Death to Islam! [Reprised to mark Boston bombing and London lopping by Islamofilth]

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2006-02-06 23:49

No, this is not a call to genocide. I leave that to the Islamo-fascist filth who yearn to perpetrate it: “Death to Israel!” “Death to America!” “Death to the Infidel!” and so on.

They’ve been out in force recently, these squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists … burning flags and embassies because their super-superstitious sensibilities were offended by some cartoons in a Danish newspaper. In London they took advantage of the freedom they so despise, this murderous mass of Muslim maggotry, to infest the streets, sporting signs such as “Freedom Go To Hell!” “Prepare For The REAL Holocaust!” and “Annihilate [massacre, exterminate/butcher/behead] those who would insult Islam!” In the name of humanity, Islam must be put to death. Not by nuking, but by shaming. Not by the sword (though if the maggots leave us no alternative we should not hesitate to use it) but by the word. Human beings worthy of the title must rise up and shout in irresistible unison: “Enough of this primordial primitivism! We who are civilised are revolted by it and shall rebuff it at every turn!” Muslims must discover rationality and decency; Westerners must rediscover them, and, as a matter of urgency, speak up for them! All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for cowards to appease it—and Islam is the locus of evil in the contemporary world. There’s been far too much appeasement of it. The U.S. State Department, with merely a nod in the direction—rather than a ringing defence—of freedom of the press, has pronounced the cartoons, lampooning Mohammed, “unacceptable” because they cause “offence” to Muslims. Would cartoons ridiculing Stalin have been deemed unacceptable for causing offence to communists? Has the State Department forgotten that there is no such thing as a right not to be offended? That free speech includes the right to say things others will find offensive? CNN has declined to screen the cartoons “out of respect for Islam.” Leaving aside that Islam is not worthy of an iota of respect (while the right to believe in it or any other form of nonsense is worthy of utmost respect), has CNN forgotten that the freedom of publication on which it is so reliant is endangered by such cowardly self-censorship? Even the Danish newspaper that originally published the cartoons—precisely as a challenge to the maggots’ insistence that their feelings be given special consideration—has apologised for causing offence. Freedom, and with it the world, is perishing from an orgy of apologising to a global harem of empty-headed, malevolent umbrage-takers. Let us not forget that while Muslims are the locus of totalitarianism, they are aided and abetted by an array of allied ayatollahs, woeful witch-doctors of every hue. I quote from the Horror File of the upcoming Free Radical:

“Christian and Muslim church leaders have rallied to stop a South Park episode, that depicts the Virgin Mary bleeding, from going to air. … The episode, which the CanWest channel plans to screen in May, shows a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding. A cartoon character of Pope Benedict is called to investigate and declares she is menstruating. ‘Chicks bleed all the time’ he says. … Catholic Communications Director Lyndsay Freer said representatives of the Council of Christians and Jews and Council of Christians and Muslims, Anglican Bishops, the Salvation Army and other church leaders have signed the letter requesting that C4 not screen the episode. ‘The letter pointed out it would give offence to a great many people.’ (Dominion Post, January 30, 2006)"

Yes, a global harem of umbrage-takers. Reassuringly, C4 is going to screen the episode regardless of these two-bit totalitarians. And television channels and most major newspapers in New Zealand have not only published the Danish cartoons but defended their right to do so. The Dominion Post, in an editorial that is superior to most of what has come out of mainstream American media on the subject, said:

“Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority. Without that contest, and without the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people’s most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom. … There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salmon Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women. They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that must be defended.”

It cannot be defended—indeed, it can only be betrayed—by apologetic weasel-worders appeasing militant, murderous morons whose savage pseudo-sensibilities have been stirred, not by sticks and stones, but by words. May men of righteous rationality reignite the flame of reason and fight an unapologetic philosophical jihad in its holy name, that it may illumine the globe and save the world from another Dark Ages. Death to Islam—and all forms of tyranny over the minds of men!


( categories: )

Australian girl in Dubai jailed for being gang raped

Rosie's picture

Atrocity after atrocity by the practitioners of the barbaric "religion of peace".

The first video in this article details her story and is quite an education for any unmarried woman thinking about working in Dubai.
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

"After being drugged and gang-raped by three of her colleagues, Gali says she found no help from her superiors at the hotel. After she took herself to the hospital, she was thrown in jail for eight months for sex outside of marriage.

Gali’s Australian attorney explained that, as far as she understands, the crime is only considered rape under the country’s strict Islamic laws if there are “four adult, male Muslim witnesses that can provide evidence that the sex was non-consensual.”

They didn’t tell her that if she couldn’t provide the four male, Muslim witnesses, reporting a rape is essentially an admission of sex outside marriage.

Gali was quickly sentenced to a year in jail — 11 months for sex outside of marriage and 1 month for drinking alcohol — and 2 of the accused rapists got the same sentence. The third got an extra month.

...According to Yahoo 7 News, ” the Australian government was actively trying to suppress [Gali's] story” at the time, telling her family not to speak with the media.

...She has been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and, according to various reports, is taking legal action against the Commonwealth of Australia for its role in the matter."

23 year old girl punished by jail and lashings for being raped

Rosie's picture

Despicable barbarism.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa...

Beyond despicable

Lindsay Perigo's picture

60 to 70 people had gathered at a distance, all watching, some filming with their phones, none offering to help.

This is Generation Airhead to a 't'. Loathsome beyond words in its mindless, gormless, voyeuristic acquiescence to evil, concerned only to capture it on its sowphones. I truly, desperately fantasise for an Islamofilth dirty bomb that kills all such scum and dregs, including its detonators, but leaves decent folk who qualify as human beings unscathed. Alas ...

More on Ingrid Loyau-Kennett

Marcus's picture

Woolwich attack witness Ingrid Loyau-Kennett

"Loyau-Kennett says she is "naturally rightwing". She adds: "I don't agree with the socialist thing where they praise everything rather than praising hard work. I'm proud that we are now represented by David Cameron rather than Gordon Brown. I voted for him."

The killers should now face "severe punishment", she says. "I will not waste any of my energy in hating, or even thinking further about these men. Yes, they deserve to be in jail because they killed a man who did a lot for society and who could have done a lot more in his life, and been an excellent father. The trouble with jail is that we have to pay for their keep. Will they stay in jail for ever? I don't think so, because of the judicial system these days."

Before her bus had arrived, one of the men had talked into an onlooker's cameraphone, quoting "an eye for an eye" in an attempt to justify his actions. Loyau-Kennett believes the killers should face the same retribution.

"If it were possible, then, yes, they should die a painful death," she says. "But we can't do that, unfortunately. They wanted to behead someone, so they should face the same. If they want to do something like this, they should have gone to where the action is [in Afghanistan, etc]. That is cowardice. They were egotistical. They are like the men who drive round thinking they are king of the road. It's just me, me, me. It's that thing where young men are bored. They should be jailed for murder, just as I think people who drive when drunk and kill someone should be jailed for ever for murder. No television in jail. Nothing. They must pay for what they did. But will that happen in this era of so-called human rights?"

Loyau-Kennett is deeply concerned, she says, about the direction modern society is headed. "I prefer the values of the past than the non-values of today, where most people don't seem to give a damn about others." The events of last Wednesday have magnified her feelings. She has particular disdain for some of the people who stood by recording on their phones, refusing to offer help.

"It annoyed me to see those people with mobile phones filming," she says. "They were doing it for money, with the idea of selling the footage. I was annoyed at what must be in their heads that they just wanted to watch and record the unhappiness of others. And then there was the stupidity of the mothers who had stopped there with their kids. The man could have reached them in five seconds if he'd run at them. It would never cross my mind to show a heavily bleeding body to my kids."

If people were scared, she ponders, why didn't they just run away? That's an understandable reaction, she says. "It's a horrible mentality that some people have these days. I think we have this culture now – maybe started by things like soap operas – where we have this unhealthy curiosity about other people's lives. You shouldn't just be there watching like it's on TV. By only watching they are actually interfering. Do something useful. Don't just stand there. Move away."

Loyau-Kennett sighs at the suggestion that she did something exceptional, selfless and brave: "I just instinctively did it. The same as if anyone had been crying and lying hurt on the ground. I am a mother. It was the same for the Caribbean lady. We both felt it was the right thing to do."

You are going to lose

Marcus's picture

Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, scout leader to terrorist.

"It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose."

University Magazine?

i.am.dan.edge's picture

That must have been a hoot for the students! --Edge

Well

Jules Troy's picture

I for one would love to have an international burn the Koran day with people from all over the world simultaneously flooding the Internet with videos of the event.  Insult them at every opportunity.  Create art/cartoons (be creative) depicting the prophet Mohammed as the sick depraved child molesting murderous bastard that he was.  Wasn't his 7th wife a camel and his 9th a goat?

Get them enraged! Shame them!  Make them lose their cool so that their true nature shines and even ARI and TOS as well as the most bleeding heart liberals cannot help but see the truth.  In this way they will no longer be able to separate ISLAM from so called Islamic radicals.  That there is no difference at all only in degree.

Dan

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Nice to see you again.

Since I wrote the thing, naturally it didn't need any editing. Eye

Actually, it was first published in a university student magazine. You should have seen the furore! And it wasn't about the alliteration. Eye

Mixed Review

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Greetings All,

I cannot approve of the over-use of alliteration and metaphor in this article. Who edited this thing?

However, I greatly appreciate the article's content and moral message. Perigo points to an unforgivable lack of balls in the free world regarding Totalitarian Islam. The reprisal of this article is very appropriate.

Thanks, Lindsay, for standing up for what is right.

