Islam is the Most Violent Religion in the World, But Let’s Keep Calling it ‘Peaceful’ Anyway - This is a must read...

[Selene]

From the opening paragraph...

And here we are again. You might recognize this place. We’ve been here frequently over the past, say, 1,500 years or so. It’s the place where the whole world stands in dumbfounded shock after witnessing unspeakable brutality at the hands of Islamists. Maybe we should stop being so surprised.

This is clear. He then proceeds to relate what recently happened in France.

He then makes the comparison to Christianity by raising the following question:

Can you imagine Christian radicals committing mass murder at The Onion offices because they’re upset about something they found on its website? Can you even fathom such a thing? Probably not, because it never happens. It just never happens. And it’s not like Christians don’t have plenty of provocation. I still remember stumbling upon this lovely little gem from The Onion last year. It’s a hysterical article imagining that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, became a prostitute to make ends meet. Haha?

Again, clear comparison.

After adding some other "insults" to Christianity that have been in the media, e.g., Family Guy, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Piss Christ, Virgin Mary smeared with dung, Dogma, DaVinci Code. He explains:

Yet nobody ever died because of any of that. And, oh man, if anyone did, can you imagine the backlash? Can you imagine the media reaction if just one Christian murdered just one person as a reprisal for some offensive joke or provocative cartoon? We’d be ready to ban the entire religion in this country. Progressives are so desperate to prove that Christianity is just as violent as Islam that they frequently cite the murder of abortion doctors as an example. Only, none of those attacks were carried out in the name of Jesus. As far as I’m aware, none of the murderers shouted “Praise be to Christ” when they pulled the trigger. And how many incidents are we even talking about here? I’ll tell you: eight. Eight abortionists and abortion clinic workers have been killed in the U.S. in the past 40 years. It’s happened once in the last decade and a half. Once.

Having made a prima facie case for the title of his blog post, he then directly addresses the "Orwellian Newspeak" that states that Islamists who slaughter innocent folks in the name of the base tenets of their religion have to be taken in context.

You’ll soon hear, if you haven’t already, that this latest bout of Islamic violence should be “put in context.” That these murderers are “in the minority.” I’m even being informed that the people who provoke Muslims are partly to blame themselves. But I’ll know we’ve finally progressed as a people, and grown some semblance of a collective spine, when we stop putting Jihad into context and when we stop making excuses for it. These are bloodthirsty barbarians. They don’t have a point. They don’t need to be understood. They don’t deserve any considerations at all.

He then declares his first conclusion:

I don’t know where we go once we’ve reached that point. I don’t have an easy solution to the kind of animalistic behavior that has infected Islam since its inception. But I do know that it starts with honesty. It starts with having the fortitude to say, without qualifier, without equivalency, that Islam is the most violent religion in the history of the world. You can ask why or how, but the “what” really isn’t up for debate.

I didn’t say that all Muslims are violent, or even that most Muslims are violent. I didn’t even say that Islam is the most destructive religion in the world — that title belongs to progressivism, which murders babies, destroys families, and damns souls.

Yet it is the most violent, and we all know it.

The rest of the blog post gets even better, a must read.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/islam-is-the-most-violent-religion-in-the-world-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway/

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Good work!

--Brant

[Selene]

Good work!

--Brant

Thanks.

I thought it was about as solid a piece as I have read.

There has been no respite in 1500 years, sometimes you just have to say:

It is time for mankind to eliminate this radical cancer. Every Muslim country needs to join.

It is time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

True believers* are as wheat, substantial, useful, and valuable; hypocrites are as chaff, light and empty, useless and worthless, carried about with every wind; these are mixed, good and bad, in the same outward communion. There is a day coming when the wheat and chaff shall be separated. The last judgment will be the distinguishing day, when saints and sinners shall be parted for ever. In heaven the saints are brought together, and no longer scattered; they are safe, and no longer exposed; separated from corrupt neighbours without, and corrupt affections within, and there is no chaff among them. Hell is the unquenchable fire, which will certainly be the portion and punishment of hypocrites and unbelievers. Here life and death, good and evil, are set before us: according as we now are in the field, we shall be then in the floor.

