboo, however (as with the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in cartoon form, for example), when one group’s support of a particular taboo infringes upon the rights of others – to freedom of speech, for example. However, I very much appreciate the terms in which this thought experiment is expressed. 🙂

    “Film both of these encounters to me. (Better live stream the latter… just sayin’)”

    Ha! Solid point. Except that I don’t believe I have made any claims about the relative tendencies towards violent defence of sacred objects in Muslim & Christian congregations, so again this thought experiment seems wildly mis-directed. However, I am happy to grant the point that I could reasonably have a higher expectancy of violent reaction from the Islamic half of this test than from the Christian half. Congratulations, if that is what you perceive as a victory – your confessional in-group performs relatively well in a hypothetical scenario against people you apparently consider to be (at best) barbarians-in-the-making. Very well done [/sarcasm]

    “THEN I will believe that you really believe that whatever threat you perceive is manifested by ‘true believers’ in Christianity is similar to the threat posed by ‘true believers’ in Islam.”

    When have I said that??? I have pointed out a variety of counter-arguments to your demonisation of ALL Muslims compared to (obviously faultless in every situation) Christians. That does not actually take any position on whether the threat posed by each group at the present moment is equal or not.

    • Anthony on December 2, 2015 at 3:48 pm
      Author

    “When have I said that???”

    It is the whole thrust of your argument.

    “I don’t think that I suggested any such thing. Where has that idea come from? Can you give me a quote?”

    See:

    “I have pointed out a variety of counter-arguments to your demonisation of ALL Muslims compared to (obviously faultless in every situation) Christians.” [emphasis mine]

    Any comparison whatsoever is pure logical fallacy. The fact that you keep bringing up Christianity, when it is not in view at all, except insofar as it may provide a better ideological foundation for opposing Islamicism then secular humanism ever will, or can. That is how I introduced it, but it is no where near how you have discussed it.

    I notice that you do not accept my challenge. How curious (or not very). I’ll be sure to remind you for the challenge when once again you tumble headfirst into moral equivalency… which should be, like, any minute. To be clear: unless you accept my challenge, I will never consider your comments ‘comparing’ Christianity with Islam as credible. (I know you ‘conceded’ my ‘solid point’ but then ended with /sarcasm, so as near as I can tell, you don’t really grant anything.)

    Your summaries were not very good. Most important was your summary of your summary, “ALL Muslims” which shows that you really don’t understand the argument.

    Which is why I consider the conversation over.

    For what its worth, I have another article on tap that elaborates on this. It will surely be completely misconstrued and misunderstood, but if you want to start up again there, you are certainly welcome to see how long you can string me out. 😉

    • Dannyboy on December 2, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    SJ,

    “Any comparison whatsoever is pure logical fallacy. The fact that you keep bringing up Christianity, when it is not in view at all, except insofar as it may provide a better ideological foundation for opposing Islamicism then secular humanism ever will, or can. That is how I introduced it, but it is no where near how you have discussed it.”

    You advanced Christianity (as you acknowledge here) as a valid ideological weapon with which to defeat Islamism.* Drawing attention to the aspects of your critique of Islam which apply with equal force to Christianity, as a means of illustrating the flaws in your approach, apparently constitutes a suggestion of equivalence in your mind. But that is ridiculous. Pointing out the inconsistency of the lesser evil claiming to be the only solution to the greater evil is emphatically not the same as saying that the two are one and the same.

    “I notice that you do not accept my challenge. How curious (or not very).”

    You challenge was wholly rhetorical and did not correlate to any claim that I had made. You didn’t expect it to be accepted, so I likewise do not accept your faux surprise.

    “To be clear: unless you accept my challenge, I will never consider your comments ‘comparing’ Christianity with Islam as credible.”

    I have not set out to compare Christianity with Islam – that was you! I have merely objected to the conspicuously-partisan ‘christians-always-good, muslims-inherently-bad’ tinfoil-hattery that you have been spouting, and have provided some counter-arguments to your biased analysis, which you have chosen (defensively) to either ignore or dismissively interpret as an equivocation of Christian and Muslim barbarism in the present day. Keep looking for a quote of mine which says that, by all means. It’s your own time you’ll be wasting. The only one you pulled out so far from the response above plainly referred to YOUR comparison between Muslims & Christians, not mine.

    “Your summaries were not very good. Most important was your summary of your summary, “ALL Muslims” which shows that you really don’t understand the argument.”

    I thought my summary of your post was reasonable accurate & at least moderately amusing. You’re not obliged to like it, however. And if you don’t think that setting out with the aim of “humiliating Allah” will galvanise virtually ALL Muslims to the opposing banner, then you are living in a dream world.

    “Which is why I consider the conversation over.”

    Your call. Perhaps if you could bring yourself to start a conversation about how best to defeat Islamic extremism (something that we are all concerned with) without lapsing into your usual oh-so-persecuted, Christianity-is-the-best fanboy mode then we might have a more productive conversation.

    * – again, ‘Islamism’. Not ‘Islamicism’. Continued misspelling can only be deliberate, but the point of it is lost on me. Care to share?

    • Anthony on December 2, 2015 at 5:29 pm
      Author

    “Drawing attention to the aspects of your critique of Islam which apply with equal force to Christianity,”

    But they don’t. In fact, in real life, you do not live as if they ‘apply with equal force.’ No one believes what you are peddling…. not even you. Hence, why I issued the challenge.

    “You didn’t expect it to be accepted, so I likewise do not accept your faux surprise.”