--Dan Edge

Woolwich: Help For Heroes Swamped With Pledges

Marcus's picture

Woolwich: Help For Heroes Swamped With Pledges

"The popular military support group was deluged with calls, donations and demands for its merchandise, prompting its website to go down due to massive internet traffic.

Supporters went on Twitter and social networks in a bid to boost the charity's coffers after a soldier wearing a Help For Heroes top was hacked to death by Islamic extremists in Woolwich, south east London, on Wednesday."

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

I'm no expert on it, Doug, so I can't say a great deal. I know that Muslims and Christians went through the same debates when faced with Enlightenment ideas. Christians who wanted to adopt reason found enough within Christianity to support their case - Christ is logos is a biggie - whereas in Islam it was the opposite. Clearly it isn't easy to change Islam, and with Muhammads sanction to murder it's perhaps even impossible. Either way it doesn't really matter. I agree with you wholeheartedly about isolating and quarantining it.

That's basically what I've concluded too. Post Aquinas Christianity has felt the need to justify its doctrines on some attempt at reason or "ratiocination". But Islam never felt such a need. Post Aquinas Christianity does not allow for square circles. Islam does as Allah can do what the hell ever he wants.

The consequences for the two cultures are enormous. There is more that can be said. Islam allows for inter cousin marriage, it actually encourages it. Whereas Christianity actually banned it slowly over time. That had A LOT to do with the development of the individualist strains in Europe especially Northern Europe.

Islam is bad news every which way you look.

We argree on this

Doug Bandler's picture

This is what gets me about "open immigration" Objectivists like Biddle: they support an immigration policy that will permit tens of millions of Moslems into the west while, at the same time, encouraging the US to nuke their homelands and holy sites. As long as we give them copies of Atlas Shrugged at the border they will see that nuking their family members at home is really in their self interest.

Quarantine and isolate makes much better sense.

Yes, despite our many other differences, you and I are both influenced by Auster on this. And Auster, no matter how I disagree with his total philosophy, is the BEST commentator on Islam in America. No one else understands just how dangerous that religion is and that it NEEDS to be quarantined.

I am so disappointed that NO ONE in organized Objectivism has even wrestled with this issue. The only name Objectivist that is even coming close is Ed Cline. There are a few bloggers that are on the cusp of recognizing a quarantine strategy. But that's it. Even a real good fellow like Ross Eliot still doesn't understand the necessity for BANNING Muslims from the West.

But I have a feeling that Objectivism will eventually get there but only after more Muslim caused devastation to the West and America.

I'm no expert on it, Doug, so

Richard Wiig's picture

I'm no expert on it, Doug, so I can't say a great deal. I know that Muslims and Christians went through the same debates when faced with Enlightenment ideas. Christians who wanted to adopt reason found enough within Christianity to support their case - Christ is logos is a biggie - whereas in Islam it was the opposite. Clearly it isn't easy to change Islam, and with Muhammads sanction to murder it's perhaps even impossible. Either way it doesn't really matter. I agree with you wholeheartedly about isolating and quarantining it.

Islam

Neil Parille's picture

Doug,

This is what gets me about "open immigration" Objectivists like Biddle: they support an immigration policy that will permit tens of millions of Moslems into the west while, at the same time, encouraging the US to nuke their homelands and holy sites. As long as we give them copies of Atlas Shrugged at the border they will see that nuking their family members at home is really in their self interest.

Quarantine and isolate makes much better sense.

-NP

Wholesale Slaughter is Unnecessary

Doug Bandler's picture

This is the basis for my admittedly hopeful outlook on the possibility that the Middle East ~might~ be pacified without the wholesale slaughter of us or them.

Firstly, thoughtful comment Robert and I appreciate it. But I am not advocating wholesale slaughter. I once did but that was more of an emotional response to the weakness of our foreign policy. I am currently advocating *isolation and quarantining* the Muslim world. Let them kill each other but keep the violence from reaching us. That is something I think we could do if we had the will.

As to your hope that Islam can be moderated. Well, I would say that if it could, and that's a big if, it could only occur if there were a philosophic revolution in the West. Under Leftist/Post-modernist rule, Islam is LETHAL. So given the facts of *today's world* I believe we should approach Islam, and Muslims, as if they are programmed by their culture to be either overt or stealth throat slitters. Really, I trust none of them. Not even the pretty Arab girls that I like to hit on. Even they could be talked into slitting your throat if the situation was right.

Perhaps Richard could say more about any prospect of changing Islam.

"All species of Islam are supremacist and violent"

Robert's picture

The basis for my agnosticism on the irredeemable nature of Islam and Muslims isn't because I've got a working knowledge of the Koran. I haven't. I haven't got a working knowledge of the Bible or Torah either. I don't believe that I need one.

My essential point is based on observable human nature and not the fables written in a book. Christians didn't changed the bible, they've just stopped following it verbatim. To the point where - these days - anyone who does even 50% of the way (e.g. Todd Akin) is regarded as an idiot - even by fellow religious folks. That doesn't require a revolution in the pages of the holy book, that requires a revolution in people's brains. Or in the case of Jihad-junkies - the actually use of their brain.

[Sidebar: "didn't change the bible" is a generalization made to simplify the argument. I'm aware that John Crossan (Professor of Biblical Studies at DePaul University) et al. believe that the current bible is a collection of stories 'approved and published' by the Roman Emperor Constantine etc. etc.]

What I do have is the personal experience of knowing and working with individual Christians, Jews and the occasional Muslim. They share one characteristic: the ability to pick and choose which parts of their religion they will follow. The Muslims I've meet - almost to a man - have no belief in the concept of individual freedom of action and seem to think that monarchy or dictatorship is better than US-Republican governance. I'm not sure if that is a hold-over from their belief in Islam (the reason for my agnosticism) or the fact that like most contemporary American's they have no concept of what natural rights are, nor what liberty is.

Despite this, and unlike the Jihadis, these folks are actively using their minds to find ways to live better. That is different from effectively and efficiently using their minds of course (they still pray to their giant, invisible, celestial friend and love 'benevolent dictators), but it is better than letting the wind enter your ears and blow your neurons around.

This is the basis for my admittedly hopeful outlook on the possibility that the Middle East ~might~ be pacified without the wholesale slaughter of us or them.

More Sanity on Islam

Doug Bandler's picture

Again, Auster is at his best on the subject of Islam. He has the ability to summarize very complex religio-political principles in very few sentences. Here he is on American foreign policy and its relationship to the Conservatives:

Lots of people—the anti-war left and the anti-war right, for example—have always said that we shouldn’t be in the Muslim world. But they don’t say that Muslims shouldn’t be in our world.

However, one must add that the Egyptian government’s move is extremely helpful—even more helpful than the consulate attack and the various anti-U.S. riots—in clarifying the nature of the Islamic societies that the American establishment thinks we can and must democratize. To democratize an Islamic society simply means to put the power of the state in the hands of sharia believers. Any person possessed of normal reasoning powers and a modicum of knowledge of Islam can understand this. The American establishment does not understand it. Egypt’s latest action brings us that much closer to the point where the democratists’ pathetic, lying excuses (“We gave them democracy, but we didn’t carefully manage their democracies so that they would use their new-found political freedom to elect secular liberals!”) will run out, and the Bush-Obama Democracy Project will be exposed as the ideological fantasy that it is.

Important points:

1) Islam is unalterably evil
2) Islamic societies can not be improved
3) We should not aim to save the Islamic world from itself but rather to save us from the Islamic world
4) Muslims should not be allowed in Western societies
5) Islam has no place in Western societies

Auster is a Conservative. A real one. So he has no interest in justifying the above on individualist principles but I say they can be. Islam is the perpetual threat of initiator force. End of story. Ban the fucking thing and kick Muslims the fuck out. Simple.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Softening of Mosaic Judaism

Doug Bandler's picture

You could say that Christianity was a taming of the Old Testament...

Yes. This is the way most Christians see it. See Ann Coulter for example. The NT did soften Mosaic Judaism.

Lastly, today's Christianity has been so watered down first by Protestantism and then by modern Liberalism that I don't know if it really can be referred to as Christianity. Today's Christianity is a secularized cult of altruism. Interestingly, today's Left is basically an even more secularized cult of altruism (with a ton of egalitarianism thrown in).

I think this explains why the Conservatives share so much in common with the Left. Today's Conservatism and Leftism really are secularizations of Christian ethics. They just stress different things.

Robert

Doug Bandler's picture

I entirely agree with your military / political offerings. The West, because of altruism, is once again funding and strengthening its enemy. It did this with European fascism, it did it with Communism, and it is doing it again with Islam. It must do it if altruism and egalitarianism and relativism are to be adhered to and that evil trinity is the Essence of Leftist society; and we are a leftist society. This is something that Objectivists should understand. Rand did. All her novels are anti-Leftist books. Not one evil "imminent Christian Theocrat" in her books. (Someone inform Diana Hsieh and the ARI about that please. )

Where I would disagree with you is about the true nature of Islam. All species of Islam are supremacist and violent. Sharia is vital to ALL of them. Further, SUBLIMITY and PIETY for Islam is the killing and conquering of infidels. The essence of Islam is the conquest of ALL non-Muslim humanity. This is captured in the entire Holy Trilogy of Islam. I don't think you could change that on any time frame that is less than centuries and even then it would require a philosophic revolution in the West.

If you want to debate that, that's fine. I'm sure Richard has plenty to say on that subject as well. But I'm on the same page as you with the majority of what you say. And I know you have served in the military and I respect that.