A...

*not the "true believers" of Eric Hoffer.

[Selene]

As Churchill said in his November 12, 1936 speech:

"Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Just change a noun or two and your are here in 2015, entering the same type of "period of consequences."

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To me this is a non-issue and Walsh put the emphasis in the wrong place.

Instead of acting from moral and physical strength and saying, "On this side of the fence there is separation of church and state," Walsh did a soft version of what hate-monger Lindsay Perigo does. Walsh pointed the finger and proclaimed, "You Muslims may not be evil but everything you believe in is evil." Perigo has always proclaimed, "Death to Islam." And he means that literally, with bombs and guns. Underneath, they are both saying the same thing. By making the issue collectivist, Walsh's softer form merely gives Perigo's madness credibility.

But there's a weirdness to Walsh's argument I can't grok. If you say a person is not evil, however his morality and values are evil, how does that even work in reality? Can anybody point to an example of a person believing in evil all the way down to his premises, but being a good person?

(btw - I just used the freak-villain persuasion technique, see here. )

However, I agree with Walsh's criticism of the typical rationalizations for Islamist violence by morally squishy people on the left and right. He did a very good job of cleaning out the stables.

The problem I have is his wide sweeping generalization about a culture that has persisted for centuries. If Islam were the most violent religion and that was its essence, it already would have gone the way of early religions that demanded human and animal sacrifices.

It is true that the holy books of Islam contain many passages that can be used by Muslims to justify violence and radicals are doing this today. But they did not use these passages in this manner in earlier times. I read somewhere Ed Hudgins say that a religion is not the problem, it's what people do with it. I agree with this.

Instead of saying Islam is not a religion of peace, I would be comfortable with people saying Islam, as it is practiced today, is not a religion of peace. That means Islam, as it has been practiced in earlier times, has been a religion of peace. And that's not even correct because people are people of peace, not a religion.

Also, the people who follow the Sufi form of Islam are peaceful today. They always have been.

It is true that there has been an incredible amount of violence done in the name of Islam in recent time. But if someone says it was always that way, this is an error of identification. And if you identify something incorrectly, it doesn't matter how you judge it. Your judgment will not be based in reality.

If you want to know the true cause of all this, at least as I see it, I believe the West made a deal with the devil to get cheap oil out of Middle East countries and stop the spread of Communism. It propped up bloody dictators while funneling (through oil deals) gobs and gobs of money to backwards superstitious tribal leaders (think Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia). And these backward people did with the money what all superstitious people do. They invested in spreading their superstitions.

So what to do?

Well, when Islamic people move to the West, we have to be true to our own morality. We have to demand they accept the separation of church and state. We have to tell them, "Believe whatever wisdom or nonsense you please, but no religious governments. Not here. And if you keep advocating for this here, we will get really pissed and make you go away."

That is moral strength.

It's not the tribalism I keep hearing, even in Walsh--that our religion is better than your religion. That's just piss-poor persuasion. What's worse, it does not even deal with the essentials of what needs to be done.

How to do this?

Ironically, I believe the West is starting to do what I said needs doing. It's waking up to the fact that church and state have to be separated. Paris has to get rid of non-entry zones. And any country in the West that agrees to allow Sharia to exist within it with the force of law has to be attacked in the press in the strongest language possible. And we have to keep the pressure on by supporting our satirists.

It would be great if it were that simple, but it won't be. I predict it will get quite ugly as a war between tribes grows. There will be a strong anti-Islam campaign and lots of people on both sides are going to die. But in the end, I believe the principle of separation of church and state in the Islamic world will take root. This will be a slow process, but it will happen. At least we have the Internet to help spread it, so it should be a faster process than happened with Christianity.

If you kill the desire for a religious state in current Muslims, you kill the violence in Islam.

It's that simple.