    It sounds like I was right in thinking that you didn’t take my challenge seriously. But I was serious. Of course, I didn’t expect you to accept the challenge, because when the chips are down, everyone knows it is only safe to needle the Christians. I doubt, for example, that you would make even the mild little digs you are doing with me if it were a Muslim (eg, ‘fanboy’, ‘I’m telling Mom!’) unless you were absolutely certain that the Muslim lived on another continent.

    It is pure cognitive dissonance. Likely born from a keen sense of self-preservation, but off the chart lunacy nonetheless.

    “And if you don’t think that setting out with the aim of “humiliating Allah” will galvanise virtually ALL Muslims to the opposing banner, then you are living in a dream world.”

    Speaking of dream worlds… you appear to be unaware how this undermines your whole line of argumentation suggesting that the dangerous Muslims are none but a wee fraction of the Muslims that are out there…

    “ISIS, and Islam more generally, is characterized by a desire to conquer the whole world. Which means that, unchecked, they will come for you.”

    Truth.

    • End Bringer on December 2, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    – Overwhelming all-out attack is only the way to win a war (cue WW2 analogies of dubious relevance)

    Wrong. It’s that conviction to achieve absolute victory and unconditional surrender is the key to achieving love Niger lasting peace, than half-measures in the name of restraint.

    – ISIS is the legitimate incarnation of Islam.

    Wrong. It’s that the ideal to violently conquer the world in the name of Allah, as a plain reading of the Koran encourages, is what springs groups like ISIS up, and thus understanding that THIS is the root cause driving such groups is what really needs to be addressed. Defeating ISIS alone will have no more impact than killing Binladen kept ISIS from forming.

    – Islam, and Allah, must therefore be comprehensively defeated (cue Biblical analogy of dubious relevance).

    Correct. As an ideology is what keeps this problem occurring, opposing this ideology as it stands (at least to those who believe in it’s violent edicts) is the general way to solve it.

    – Extended rambling denunciation of secular humanism and ‘uncertainty’.

    Wrong. A historical comparison on how one world conquering ideology was defeated by total measures, and how this one persists by the humanist’s call for ‘compassion’ (which has also been shown to be rather selective).

    – #HumiliateAllah

    Correct. See above about identifying an ideology as the root cause.

    – Christianity is super manly but everyone picks on us. I’m telling Mom! Also, Christianity is the best yo.

    Wrong. A call for how conviction in one’s actions and outlooks are needed to curtail violent Islam that Christianity grants, while humanitarianism and secularism simply do not.

    – Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria (apparently targeting all non-ISIS enemies of Assad) is totes amazeballs. #GoPutin #ShirtlessStalin

    Wrong. An observation how Russia seems to be the only power left that has the stones to tackle the Middle East, and noting it likely has nothing to do with secularism.

    So, 2 out of 7 DB. And really given you don’t seem to understand the context of those two, I’m probably being generous.

    Either way, we can safely say you didn’t read SJ’s blog so much as skim it to focus on what you THINK it says. Not surprising given you couldn’t even help but mistake “a fundamental step and a general outlook” that I ACTUALLY said with “a clear plan” that you, again, merely THINK I said.

    Sheer difference in number of letters used should have clued you in to there being a problem.

    Please see an Ophthalmologist, DB. It’s almost a near certainty there’s a problem between what your eyes see, and what your brain interprets. Till then I think this discussion is over.

    • End Bringer on December 2, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    Before you say anything Timmy, “love Niger lasting peace” is totally on blasted auto-correct for this IPad, as comments on my computer doesn’t show up for some reason.

    I’m just relieved it missed a ‘g’ to not make this offensive as well as embarrassing.

    • Timaahy on December 6, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

    • Anthony on December 9, 2015 at 9:02 am
      Author

    lol yes, preying on people who are ignorant… a bunch of secularists who cannot even recognize a passage from the Bible when they hear it… What did the girl say when it was revealed? “What the F***?” Ah yes, now there is the ideal representative of an informed Christian! and the guys doing the filming are not much better. This is worse than a ‘strawman’ argument, in that it truly goes for the weakest links… attacking Christianity by attacking the attitudes of people… who aren’t Christians at all.

    Yea, that’s real intelligent. I am just so impressed by this ‘experiment.’ 😉

    But I think this exposes yet another issue. Something tells me the people who made the video haven’t themselves read the Koran. It requires a pure act of the will to fail to see the categorical differences between the Koran and the Bible. But, even if the video makers have read the Koran and maybe have done an ounce of research of their own, the people they interviewed clearly haven’t.

    That is, it is plausible to believe that ISIS is an aberration if one has never looked at the source text for Islam. But, if you rad that source text, one quickly discovers that it is the ‘moderate’ Muslim that is the aberration.

    This ‘experiment’ probably ‘succeeded,’ but only because the people interviewed were ignorant to begin with. About everything.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that Tim and DH have bent over backwards to try to defend the Muslims and attack the Christians at every turn? These hardcore secular humanist atheists, who believe that all religion is false and demented, and even dangerous, are happy to set that aside when it comes to the Muslims–who would not tolerate their existence at all… as in, they would KILL them… if they had such views and expressed them if they were in a Muslim-controlled country.

    They appear to be intellectually incapable of taking Islam on its own terms. They can only come at it by comparing it to Christianity… which bears no threat to them at all.

    Honestly, you guys deserve what you get. I just wish you didn’t insist, as you liberals always do, that we MUST participate in your delusions and detachments from reality.

    You could, if you wanted, take as many Muslims to live with you in your house/apartment/community as you liked. But you DEMAND that everyone else do the same.

    Tiny tyrants, you are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

17 − three =