My main point is that I consider the argument that "organized Islam is inherently a war-making military organization and should be banned" to be a serious one and I wish more O'ists would consider it rather than give the (typically Leftist-like) knee-jerk reply that I am a racist or a collectivist or some such. I just want to be safe from the Islamo-filth throat slitters and I think that means deporting them ALL from the West and quarantining them in their ancestral lands.

-------

Note when I condemn Objectivists I am referring to basically the Brandroids and the ARIans, not the much more independent minded types that exist here. There is a great deal of sanity here. Thank Galt.

Not buying it...

Robert's picture

You appear to be of the opinion that Islam is a cohesive, monolithic edifice that once accepted, it becomes impossible for the human mind to deviate from it.

I submit to you that the existence of three principle flavors of Islam (Sunni, Shite, Suffi) - each of them (according to their adherents) mutually exclusive of each other - gives a lie to that view. I submit to you that Muslim people are just as able to hold contradictions or cherry-pick philosophical axioms as Christian people are.

What you are seeing in the rise of Islamo-facism is what you always see when a behavior is rewarded or ignored: more of that behavior.

Allow me to pontificate and feel free to interject as you like. This is an argument that I'm attempting to iron the wrinkles out of.

_______________

But even if I am incorrect with the observations in the first two paragraphs, I believe that the following applies regardless: With humans, behaviors that are rewarded or unopposed are repeated. Christianity is what it is today because murderous and imperialistic impulses by religious figures (i.e. King James II of England) were resisted passively (e.g. intellectually or by the formation of the USA) or actively by revolution and war (e.g. the Monmouth Rebellion and the Glorious Revolution - to link to the example above). I acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut simple case to make with Christianity - but if you step back and look at the sweep of history, I think you will see it as I do.

I'm less clear about the history of Judaism, but I understand that it too used to have a totalitarian/murderous streak to it and yet today it is a good deal more benign. I'm willing to bet money that the method by which it was domesticated followed a similar path to Christianity.

But what of Islam. You say that Mohammad has forged an unbreakable ring of logic, which leads you to suspect that every devout Muslim holds murder in their heart. I say that point of view hasn't been resisted in the 19th and 20th Centuries. For geo-political and pragmatic reasons these Jihadist urges were ignored or rewarded as the regional powers and Super Powers jockeyed for economic, political and imperial advantage using any weapon available.

Not long ago in Rwanda, Hutu and Tutsi conspired to kill each other in a remarkable display of blood letting even for the 20th Century. What was the international political fall out from that? Nothing. The West (apart from France) didn't lift a finger because they had no interest in Rwanda.

Not so the Middle East, where Muslims were courted by the British Empire in WWI in a war against the Ottoman Empire and then by Nazi Germany in WWII in their campaign against the British Commonwealth - who were there to fuel their Navy with Persian oil and to fuel their empire with a trade route through the Suez Canal.

And on it goes. The USSR armed the Arabs in the decades after the formation of Israel in an effort to increase their sphere of influence. The US returned the favor by arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to bleed the Soviets white. And so on and so forth.

This is not a Ron Paul argument against US efforts to suppress the Soviets etc.

It is merely an observation that the Jihadis have only ~just~ begun to be resisted and you know what? They are winning strategically.

The number of overt Islamic states that embrace the Muslim Brotherhood/Taliban/Al Qeada style of Islamofacism has ~increased~. Why, because the US is rewarding Iran and the Taliban. It removes dictators that oppose them, rebuilds that nation and does nothing when Iranian/Taliban/Muslim Brotherhood types infiltrate the government. And it retires before a persistent insurgency.

For the cost of 100,000 (estimates vary) of useful idiots (jihadis) the powers that be in the Taliban/Muslim Brotherhood/Iran now have quasi control of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

You probably play chess or some similar type of game. If sacrificing pawns wholesale allows you to capture the opponents rooks, knights, bishops and Queen, are you not going to continue that tactic?

That is the mentality I assign to the Islamofascists. And if that mentality is punished, either by firm military and economic action, then I can't see how this cannot lead to a re-examination by the rank and file as to the reason that the West flourishes while they live in Mud-huts and eat dung. All the while their sons die like ants in futile attempts to attack Western buildings - attempts that bring retaliations that leave that nation naked before its regional enemies - and eventually if the terrorism continues - before the elements themselves.

But again, if I am wrong, show me how assisting these idiots, by allowing them to partake of the fruits of capitalism and Western philosophy, does anything more than strengthen them and weaken us?

If the above is even only partly true, then the best way to combat Islam - the idea - is to resist it intellectually, economically and - where necessary - militarily. Robert Heinlenn springs to mind where he talks about how to discipline a child in Starship Troopers. If a child behaves poorly, you don't cut their head off. You don't give them candy either. You spank their bottom and explain why their behavior is unacceptable.

You demonstrate to them that there is no benefit to their continuing their behavior and no future in their attempts to resist you because you are overwhelmingly strong and driven by moral righteousness. Then you sit back and watch them adjust their actions/thought processes - on their own.

If it works for children, why wouldn't it work for those populations in the thrall of Islamo facism? Ideally you'd want them to reject the concept of God entirely and ground their beliefs in reality. But that is probably too large a jump to make straight out of the gate. For our purposes all that is required is that they reject the warrior creed and embrace the trader's creed.

Taming the OT

Jmaurone's picture

"Does the taming of Christianity go against Jesus? Not that I can see."
You could say that Christianity was a taming of the Old Testament...

Islam is yet to be defanged

Richard Wiig's picture

Islam is yet to be defanged in this way. Part of the reason is that the fabled moderates in these countries are being suppressed by all sides - the Western friendly dictators and the Jihad-junkies

Muhammads rule of killing all those who leave their religion doesn't help. The taming of Christianity never faced such obstacles. Does the taming of Christianity go against Jesus? Not that I can see. Would it go against Muhammad? Absolutely!

No...

Robert's picture

The Christian story is one where the religion Christ spawned was domesticated into the current - relatively toothless - entity that it is today by the Renaissance and the political & philosophical that revolution it spawned. That meant that we have the likes of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Paine, Jefferson, Madison, etc. to thank for the fact that Christianity is no longer the political, military, and philosophical force that it was in the Dark Ages. (Hitchen's reminds us that as bloody as the Old Testament was, the tormented were tormented only unto death. The concept of an eternal purgatory came only with Christ. Remember that when next someone waxes lyrical about the "Prince of Peace.")

Islam is yet to be defanged in this way. Part of the reason is that the fabled moderates in these countries are being suppressed by all sides - the Western friendly dictators and the Jihad-junkies. Rolled into this is a tribe-based survival mechanism with an honor-based hierarchy that provides the only stability and reliable safety mechanism in a world where the drooling beast rules the roost.

Why hasn't an Islamic Reformation-style event happened yet? That's one of those cafe debates for historians. Basically (so the theory goes) the 'natural' political and philosophical trajectory of that region was screwed up by the lead-up to and aftermath of WWI, and further delayed by the Cold-War. Had the Middle East remained a back-water (save for the Suez Canal) throughout the 20th Century - in the way Central Africa has (uprisings in the 50s and 60s not withstanding) - I can't imagine that the Arabian Peninsula would pose the threat that it does today.

And that would count double if the Western taxpayer hadn't subsidized the construction of the Arabian oil production facilities both directly and indirectly by militarily protecting (via direct occupation or the installation and support of friendly kings and dictators) the companies that built those facilities.

But that is academic. What can be done in the current context? Here are my uninformed opinions:

Nuking the entire thing has a self-satisfying ring to it, but will solve nothing. Ideas - even bad ones - are bullet (and nuke) proof.

Moreover, the most peaceful nations on Earth are those that underwent an organic philosophical revolution followed - where necessary - by multiple military ones. To put it another way - "you can lead a people to water, but you can't force them to drink."

What the West must do is to engineer a situation in those countries where the 'moderate lambs' must overthrow the jihadist-jackels - by their ~own~ hand, on their ~own initiative and fueled by a philosophical fire kindled by their ~own~ introspective efforts. This hand-holding, nation-building crap is not a hot enough forge to drive out the weakening philosophical impurities that doom the civil society once the nation-builders remove their supporting scaffolds and go home. And that's without considering the moral-correctness of 'nation-building.' Where 'nation-building' did worked (Germany and Japan), it worked because it was actually 'nation re-building.' Those populations already had a cohesive national identity and had, in living memory, existed as a civil, ordered society, built by their own hand.

What needed curbing was the warrior/imperialistic impulse. I am convinced that the only way to cure a warrior cult of its warrior impulses is to injure it (or allow it to injure itself) grievously until it learns that living by the sword is an oxymoron.

If the Arab countries were a military force to be reckoned with, then I would advise destroying their military first and then leaving them to it. But for the likes of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and Iraq post 2003, that is not necessary. Their military strength is nourished by money that we send them for their oil, money that they use to by weapons that they themselves cannot produce. Take away that money and what do they have? Answer: Gas guzzling, mechanized, computerized and maintenance heavy war-machines with limited global mobility that they cannot service or replace or modernize without external assistance. An answer presents itself does it not?

But what about the terrorists? Certain nations seem to turn them out like Gingerbread men. Yes, they do. The answer is how? How do they afford to expend life so cheaply when given the general lack of agriculture, horticulture and industrial capacity, you'd think that every waking hour would be spent manually purifying water or hunting for food. The answer of course is that the oil-economy/international aid economy that was built for them allows them to import everything they need from food to expertise in constructing desalination plants. Remove that oil-economy and you will attack the ability of these countries to produce unemployed feckless youths with sufficient time to spare to train for Jihad - training paid for by the equally feckless son of a Saudi oil tycoon.