Until then, here in the West, we have to stand strong on not allowing local religious governments within our own. And demand Muslims within our borders stop acting to make them. And stop advocating for them. In fact, this is a form of treason and should be treated as such.

So kudos to Matt Walsh for ranting against half-assed nonessential rationalizations to justify Islamist violence.

Non-kudos for holding up another half-assed nonessential rationalization as his battle cry.

Like I said, this is a non-issue to me.

I'm looking for real change to fix this problem. In reality, not just in rhetoric. I don't want to be part of the coming tribal wars because I can't fight for something I don't believe in. But when the issue is a fight over separation of church and state with Muslims who try to impose their state within ours, I'm ready, able and on call.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In fact, here's a start: French Prime Minister: ‘We Are at War…Against Terrorism and Radical Islam’

He did not explicitly say separation of church and state, but he did say that France was a "Republic with values." And he named the enemy that acts to install pockets of Sharia within France and declared war.

Not a great start, but it's something.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anonymous in Belgium gets what I am talking about:

http://youtu.be/4po1ygxDBcU

EDIT: Referenced here: Hacktivist Group ‘Anonymous’ Confronts ISIS: ‘We Will Track You Down – Every Last One – and Will Kill You’

I predict this one will get particularly ugly because the violent fundamentalists are bound to behead someone they claim is from Anonymous.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The problem I have is his wide sweeping generalization about a culture that has persisted for centuries. If Islam were the most violent religion and that was its essence, it already would have gone the way of early religions that demanded human and animal sacrifices.

Two problems. 1) An assumption that violence = evaporation. And 2) a tale: People were afraid to ride in the passenger trains' last car because they read that that was the most dangerous place on a train for a passenger to be. The regional manager cabled corporate about the problem and asked what to do about it. Corporate replied, "Disconnect the last car."

--Brant

[anthony]

Michael, As you know, even Objectivists argue still what constitutes 'evil'. It comes down to the difference between an abstraction, the ideology, and the actuality of an individual - and what he does or doesn't do -or permit- in the name of his ideology.

A blanket, equal condemnation of both is intrinsicist and collectivist, I think. Then, I would say this since I'm largely of the Kelley camp.

In the broad populace who lack any fixed philosophies, I hate to think of what innocent deaths will eventuate.

[Brant Gaede]

Evil is as evil does. That doesn't mean bitch-slapping parts of a religion that terrorists feed off of is an inappropriate tactic. When they don't make such use of it you can cease fire unless you want more war with more people and/or a religious war. Secular states don't fight religious wars. They are totally incompetent for that. This doesn't mean they have to act like wusses.

The President of Egypt seems to have the most superior ideological approach.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

As Churchill said in his November 12, 1936 speech:

"Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Just change a noun or two and your are here in 2015, entering the same type of "period of consequences."

A...

Churchill's a fine one to talk. There would have been no Second World War had there not been a Great War, which Churchill and Sir Edward Grey made inevitable by committing Britain to side with France in any conflict with Germany.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Secular states don't fight religious wars. They are totally incompetent for that. This doesn't mean they have to act like wusses.

Brant,

Communist countries have done just fine at it.

And, as secular countries, they have been just as brutal as anything the Islamists have served up. If you look at the number dead, you will see they have been even more brutal.

But how did calling communism evil work out? We were brought up on this notion, so this one hits home.

Well... now you have a thing called capitalistic communism in China. And even though a lot of rights violations are still going on over there, life is getting better for the Chinese.

Did that happen because people kept calling communism evil?

No.

It's because the West showed the Chinese what capitalism can do and stood for non-communistic principles. So China took the principles it saw that worked and assimilated them. I believe it will ultimately assimilate freedom, but it will take generations. Maybe not, though. The Chinese have always been open to mind control, and it's just a short mental hop from reeducation camps to marketing. They know this shit is effective. So since they are seeing how marketing works under freedom, I believe they will ultimately find that attractive.