The only reason the Palestinians can sustain a Hamas interfada is because their food and water and medicine is being provided by someone else. The only reason that healthy, well heeled, sun-glass wearing Islamic youths can run around burning flags and cooing to Allah is that they don't have to irrigate the desert by hand in order to feed themselves.

Now let us suppose that my societal/economic analysis is flawed or blighted by sophomoric logic. So what? Remove that crutch anyway. We are only weakening ourselves and strengthening them by giving them the oil business and the philanthropic aid. How does the existence of the OPEC cartel aid the West? Answer: it doesn't. It allows the Iranians to lobby to keep oil in the $100/barrel range so that they can fund the construction of the nuclear weapons they publicly threaten us and Israel with.

But what if the moderate lambs are a myth in the Islamic context? It matters not. The following strategy will marginalize that area of the world until the time comes when they realize that living by the sword is an oxymoron.

Basically (and at minimum), the West must shrug.

The West must withdraw both the moral sanction to give aid and comfort to these countries while at the same time pulling the international economic rug from underneath them.

If they want a modern economy - let them build it themselves.

To do so will mean that they will have to establish a relatively civil society first. And if that happens - the West will have what it wants: peace on the Arabian Peninsula. I could care less what form that society takes - so long as it is civil (i.e. doesn't go berserk when someone names a Teddy bear "Mohammad") and not out to reform the Caliphate.

So stop donating to them, stop propping up their dictators.

Stop insisting that they must remain intact as countries, when clearly the people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan would rather divide themselves along geographic lines that are ethnically homogeneous.

[Yes, I know that Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdish State - but screw them. Had they allowed the 4th Inf. Division enter Iraq from the Turkish border in 2003, there is a damned good case to be made that the WMDs, Saddam, and the insurgency would have been more easily captured/suppressed.]

Stop letting neutral 'allies' make geopolitical restrictions on how you make war (or peace following a war) on those occasions when war becomes necessary.

Stop buying their goods when we can very well make those items ourselves, cheaper and better.

Close all embassies. And accept no immigrants save genuine refugees - those who wish to leave and NEVER return.

If we must have 'foreign aid' to Israel, allow them to reoccupy the Sinai and then contract them to build a shipping canal from Rafah to Taba on the Gulf of Aqaba so that the Egyptian Suez Canal has competition and lets see how (post Arab-Spring) Egyptian 'international influence' survives that.

And if when the Islamic states get uppity in a military sense: drop their bridges into their rivers, destroy every electricity generation plant and dam, blow up their run-ways, shoot down their aircraft civilian and military, mine their ports, and sink any vessel bigger than a bath toy. Tell them that you are merely removing from their countries the things they despise so much - the fruits of Capitalism and Freedom.

And if we must have subsidies and tariffs, let it be on goods and services principally produced by those nations who's populations like to chant "Death to America." That is a declaration of war. So let us go to war with them - economically & philosophically. Anyone who publicly seeks our destruction this way should not be allowed access to our markets. And we should actively undercut their customers to boot (provided we can do so without ruining ourselves fiscally of course) as a matter of self defense.

As to the rest - drone strikes and military raids will continue to be used to cull the jihadists who want to operate internationally - call it the "Mowing the Lawn" strategy. This is merely an extension of the old anti-Pirate campaigns of the 16th-19th Centuries and should be justified as such - openly and without shame.

This is a war of ideas and we are loosing it because 50% of Americans couldn't articulate what capitalism and freedom are and the fact that the two are indivisible (see Darren's treatise on the pillars of capitalism for example, last time I checked, freedom wasn't among them).

When that light bulb is re-lit then the only thing that remains is to gain the courage to treat the Muslims as they wish to be treated.

You want the America out of your holy-lands?

Sure! We'll do that for ya, we'll sterilize it completely by removing all of the things that the West has created since 1776.

Of course you can't sterilize the radio-waves, so we'll continue to beam images and sounds of capitalism and freedom on your airwaves with a strength strong enough to be picked up on a pair of metal dentures.

And FFS when the Muslim women (some sans hajibs - which is how you know the Sharia lovers weren't involved) finally hit the streets in support of freedom (as they did in Iran 2009), the President MUST support proper pro-freedom uprisings -- even if only with supportive rhetoric.

[Of all of Obama's & Hillary's failures, there failure to support the Iranian Green movement is most egregious and should be remembered & recounted should that witch ever surface to run for President.]

Simply put: the West needs to exile those nations in which a plurality of people ~willingly~ embrace the philosophy of fascism and Imperialistic Islamism. They have a disease of the mind that only a dose of cold hard reality can cure.

Doug

Richard Goode's picture

You make some good points and you ask the right questions.

Islam is not a religion like any other, here's why.

Perhaps you should write a book (or, at least, a pamphlet) entitled The DHIMMI Hypothesis.

Goode...

Marcus's picture

...stay off the weed, will ya?

KASSless Subjectivism

Doug Bandler's picture

His is the bizarre, mega-repulsive and to me unfathomable Brandroid inversion whereby the only thing that is evil is the condemnation of evil.

I'm seeing this clearly now. The Brandroid wing is infected with their own version of relativism. Of course they rationalize it. Sadly the orthodox wing of Objectivism is infected with a paralyzing sort of boringness. It goes deeper than that but that's how it strikes me.

Let me state it this way. Every non-Leftist Westerner should be TERRIFIED of Islam. Islam poses a threat to the rest of humanity. This religion's very conception of piety is KILLING and conquering non-believers. Rand's version of the sublime was Roark and Galt. Hell, even Christianity's version is better than what Islam represents. Christ's ethics suck but his story is one of a man who accomplishes his goal after overcoming his own fear and doubt. The Christ legend is bad philosophy but good literature. Mo's story is just brutal, sadistic killing.

The questions Objectivists should be wrestling are:

1) How to properly classify Islam
2) If it is classified as a military organization then how should Muslims be treated
3) Should Muslim immigration be allowed
4) Should mass Muslim deportations be initiated
5) The status of Mosques - enemy beacheads or places of worship
6) Muslim enclaves in America and the West in general; ie Dearborn Michigan
7) Can Islam be contained in its ancestral lands
8] How much devastation will it require to pacify Islam
9) The epistemological methodology to arrive at answers to all of the above
10) Is Islam more believable as Peikoff's M2 dictatorship
11) Just how Islam reveals the treachery of the left

etc.

These are the questions that the latest round of incidents in the Islamic world should have triggered in all Rand influenced circles. But next to no one wants to or can address them. Sadly, I sense that no further thought on this subject will happen until the next 9/11 (which will probably be nuclear). In fact, the sad reality is that the BETTER American people will probably need another 9/11 to wake the fuck up. Even then the ENTIRE Left will still oppose any strong action and many mainstream conservatives with them. I bet that even a few O'ists will still argue against strong anti-Islam action because its "collectivism".

What every O'ist should have realized by now is that Islam presents a threat that no other totalitarian force has ever presented. It is WORSE than fascism or communism by an order of magnitude.

But I'm pissing upstream. Objectivists will wake up on their own time, and a fool like Brant will never wake up. The Brandroids are basically libertarians with an Objectivist overlay. And as Michael Mollier has demonstrated, libertarians *are* retarded. On just about everything.

Dougie dear

Brant Gaede's picture

Linz and you are fulminating. That actually wasn't my intention, but there's no need to throw another log on the fire--or on your head.

--Brant
I left six years ago over this same sort of thing, and now is a good time to do it again--for good--and leave SOLO to its denizens

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Brant to make an argument. Miss-and-run is his mo. His is the bizarre, mega-repulsive and to me unfathomable Brandroid inversion whereby the only thing that is evil is the condemnation of evil. I always thought of the O-Liars as an integral part of The Thing that is prowling through the world. Leeringly, gleefully filthy; wantonly ignoble. Of course they'll defend Islamofilth. I expect they'll be voting for Obamarx as well. Anyway, I know you won't be daunted by such dregs.

Just watching the filth out in the streets in Lebanon and Pakistan, crazed and murderous. Brant'll be cheering no doubt.

Fuck the prophet Mohammed, may a ton of pig-shit be dumped on his pedophile head.

Brant

Doug Bandler's picture

Solo also lets you mouth away your useless bullshit as well. Really, what the fuck have you said that's been useful in years?

You deny that Islam is evil? That it should be classified as a military organization? That it should not be given 1st Amendment protection? That Muslims are not part of a hostile enemy force intent on transforming the West?

You deny this? THEN MAKE A FUCKING ARGUMENT. Leonid is a fool on this subject but at least he tries to back up his stupidity with regards to Islam.

Oh but I guess you can go back to OLY and call me a racist or whatever. A bunch of Islamo-filth appeasers over there in that supposedly "intellectual" environment will agree with your "moral superiority".

Interesting that you survived Vietnam only to become a fucking Islamo-pandering dimwit.

So

Brant Gaede's picture

I think SOLO does a great service providing a home to someone like Doug who does not let ignorance stop his authoritative, insane, evil declamations. Brings the infection to a head.

--Brant
lancing it

Islam is evil and Orthodox Objectivism is stupid

Doug Bandler's picture

The entire world, ie all of non-Muslim humanity, is being held hostage to the 1.7 billion Muslims that currently exist. We see that the Muslim world can be goaded into mass riots and slaughter at the drop of a pin. HUMANITY IS NOT SAFE SO LONG AS ISLAM EXISTS.

And yet the Objectivist movement as a movement is still basically blind to the reality that Islam can not coexist with the West, that it does not deserve 1st amendment protection, that it is not just another religion like Christianity or Judaism, that moderate Muslims are not harmless citizens, that Islam should be banned and all mosques closed and Muslims systematically deported.

No, Objectivists still think there are property rights for Mosques and Muslims. Just go to any of the major O'ist forums and you'll see for yourself. That to me is more depressing than the evil of Islam. I know that Muslims want to kill or subjugate me. But the sad and depressing reality that Objectivsts (with some notable exceptions) are prepared to let them do it in the name of property rights has so soured me to this movement that I don't call myself an Objectivist any longer, just someone who is influenced by Rand. I don't want to be lumped together with Robert Tracinski or the Hsiehs or any O'ist that at this late date doesn't understand the need to isolate Islam from the West and the rest of humanity.

Nice law, Richard, but it

Richard Wiig's picture

Nice law, Richard, but it doesn't hold a patch on Islamic law. As one of the faithful, Sharia allows you to take matters into your own hands if authorities haven't acted when they should have.

A heads-up (pun intended)

Marcus's picture

On Monday 9am Andrew Marr will interview Salman Rushdie on BBC radio 4.

"In a special edition of Start the Week Andrew Marr talks to Salman Rushdie. For a decade the writer was forced to live under police protection after being 'sentenced to death' by the Ayatollah Khomeini following the publication of his novel, The Satanic Verses. He talks about living in hiding, under an alias, Joseph Anton, and how he gradually secured his freedom. Rushdie argues that we are 'story-telling animals', but more than twenty years since his controversial book was banned around the world, Andrew Marr asks what impact this has had on the stories we tell."

From Monday a series of five extracts will be read on BBC radio 4 from his forthcoming Autobiography too.

Five extracts from his forthcoming autobiography.

"One day an edict comes from the Ayatollah and all daily routine is turned upside down for the author, his wife and son, and even his friends..."

"On 14 February 1989, Valentine's Day, Salman Rushdie was telephoned by a BBC journalist and told that he had been 'sentenced to death' by the Ayatollah Khomeini. For the first time he heard the word fatwa. His crime? To have written a novel called The Satanic Verses, which was accused of being 'against Islam, the Prophet and the Quran'.

So begins the extraordinary story of how a writer was forced underground, moving from house to house, with the constant presence of an armed police protection team. He was asked to choose an alias that the police could call him by. He thought of writers he loved and combinations of their names; then it came to him: Conrad and Chekhov - Joseph Anton."

Crimes Act 1961

Richard Goode's picture

Crime against religion

123 Blasphemous libel
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.
(2) Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.
(3) It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.
(4) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Witchfinder-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.

I've just watched the whole

Richard Wiig's picture

I've just watched the whole thing and I urge you all to do the same. It's very informative and it shows the breadth and gravity of the threat. It shows clearly too that the current protests are anything but spontaneous.

Stephen Coughlin on the OIC...

Richard Wiig's picture

...and its role in enforcing Islamic law.

P.S The above video is quite long, but it definitely won't be a waste of your time if you watch it.

And still Obama did not take heed of such warnings!

Marcus's picture

"Mr Panetta was able to reach Field Marshal Tantawi shortly after one o'clock on Saturday morning, warning the Egyptian of "serious consequences" if any of the Israelis was killed."

Could you imagine Obama having the balls to talk tough like this?

These incidents must be highly uncomfortable for Obama with the election looming.

Now he has to pretend he is the kick-ass defender of the US Biden pretended he was at the DNC while trying not to upset his base suppport on the hard-left of the Democrat Party. Saving his Presidential bacon this way however goes against all the instincts of this Noble Peace Prize winner.

This one's going back more

Richard Wiig's picture

This one's going back more than a few months. It was under siege for 13 hours before the Egyptian government did anything:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

A quick google shows that Israeli embassies are attacked reasonably often. I guess they are not being attacked now because it's simply not in the plan. The Imams will tell the worshippers who to attack at friday prayers, then they'll spill out of the mosques fired up and do what they've been trained to do.

Fair summary

gregster's picture

It could have been a lot funnier. I watched it again and there are a few good laughs, only. The rest is pedestrian. I salute the makers. Low budget, C grade. But if you're putting your life on the line you would need to save some money for security costs, and not waste it all on the filth.

The C-grade style is fitting for this age. Helicopter Bernanke is trying another round of pulling the carpet from beneath taxpayers to supposedly help President BO's re-election. Mormon Romney is moving to the left and promising more me-too for the dregs voters.

We are witnessing The Age of Crap. Linz was right on that too.

There could been opera houses on Mars by now.

And...

Marcus's picture

...what happened?

Why no storming now?

The Israeli embassy in Cairo

Richard Wiig's picture

The Israeli embassy in Cairo was stormed a few months back.

You're right Linz...

Marcus's picture

...however such a change would not have prevented this movie being made.

But at least Obama could say "Al-al akba, we have laws against this sort of thing".

I see the Muslims were also shouting "death to Isreal" and the man who made the film was supposedly an Isreali.

However has anyone seen any Isreali Embassy being stormed or trashed?

Either the Isrealis are clever enough to stay out of these countries or they have much better security than the Americans.

I suspect the latter given Obama's relaxed attitude.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I just watched it right through. I still didn't find it funny, though naturally I'm sympathetic to its intent. I voted "like" just to help boost the numbers against the filth who are obviously voting in force.

After Hillary's half-witted rant against the movie today, I can see what'll happen if The Filth gets re-elected: the First Amendment will be changed to proscribe religious slander. And Airhead America will lap it up.

It's quite sickening...

Marcus's picture

...how the media are trying to hunt down a scapegoat, not that they would actually blame the Muslims themselves for their own actions.

They've even hunted down the actors and actresses and some Egyptian guy in Hollywood who admitted to helping make the film, although not writing or producing it. There are a tonne of journalists currently camped outside his house.

Linz I thought the film clip was quite funny. It is just bearable if you accept it as a very badly made comedy sketch to the point of self-parody. The irony is the Muslims in it act as violent murderous thugs. The Muslims who watched it were so enraged at that portrayal they went out to murder and destroy just to prove that it was wrong.

Marcus already posted it ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... and I got bored after two minutes. Too silly for words. It's not the real reason for the savages' berserkery in any event.

Innocence of Muslims

gregster's picture

This movie is causing a stir. Muslims (and their sick appeaser friends) are outvoting the YT Likes by 4 to 1.

At 9 mins.

“Is your Mohammed a child molester? Our daughter’s but a child and he’s 55 years old.”

“He’s 53, not 55. And he has wealth, and power. My daughter shall be his bride whether you say yes or no.”

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

However, its probably wrong of me to say this but Christianity has produced things of beauty in its history or at least oversaw their construction. Look at the Vatican and Rome.

Not wrong of you at all. I believe I made a similar point in Why Catholicism Is Beating Objectivism's Ass Still. Got me into all sorts of strife. Eye

Where is the rage from organized Objectivism? I swear Objectivists are in their own delusional little world.

One whole wing of organised Objectivism, of course, proscribes rage on principle. Why the ARI, the other and dominant wing, has been so invisible on these latest developments I don't know. Binswanger has posted to his private subscribers something similar to my post here, even using one of my most oft-used epithets, "sub-human." Overall I think the reason they're so useless comes down to good ol' rationalism. They lay out a theoretical construct of The Ideal Foreign Policy straight from Plato's World of Forms and refuse to participate in, or support anyone who participates in, the real world. We see that syndrome even here among *dis*organised Objectivists! As I type, Allen West is on Hannity saying some of the most trenchant things anyone has said these past few days. Post in praise of Allen West, however, and the usual suspects pounce on his impurities. Just an excuse not to lift a finger.

Objectivism needs Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs—firebrands whose blood boils, and for all the right reasons. The problem with most Objectivists is not only does their blood never boil, they're bloodless to begin with.

Oh, hahaha! Sean just cut off the egregious wimp McCain, who was arguing for a "carefully calibrated" approach toward Egypt.

Linz

Doug Bandler's picture

and that the content of its beliefs is equally meta-barbaric and sub-moronic.

You are of course right. However, its probably wrong of me to say this but Christianity has produced things of beauty in its history or at least oversaw their construction. Look at the Vatican and Rome. Islam has only destroyed or stolen. As I get older I can't muster the same type of hatred for Christianity as I can for Islam and the Left. Now I know if Christianity were to go feral once more then the Inquisition would return. But if you really look at modern Christianity it has been so infused with modern Liberalism that I don't think what modern Christians practice is really Christianity. Liberal Christianity is a different animal altogether.

Take Madonna for example. She is never parted from her Cross. But does anyone really believe that Madonna stands for Christianity? True Christianity would have burned her at the stake for her promiscuity glorifying ways. But forget Madonna. Look at Laura Ingrahm. She is always wearing the cross while at the same time showing off her cleavage. Is that Christianity? NO. Christianity does not allow for boob displays. Laura Ingrahm would be shocked to learn that she is more of a liberal than a Christian.

My point is that today's Christianity is so tame and pathetic, I almost have sympathy for it. Almost.

I hope the journalists who colluded to trip Romney up re his excellent statement on The Filth's response to the Egyptian situation are among the bombed filth.

Yes. The chickens should come home to roost. But here is what depresses me. Where is the rage from organized Objectivism? I swear Objectivists are in their own delusional little world.

More gun control, more losses from gun control

Craig Ceely's picture

It's been said before: Guns don't kill people -- well armed, motivated Marines kill people.

Except: there no was no one from the Marine Security Guard at the consulate in Benghazi.

Except: the Marines at the embassy in Cairo were forbidden -- by order of the Chief of Mission -- to carry live ammunition. Yes, the ol' no live ammo rule worked so well in Beirut that we'll just go with it again in Cairo!