Ideologies are held by people, living, breathing human beings. They can see things with their own eyes. So if you want to change the way they think, you have to show them things. Not just call them evil.

Look at the difference between the conclusions about Islamism. The first, Walsh's conclusion:

Islam is the most violent religion.

What can you do with that?

Pat yourself on the back for not being one of them? Feel superior? OK. Fine. Now go do that in front of 1.7 billion people and make them change.

You can't? It won't work?

That's what I'm talking about.

Or you can go with the implied conclusion: Islam is the most violent religion, while Christianity is not violent at all.

What can you do with that?

I know what I see hiding behind it: religious war. The proposition that our religion is good and yours is evil has always culminated in war. I don't know if Walsh is a Christian, but the proposition that Christians are superior to Muslims is awfully attractive to Christians. I bet it would be easy to lather some of them up to fight for it.

Now the second:

If you (Muslim) want to live in our country, you can believe what you want, but must eschew the notion of a religious state.

What can you do with that?

Suddenly ideas come to mind. How about taking apart the pockets of Sharia that do exist? Just let these people know that attempts to install Sharia in the country will be considered by the government as insurrection, so they will be treated as an enemy or a criminal gang when they do that. They will be infiltrated and their leaders removed.

Make it clear and stand for it. Tell them in no uncertain term that you can have your religion as you wish, but you cannot have our government. You will live according to our laws.

That's even easy to do.

Michael

[Selene]

As Churchill said in his November 12, 1936 speech:

"Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Just change a noun or two and your are here in 2015, entering the same type of "period of consequences."

A...

Churchill's a fine one to talk. There would have been no Second World War had there not been a Great War, which Churchill and Sir Edward Grey made inevitable by committing Britain to side with France in any conflict with Germany.

Ah, Mr. Negative speaks.

So Churchill and Grey made WW II inevitable? Really? And since WW II allegedly created all the post-WW II "wars," he and the 50 Shades dude are responsible for those also?

A...

and Churchill is a pretty good "talker." His Iron Curtain speech in Missouri on March 5th, 1946 was brilliant. Moreover, like many great rhetorical speeches, they apply universally and throughout time because they use memes that are common to all mankind.

The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all tIhe long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.

Except for the pinnacle part, this applies to today.

In a subsequent paragraph, he explains that:

When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.

Pretty basic. The progressives could care less about a person, a citizen and an individual protecting the family and raising the family up "...in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions..."

When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks the earth. None can compute what has been called "the unestimated sum of human pain." Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that.

And the paragraph which gave the speech its "knickname":

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone - Greece with its immortal glories - is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy."

http://history1900s.about.com/od/churchillwinston/a/Iron-Curtain.htm

[Brant Gaede]

WWI gave us communist Russia. The treaty that ended it gave us Nazi Germany. France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 but didn't. We can slice this pie up in many different ways but we cannot go back in time and make things different. The problem is where are we now why and what to do why? How do possible answers coincide with Objectivist and maybe libertarian principles? Are they of any real value? Etc. The questions are virtually without end. There are three main areas of geo-political contention. Ukraine vs Russia (WTF are we trying to do there--invite nuclear conflict with Russia?), the Middle East (oil and Israel) and China vs Japan and Taiwan and countries bordering the South China Sea. Wouldn't it be most prudent just to spike Ukraine (US, NATO and Europe) and then concentrate on the other two if only for starters? If the US should have an interventionist foreign policy can't Ukraine be simply blown off so we can get rational about what is left? It's blatantly obvious countries all over the world have too much in their mouths to chew, so why not spit some of it out?

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

As Churchill said in his November 12, 1936 speech:

"Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Just change a noun or two and your are here in 2015, entering the same type of "period of consequences."

A...

Churchill's a fine one to talk. There would have been no Second World War had there not been a Great War, which Churchill and Sir Edward Grey made inevitable by committing Britain to side with France in any conflict with Germany.

Ah, Mr. Negative speaks.

So Churchill and Grey made WW II inevitable? Really? And since WW II allegedly created all the post-WW II "wars," he and the 50 Shades dude are responsible for those also?