Does anyone at State know what in the hell Marines are for?

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I love and share your intensity but I'd caution against giving Goblianity a free pass. Existentially, currently, it's not a worry—Hsiekovian hysteria to the contrary notwithstanding—because it's been civilised by its exposure to reason. But we must never forget that historically it was every bit an exemplar of "they who believe absurdities commit atrocities" as Islamogoblinism—and that the content of its beliefs is equally meta-barbaric and sub-moronic.

That said, I too can't wait for the Left-filth to be taken out by the Islamo dirty bombs they will have enabled. I hope the journalists who colluded to trip Romney up re his excellent statement on The Filth's response to the Egyptian situation are among the bombed filth. And millions and millions more. More broadly, no one whose blood doesn't boil at the spectacle of filth doing its thing is fit to live. Being taken out by their own—that which they have enabled—would be simple synergistic justice.

Matthew 7:15-20

Richard Goode's picture

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Islam vs Christianity

Doug Bandler's picture

I'm not a Christian apologist but this is true. The Left hates, hates, hates Christianity but loves Islam. They are using Islam they way they are using blacks; as a way to beat the Conservatives over the heads for being racist and Islamophobes; ie to inculcate guilt using egalitarianism which is the modus operandi of the Left.

If there is one thing more evil than Islam it is the LEFT. I hate all those fuckers and hope that one day there is such a backlash against the Left that ALL OF THEIR RINGLEADERS SWING BY THEIR NECKS. Yes, that's the level of hatred I have for modern "liberals".

Ross

Doug Bandler's picture

Ask yourself what importance Islam would have if the lands in which it was dominant did *not* have oil.

Ross you are right up to a point. Oil supplies the Muslims with wealth which allows them to wage both their propaganda and jihad battles. However, even without the oil wealth I think that Islam would present a danger through IMMIGRATION which is the NUMBER ONE concern with Muslims. Muslims are the carriers of that deadly infectious disease known as Islam. They bring it with them wherever they go. To win this war is simple:

1) Ban Islamic immigration and allow ZERO Muslims in your country

2) Ban Islam as a hostile military ideology aimed at the conquest of your country

3) QUARANTINE the ENTIRE Muslim world. Limit them to killing themselves in their ancestral lands. Let them slaughter each other instead of us. Do not invite them to live amongst us because they are SAVAGES.

Now look at what I just wrote. How many Objectivists would agree with that let alone Leftists or mainstream Conservatives? What would Yaron Brook say? Or Diana Hsieh? That I'm a rationalist or some such idiocy.

Our problem is ourselves not the Muslims.

Islam vs. Christianity

Richard Goode's picture

Islam vs. Christianity

It's one of those...

Ross Elliot's picture

...things that we just have to deal with.

The Muslims do have the oil, by and large, and they have the Koran. That's just the way it is.

I wonder if anyone *really* gets this. Islam really doesn't matter to the West save for oil. Actually, I'm sure the Islamists get it. And they leverage that into *their* desire for war.

This goes to the whole idea of how the West should deal with the Middle East. Why not adopt a wholly economic mindset? We do the least that is required to obtain their oil in the least damaging manner to ourselves.

We set up this holy war. This philosophical war. But where is that war if all it all depends upon is their hegemony over oil?

Try this: most of Africa has a philosophy that is at strong odds with Western values, yet we really couldn't give a shit about the tribal values of Chad or of Kenya. It just doesn't matter.

But we endlessly debate Islam *only* because we need to operate in Islamic areas to secure our oil supplies. If the oil wasn't there, who would give a fuck?

I have no problem with US carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf as a means to secure oil trade. What I do have a problem with is this idea that Islam needs to be defeated per se. It doesn't. Do you feel a need to defeat the Umba-Gumba religion of Congo? No? Why not?

Ask yourself what importance Islam would have if the lands in which it was dominant did *not* have oil. Yes, they have that which we need, for now. But contemplate a world a few decades hence. Where will their oil be then? Gone. For sure. What will their importance be to us then? Zero.

Yes, we can talk about Iran having nukes because of their oil money. And we have to deal with that. Yes, we can talk about their desire to destroy Israel. And we have to deal with that. But where is the long game regarding Islam per se? Nowhere, that's where.

I say do the least that is required to secure the resources we need, then cut them loose. They can go back to their sand and camels after that.

That's why Afghanistan is such a waste. That's why trying to appease the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa is such a waste. Let them rot.

Kyrel

Doug Bandler's picture

Thanks for the compliment. I'm much more negative on Muslims then are you. I don't believe that ANY Muslims should be present in the West. Muslims by definition swear allegiance to Islam and Islam is a warrior religion whose very conception of the sublime is killing non-believers. Islam is initiatory force and it should be BANNED in America and the West. Muslims should be DEPORTED. ALL OF THEM.

If there were no Muslims in the West, there would never have been a 9/11 or the London Bombings or Bali or etc, etc, etc.. Most O'ists would say I was a collectivist but most O'ists have their heads up their asses.

Marcus

Doug Bandler's picture

...the US is not dependent on oil from the Middle East. Europe is, the US is not.

The most you can say is the US is dependent on Middle Easten oil reserves for price stability, but not for their supply.

Yes this is true. But the enormous sums of money that flow into the Islamic world because of their oil supports and funds the spread of Islam and the waging of both overt and stealth Jihad. If the US were to free its oil industry and tap all of its oil rich resources (off shore, shale, etc) then the Middle East and ALL petro-dictatorships would be minimized. The House Of Islam would be weakened which should be our first priority; to weaken our enemy which is the Global Ummah; ie the ENTIRE Muslim world.

Strongly Westernized 'Muslims' Aren't so Bad

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Your fire and energy is great!

But I think the key point is that mainly the activist Muslims, or good and honest Muslims, are truly evil, and an objective threat. Those who sincerely believe in and practice jihad (war on innocents) and sharia (enslavement of innocents). They indeed should be expelled from the West.

Hypocritical Muslims are much less of a problem. These implicitly anti-Muslim Muslims are much less of a problem. They're similar to the hypocritical and anti-Christian Christians which secretly believe in The Enlightenment and secular Western liberalism.

And that Arab Spring would have worked out if America had bombarded the impressionable, leaderless revolutionaries and milling, ignorant masses with the equivalent of Radio Free Europe in favor of Western liberal philosophy and culture. Also if America had refused to diplomatically recognize or financially aid any tyrannical or Islamic gov'ts, and had consistently morally damned them. (Also if America had selectively bombed the new tyrants and their cronies and power structure.)

Doug...

Marcus's picture

...the US is not dependent on oil from the Middle East. Europe is, the US is not.

The most you can say is the US is dependent on Middle Easten oil reserves for price stability, but not for their supply.

Good Points

Doug Bandler's picture

But that ain't the case. They do have oil, and we need that oil.

Which is why one of the best things we could do is to move towards laissez-faire in the energy production fields. It would minimize if not eliminate the geopolitical significance of the Arabs and Islam. George Reisman wrote an excellent essay about this over 10 years ago.

I guess the question is how did we overcome the bible (to a practical extent), and the Arabs have not overcome the Koran?

That's a great question and I am sure volumes could be written on it. To sum up, the Christian world developed an interpretive tradition to religion helped by the better parts of the Enlightenment (the non-skeptical parts). But there is a problem here. Christianity was replaced but by what? Yeah by post-modern philosophy and Leftism (that ugly mix of skepticism, relativism, secular altruism and egalitarianism - ie NIHILISM).

The moderately Christian culture of the pre-1960s was superior to the one we have now even though religion was stronger. More importantly, skepticism had not yet been unleashed.

My above...

Ross Elliot's picture

...is a slight non sequitor.

The Koran only matters to the Arabs because they choose to live by it. The Koran matters to us because oil brings us into contact with Koran believers.

I'll see your Koran...

Ross Elliot's picture

...and raise you a Bible.

I guess the question is how did we overcome the bible (to a practical extent), and the Arabs have not overcome the Koran?

I think this has to do with the simple fact that the Middle East is floating on oil. If it wasn't, would it really matter what the Koran said? There are a multitude of Islamic nations that have no bearing on the West, but those that do, all have oil, or are allied to and funded by oil.

If the Middle East was just sand and camels, none of this would be an issue. They'd just be sitting there smoking their hookahs and beating their women, and nothing they did would have geopolitical ramifications.

But that ain't the case. They do have oil, and we need that oil.

The one exception to the above is Israel. But the feckless attacks on Israel would have been even more woeful if not for oil money. It would be as silly as Mexico trying to attack the US.

Islam is evil and Muslims should not be in the West

Doug Bandler's picture

This is the conclusion that Objectivism should have drawn by now. But the movement as a whole still seems stuck on stupid. Official Objectivism still talks about "Islamists" and "Islamic Totalitarians" and there is still talk of "property rights" when dealing with Mosques. What we should have learned and should be screaming at the top of our lungs is that Islam is an act of war against the entire non-Muslim world. Our enemy is Islam and Muslims can't be trusted. Take a look at Egypt. Pretty much all mainstream Conservatives and more than a few Objectivists (Clueless Tracinski) were supporting the "Arab Spring" in Egypt. Pathetic.

I'm glad to see that the Oi'st at this site are getting it. Now if only there would be some sense from the folks at the ARI.

"Mohammed is God's apostle.

Richard Wiig's picture

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

Well, Linz...

Craig Ceely's picture

Maybe no tea towels, but you could always take comfort in the words of Larry Pratt, he of Gun Owners of America:

"The Koran is basically a declaration of war against civilization."

Adonis

Leonid's picture

 No religion and especially not Islam could be compatible with Libertarianism. Libertarianism means free mind and soul. Islam literally means a submission of the mind and soul to the will of Allah. Contradictions don’t exist and Libertarian Islamist who believes in prophecy and supports Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran is an oxymoron, fried ice. I think you already tried your luck on this site without much success, because most of the people here don't take contradictions. Why to bother again?

"In addition to that, my Prophet, contrary to what ignorant people like yourself say was not a child-molester."

Your definition of child is apparently quite different from that which is commonly accepted. Aisha was only 6 years old when she married Mohammed and this marriage was consummated when she was just 9 years old.

   "Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.236 p.153.

 ‘A’ishah said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said : Or six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old." Sunan Abu Dawud vol.2 book 5 ch.700 no.2116 p.569

http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10197

Aisha died at age 18 which is not surprising. ( Ibn-i-maja vol 3 nom 1877 p 134).

However, child molesting is not an exclusive preregative of Islam. Many Catholic priests do exactly the same.

Belief-System from Hell

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

"Death to Islam!" What a beautiful thought! Ronald Reagan once characterized the Soviet Union as "the empire of evil" and "the focus of evil in the modern world." The philosophy of Islam is both today. Islam just needs to DIE.

Please read more carefully.

Adonis's picture

Actually, I did put a link to a post I put in the blog that included articles regarding Islam and Libertarianism in one of my comments below. It's here http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Oh dear!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do I take it there'll be no "How the Prophet Was a Libertarian" article then?

Damn! And here I was running all my tea-towels through the laundry.

Oh please.. Mr Ego-Masturbation has arrived..

Adonis's picture

Lindsay, Say what you like. Your ungentlemanly conduct and arrogance is repulsive which is only made worse by the fact that you're so willfully ignorant. Your waffling rhetoric clearly lacks any real substance and I regard it the way I'd regard any shock-jock, someone who just says outrageous things at the top of their voice to influence the ignorant masses to do stupid things and does so as a form of ego-masturbation to make himself feel superior and important.

I find it quite embarrassing that you are a Libertarian, had I not migrated here to New Zealand and been interested in promoting the noble ideas Libertarianism for the common good of mankind you could be quite sure that I wouldn't waste my time even addressing your outright stupidity and arrogance.

In addition to that, my Prophet, contrary to what ignorant people like yourself say was not a child-molester. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that because you clearly haven't put in the research.

Adonis

Wow so many replies!

Adonis's picture

Hey everyone! Sorry I didn't respond earlier I was a little busy with some other things!

Jmaurone! Thank you very much for the information about this magazine, I'll check it out once borders re opens hopefully. I had actually never ever googled Islam and Libertarianism at all before but did so after reading what you wrote and I came across some excellent websites and articles on it that I'd like to share.

To make sure that we don't run Lindsay's blog off track, I've created a post in response to your comments. It's located at http://www.solopassion.com/nod... and is titled "Islam and Libertarianism: Response to the comments on Lindsay Perigo's 'Death to Islam' post.

I hope you'll all read the post and the linked articles and websites and see what I'm talking about.

In Freedom,

Adonis

"Adonis"

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I regard Islam as a stinking, stupid superstition, for reasons which are self-evident to any intelligent and humane observer of history and current events, which reasons I've laid out in previous articles both here and in Salient magazine. You're welcome to write an article on "How the Prophet Was a Libertarian," which I might even blue-sticky for discussion, but I should warn you that I for one shall give it short shrift.

It doesn't surprise me to learn that there's a "libertarian Islam" touted in Liberty magazine: the purview of child-molesters like your Prophet.

Gregster

Callum McPetrie's picture

You're right - I said so here:

"The difference between the two religions back then, and what they are now, is in the secular philosophies that provide the base for religious thought and interpretation."

As the philosophies change, so do people's views of the scriptures.

Thanks Callum

gregster's picture

I was a little light on detail. The onus was on him.

"Likewise, the scriptures of both Islam and Christianity haven't changed at all over many thousands of years (at least in any fundamental way),"

Well they can't but it's their implementation which changes. Some Anglican bishops don't believe in god. Christianity has taken in environmentalism in its desperation to appeal to potential customers.

I see you made it here Adonis

Mark Hubbard's picture

I see you made it here Adonis Smiling

And with a bang rather than a whimper.

Your line of argument on this thread is completely anathema to me. I would be fascinated for proof from the Koran of the Muhammad is a Libertarian argument.

On the face of it, that would seem absurd. References please.

Though that aside, if it were true, then Islam has been hijacked to the point it would make no difference. Like Christianity, it advocates you absolve volition in your life to an outside mystical Other. And then worse than modern Christianity, Islam has become an evil creed typified by use of force through the sword.

[Edit: what Callum said below. I just wish I had been able to say it so well.]

Gregster, Adonis - there's

Callum McPetrie's picture

Gregster, Adonis - there's not much point debating how libertarian Mohammed was based from texts from the Qur'an because Islam, like Christianity, is not a systematic, coherent philosophy. Its teachings are often contradictory; and as with any religion, there is a large amount of picking-and-choosing what you want to believe.

Likewise, the scriptures of both Islam and Christianity haven't changed at all over many thousands of years (at least in any fundamental way), yet the worlds of both are far different in 2010 than what they were in, say, the year 800. Back then, Islam was the religion of enlightened thought, and Christianity was in the middle of the Dark Ages.

The difference between the two religions back then, and what they are now, is in the secular philosophies that provide the base for religious thought and interpretation. After many bloody centuries, the Christian religion was the first that the ideals of the Renaissance, and later the Enlightenment were incorporated into.

Unfortunately, Islam never went through the Enlightenment, and has been the religion into which the modern ideas of altruism and collectivism have been incorporated into the most fully. The entire Muslim world and many other parts of the world are suffering as a result.

The ideas of altruism and collectivism are especially dangerous when they are combined with religion, because religion takes a supernatural being, outside of human knowledge and reason, to be the source of ultimate authority on issues of human life. This is why Christianity took so long to adopt the Enlightenment; reason as the source of knowledge (which is what the doctrine of classical-liberalism is based on) and an unknowable God as the supreme authority in human affairs are incompatible.

So, fundamentally the problem is not the teachings of Mohammed and the Qur'an. The problem with Islam is its nature as a religion, and its adoption of altruism and collectivism.

Heads Up

Jmaurone's picture

The current issue of Liberty magazine (at least the one currently on the rack at Borders) has an article about a Libertarian Islam. I haven't read it, just happened to see it, but thought it an odd coincidence; I've never heard about it before until this thread. Just a heads up.

Adonis was asked

gregster's picture

to give evidence for his claim:

"you will find that Liberal thought is in the core Islam and I'd argue that the Prophet was a Libertarian."

None was available except his further assertions. None will be forthcoming.

By "utterly false" I mean exactly that "utterly false." Try a dictionary. I don't write Polish.

"Just because a minority of people practice something completely different you want to judge all of us on that?"

Oi, you are thereby an admitted collectivist, and/or a bad writer/logician. I could smell it a mile off.

"And you think you're somehow enlightened?"

Not my claim but whom the cap fits..

"Get real mate.."

Now you're talking, if only.

"I'd rather judge people based on what the facts of the religion are after studying it properly rather than just be ignorant like yourself."

I wouldn't recommend any dogma, those practicing it are primitives, always. What's new here? Which cave have you been in? Do you know where Bin Laden is? Do the right thing for once in your sorry existence, turn him in.

"How interesting is it that when you are asked to provide evidence you reply with none."

You began the story, and provided zero corroboration when probed.

"Do you even believe in Liberal ideas?"

No, I hate liberals almost as much as religionists. [edit: in Jefferson's context the definition of liberal was less offensive than today's]

"Do you believe in the burden of proof being on the accuser?"

Yes, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. (Tip: It's always easy when reasonable honesty is on your side.)

"It doesn't appear so."

Read it all again then (or find a rope).

What do you mean utterly

Adonis's picture

What do you mean utterly false in reality? Just because a minority of people practice something completely different you want to judge all of us on that? And you think you're somehow enlightened? Get real mate.. I'd rather judge people based on what the facts of the religion are after studying it properly rather than just be ignorant like yourself.

How interesting is it that when you are asked to provide evidence you reply with none. Do you even believe in Liberal ideas? Do you believe in the burden of proof being on the accuser?

It doesn't appear so.

Keep up the enquiry though :)

gregster's picture

"No human being is allowed to be forced to believe in Islam and has the right to choose."

Ideally but utterly false in reality. You are living with an imaginary Islam, corrupted by creeping supposed modernity. Watch your back when you talk like that openly. Happy New Year.

It's because there's no

Adonis's picture

It's because there's no physical compulsion on this earth. No human being is allowed to be forced to believe in Islam and has the right to choose. It's not unintelligible at all, it just requires you to look into the meaning of it. If someone chooses to leave then that's fine. It's between them and God. You can't make people believe things.

I can cite it easily, there were many people who questioned his authority. Who disagreed with him in public. Who called him crazy and did many other things that were far worse, yet he didn't punish them and let them do it. Look for the examples of Taif, look for the examples of his own companions refusing to do what he said, or questioning his authority. People had the right of free speech. Whatever people did was their own business providing that it didn't harm others.

You say that about Tony Blair, but Thomas Jefferson, an amazing Liberal thinker and one of my greatest heroes was also saying the same things.. Was that bad too?

Elephant? Oh please.. You know the fact is that you're the one making the accusations yet not providing the evidence. So how about you start doing so and I will address the claims that you make.