The "hunger blockade" of Germany in World War I, the forcible end of the German monarchy, and the impossible economic conditions imposed on Germany as a result of the Treaty of Versailles made it certain that there would be a political upheaval in reaction. That upheaval could have come from the militant left or the right.

A...

and Churchill is a pretty good "talker." His Iron Curtain speech in Missouri on March 5th, 1946 was brilliant. Moreover, like many great rhetorical speeches, they apply universally and throughout time because they use memes that are common to all mankind.

Yes, after the war Churchill was brilliant at criticizing the commies he covered up for during the war. In 1940 Chuchill was Stalin's dutiful little propagandist, brilliantly helping to cover up Uncle Joe's wartime atrocities.

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, Churchill after WWII was kind of like Greenspan after the Federal Reserve. Loss of power is replaced by some rationality for the benefit of reputation and hoi polloi and historical studies lubricating a basically worthless academia. Sell some books, give some speeches, get interviewed, float around the world--those sorts of things. We all want to feel good about ourselves and bask in the gentle glow of an admiring public approbation.

--Brant

except me--I love my evil; it's yours I don't get; you outta be ashamed!

[Selene]

Yes, after the war Churchill was brilliant at criticizing the commies he covered up for during the war. In 1940 Chuchill was Stalin's dutiful little propagandist, brilliantly helping to cover up Uncle Joe's wartime atrocities.

Yes Frank. Dull thud heard from another tediously negative "argument" as it hits the floor behind me...not getting on your gerbel wheel.

Tell me three (3) aspects of Churchill that you admire?

Drinking from sunup to the next sunup would count.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. Churchill had a delightful sense of humor. When one of his aides protested that British support of partisan leader Tito would likely lead to Stalinist rule in Yugoslavia, Churchill retorted, "Do you intend to live there?"

2. Churchill was an avid environmentalist--for other countries. He supported the Morgenthau Plan, which after the defeat of Hitler would have reduced Germany to a "primarily agricultural and pastoral" status unknown since feudal times and led to the starvation and impoverishment of millions. Since word of the plan reached Germany, it is likely that the proposal strengthened the resolve of Germans to fight to the bitter end and prolonged the Second World War.

3. Churchill assisted tens of thousands of homesick people in being repatriated to their homeland. At Yalta and Potsdam, the kindhearted Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to help the Soviets get their hands on the thousands of anti-communist Cossacks who had fought against both Lenin and Stalin.

Oh, one more thing, Selly. The first prominent government official to apply the term "iron curtain" to Soviet Russia was not Churchill but Joseph Goebbels.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, after the war Churchill was brilliant at criticizing the commies he covered up for during the war. In 1940 Chuchill was Stalin's dutiful little propagandist, brilliantly helping to cover up Uncle Joe's wartime atrocities.

Yes Frank. Dull thud heard from another tediously negative "argument" as it hits the floor behind me...not getting on your gerbel wheel.

Tell me three (3) aspects of Churchill that you admire?

Drinking from sunup to the next sunup would count.

A...

Winnie was an imperialist drunkard and racist but he save England's sorry ass.

[Selene]

Yes, after the war Churchill was brilliant at criticizing the commies he covered up for during the war. In 1940 Chuchill was Stalin's dutiful little propagandist, brilliantly helping to cover up Uncle Joe's wartime atrocities.

Yes Frank. Dull thud heard from another tediously negative "argument" as it hits the floor behind me...not getting on your gerbel wheel.

Tell me three (3) aspects of Churchill that you admire?

Drinking from sunup to the next sunup would count.

A...

Winnie was an imperialist drunkard and racist but he save England's sorry ass.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist and he did not save America's ass.

Maybe he would have if he drank like Churchill.

There were lots of racists in the world then...however, now that we have President Barack Husein O'bama, we have none...we should all be thankful...pass the cool aide oops ade.