Cite it or shut up; no don't bother

gregster's picture

So you say: Islam gives property rights, individual rights, freedom of association and freedom of disassociation. You then say there's no agreed interpretation amongst Islamist scholars. Then the scripture you supply contradicts what you're trying to argue:

"There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient." (Qur'an 2:256)

Aside from the fact that another 'scholar' could cherry pick a Qur'an quote to the opposite effect, the above is unintelligible. "no compulsion in religion" then "anyone who believes in GOD.. the strongest bond that never breaks."

What if one then wishes to disbelieve in this imaginary friend or worse, gravitate to a more seductive variety. I won't even go into your imaginary friend's omniscience and audio-voyeurism.

"The idea of forcing people to stay Muslim is ludicrous, you can't force people to believe anything to do so only causes hypocrisy."

As above. Take the blinkers off buddy.

"How was Muhammad peace be upon him a Libertarian? He believed that people should be able to say and do what they wanted so long as they didn't harm anyone else."

Show where this is put. Cite it. You're being arbitrary. (Don't bother citing it - another Qur'an quote to fit - I expect there's one for every interweb occasion.)

"He was against big government and tyranny."

Probably preferred his camel and tent.

"He was for self defence and having the right to keep and carry arms."

I hadn't heard yet a positive for the man but again where can you prove this?

"He hated slavery and believed that all men (and women) had equal rights regardless of race, tribe, ethnicity, colour, socio economic status etc and that all were owed justice."

So does Tony Blair and every other wish for the elusive social justice. It ain't good. As mentioned earlier, altruism will lead to the death of us all.

"But I bet you didn't know any of that because you haven't looked through anything other than anti-Islam websites."

I don't need websites, the elephant's standing in front of me.

"How about looking at both sides of government."

Unintelligible.

Actually, I disagree.. Islam

Adonis's picture

Actually, I disagree..

Islam gives property rights, individual rights, freedom of association and freedom of disassociation. Just because some so called scholars are skewed in their thinking by saying that people can't leave Islam without being given the death penalty it doesn't mean that's Islam. There's a difference of opinion on the issue and a great number of scholars agree that people should come and go as they please as the Qur'an says:

"There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient." (Qur'an 2:256)

The idea of forcing people to stay Muslim is ludicrous, you can't force people to believe anything to do so only causes hypocrisy.

Next,

How was Muhammad peace be upon him a Libertarian? He believed that people should be able to say and do what they wanted so long as they didn't harm anyone else. He was against big government and tyranny. He was for self defence and having the right to keep and carry arms. He hated slavery and believed that all men (and women) had equal rights regardless of race, tribe, ethnicity, colour, socio economic status etc and that all were owed justice.

But I bet you didn't know any of that because you haven't looked through anything other than anti-Islam websites. How about looking at both sides of government.

First things first

gregster's picture

"how exactly doesn't Islam respect rights? Which rights are you referring to?"

I'm referring to individual rights, property rights, freedom of association, or more importantly in Islam's case, disassociation.

But I'm not going to answer until you give some evidence for:

"They need the West to extend a hand of friendship and show liberal ideas through their example as leaders in this field, because once you research it properly, you will find that Liberal thought is in the core Islam and I'd argue that the Prophet was a Libertarian."

My comments were not

Adonis's picture

My comments were not contradictory.

Also, let's have some discourse about this then, how exactly doesn't Islam respect rights? Which rights are you referring to?

Contradiction

gregster's picture

Contradiction.

"The placards that we saw people holding at those protests carrying such messages were disgraceful and were not reflective of Islamic teachings at all, but it was still their right to speak their minds with freedom of speech just as it is for you to say what you like."

Not reflective..

"I did find it interesting though that all of those posters were made exactly the same way, with the same type of writing rather than being posters that the individuals themselves had made.. That indicates that it was an organization led by someone who has people under their influence."

But "an organisation" has them under control. Not just a rabble then.

"I wouldn't judge Christianity based on the racist KKK or Judaism based on Zionists, rather I look at the source to find what the true example is and see that."

And they all share the same mystic collectivist philosophy which has led to each genocidal monstrosity.

"You seem incapable of doing that because you're filled with hate."

Yes - I'll ignore the ad hominem - hate for the altruist philosophy.

"a separation of powers and a guarantee of rights is far superior and more in line with Islam "

Christianity, the KKK, Socialism, Islam - none respect rights. Who are you kidding?

Please don't presume to be

Adonis's picture

Please don't presume to be able to read my mind and quote it as you have Gregster. I am incredibly happy and grateful to be Muslim and have only had my faith strengthened with my researching into other ideas and I am confident in my ability to defend my beliefs through the only thing necessary, logic and reasoning. The only reason I probably wouldn't have become Muslim after being in the Gulf is because of the example of Muslims that I saw, rather than learning about what Islam is.. Through better sources and through the example of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

The placards that we saw people holding at those protests carrying such messages were disgraceful and were not reflective of Islamic teachings at all, but it was still their right to speak their minds with freedom of speech just as it is for you to say what you like.

I did find it interesting though that all of those posters were made exactly the same way, with the same type of writing rather than being posters that the individuals themselves had made.. That indicates that it was an organization led by someone who has people under their influence. Weak minded people. These people aren't reflective of Islam or Muslims though, they are so miniscule that they aren't even a small minority, they're too insignificant to count and they hold no real power within the Muslim communities. I wouldn't judge Christianity based on the racist KKK or Judaism based on Zionists, rather I look at the source to find what the true example is and see that. You seem incapable of doing that because you're filled with hate.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned before the war here is not one on the physical battlefield with combatants engaged in physical combat so much as it is a battle of ideas. The ideas of liberty for all with limited government, a separation of powers and a guarantee of rights is far superior and more in line with Islam than any of the ideas that are in the Middle East and therefore will come out victorious, if of course the effort is put in the right places.

Bronze Adonis

gregster's picture

"I dare say that had I not become Muslim by my own choice more than 8 years ago now before traveling to the Middle East and living there, that I probably wouldn't have become a Muslim, especially based on my experiences in the Gulf."

"But, alas, I'm now one and that's that." You may think your child-molester Prophet was a libertarian, a libertine sure, a liberationist even. The battle is against evil philosophy, Islam remains its most obvious proponent.

Mr Perigo could take you apart if he wishes but I don't think your premises are properly aligned.

In London they took advantage of the freedom they so despise, this murderous mass of Muslim maggotry, to infest the streets, sporting signs such as “Freedom Go To Hell!” “Prepare For The REAL Holocaust!” and “Annihilate [massacre, exterminate/butcher/behead] those who would insult Islam!”

That was a sample of London's Islamist filth.

Waffle Waffle Waffle.....

Adonis's picture

Good Evening Lindsay,

I have to say that as a fellow Libertarian, I will, to the death vehemently defend your right to free speech, I don't however feel the need to defend your arrogance nor the ridiculous amount of rhetoric filled waffling on you tend to do. It is quite clear from your post that you're not only quite uneducated regarding Islam but quite obviously not interested in finding out the truth and prefer to sensationalize which only shows your ignorance. I am disappointed that a fellow Libertarian and a founder and former leader of the Libertarianz has such arrogant and ungentlemanly conduct.

But that's okay, I don't blame you, the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the Muslim world within places like the Middle East, Persia, Central and South Asia are indeed quite educated about Islam themselves and are a terrible example of Islam, not all in their practice of such disgusting practices as these cases are really only very few, but their lack of proactive activism to stop such things from happening. I have spent time in the Middle East and seen the extremism that do you refer to, I've seen the unfair treatment to women and other stupid illogical practices. I dare say that had I not become Muslim by my own choice more than 8 years ago now before traveling to the Middle East and living there, that I probably wouldn't have become a Muslim, especially based on my experiences in the Gulf. The truth is that the Muslim world within such places lost some incredibly important aspects to it that once made us so special, the ability to use science and philosophy with the help of critical thinking, analysis and logic to understand the world and help the world progress. Now we have fallen into a lull of obedience to tyranny, literalists, disgusting tribal and cultural practices and ignorance.

The problems that you mentioned such as terrorism, extremism, barbarism etc is no doubt valid, however they are not Islamic practices. Rather they are the practices of uneducated, tribalistic, absolutist and hatefilled people who lack an understanding of context and use their hatefilled perverted interpretation of an ideology as a means to control and oppress others. Islam is not the only victim in this, secularism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and even Environmentalism have been used in the same way by such people.

IF you took the time to really study Islam by studying the Qur'an, Tafseer's, Hadiths and Seerah in an academic manner by using logic, critical thinking and analysis based on all the available text (which I doubt you would as you seem to love to hate too much) then you'd see that those behaviors in fact contradict Islamic teachings, and were not practiced by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He warned us against such dangerous people and their actions when he taught us to seek honesty and knowledge so that we could purify our faith "from the falsification of the extremists, and the assumptions of the liars, and the misinterpretation of the fools.”

So the truth is Lindsay, YES the Muslim world within those parts does need the West's help. They need the West to extend a hand of friendship and show liberal ideas through their example as leaders in this field, because once you research it properly, you will find that Liberal thought is in the core Islam and I'd argue that the Prophet was a Libertarian. What the Muslim world doesn't need is more hate, more meddling, more bombs or more sanctions.

The battle of ideas cannot be won through bombs, those that would try and overpower their adversaries through violence or hate are those who can not truly defend their beliefs through logical thought and proper discourse.. If the West were to approach the situation correctly, this problem would have been solved long ago, but the last decade has only made the problem worse.

With Peace,

Adonis Vlahos
http://thevitalissue.blogspot.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.