[Selene]

Good chance this will be dismissed by the committed marxist left because John Bolton is the chaiman, Zuhdi Jasser, Michael Mukasey, Elie Wiesel and R. James Woolsey are on the Board of Advisors and the President is a Jewish woman, Nina Rosenwald.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/experts/

Gatestone in Sunday's New York Times: "Beautifying Islam"

January 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/pics/880.jpg

[jts]

They say Islam is a religion of peace. You better believe it or else they will kill you in order to prove that Islam is non-violent. You can't argue with them.

-----

Reforming Islam would make it into something other than the religion invented by Muhammad (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits).

I have an idea. Let's reform Objectivism so it's not so extreme and is more acceptable. Maybe A is not always A. Maybe we can mix a little mysticism with reason. Maybe we can have a moderate amount of altruism. Maybe capitalism can be mixed with socialism. Maybe we can have a pluralistic interpretation of Objectivism, rejecting all criticism of other philosophies. We could call it Reformed Objectivism. In this way, maybe this beautiful philosophy called Objectivism could be reclaimed.

Let them reform Islam out of existence.

[Brant Gaede]

The problem with waging a war on Islam is it cannot be won, only fought. Depicting Mohammad as negative this or negative that is not just addressing a small group of violencios but 1.6 billion people who are not prior but whom may become after.

That war must be a religious war and must not be fought. Cultural and political fascism--fight those--cultural insofar as it feeds the fascism and fascism as it feeds the cultural. The main repository of such as Islamic states for they combine politics with religion.

This makes it a secular fight. In a secular fight the fighters for Islam have not the technology and resources or enough fighters to prevail. However, it should not be fought with brute force and armies clashing--that's like the last resort--but with the art of war. The idea is not primarily to kill and destroy but prevail. In the art of war not one shot need be fired, as unlikely as that might be, but it's true tactically--almost impossible strategically.

But again cartoons and such are bear-bating of Muslims en masse and the fighters for Islam want that for the sake of an ever bigger and wider war. Denigration of their religion is actually more important for them than what is in it--albeit both are needed--to make their war go. They are not going to win though some or many or most may be so deluded--but for these fighters the fight is the thing and the existential moral expression of what they are all about. Warriors who are not Muslims if they have to fight fight then are glad--most of them--to go home and kick back. The West can prime a war but not sustain it. Hence the messes of Korea, Vietnam and the oil messes. The other side does that job for the West by coming back at it continually. That's 9/11 in a nut shell. The Islamists wanted more war so they called us out for one. As kids we all remember other kids showing up and telling us to come out and play. That was 9/11, except it was for grown ups.

--Brant

now William will ask me to document several different items, but this is just a think piece and I'm not addressing the National Security Council (I know good research but I'm no researcher)

[BaalChatzaf]

The problem with waging a war on Islam is it cannot be won, only fought. Depicting Mohammad as negative this or negative that is not just addressing a small group of violencios but 1.6 billion people who are not prior but whom may become after.

That war must be a religious war and must not be fought. Cultural and political fascism--fight those--cultural insofar as it feeds the fascism and fascism as it feeds the cultural. The main repository of such as Islamic states for they combine politics with religion.

This makes it a secular fight. In a secular fight the fighters for Islam have not the technology and resources or enough fighters to prevail. However, it should not be fought with brute force and armies clashing--that's like the last resort--but with the art of war. The idea is not primarily to kill and destroy but prevail. In the art of war not one shot need be fired, as unlikely as that might be, but it's true tactically--almost impossible strategically.

But again cartoons and such are bear-bating of Muslims en masse and the fighters for Islam want that for the sake of an ever bigger and wider war. Denigration of their religion is actually more important for them than what is in it--albeit both are needed--to make their war go. They are not going to win though some or many or most may be so deluded--but for these fighters the fight is the thing and the existential moral expression of what they are all about. Warriors who are not Muslims if they have to fight fight then are glad--most of them--to go home and kick back. The West can prime a war but not sustain it. Hence the messes of Korea, Vietnam and the oil messes. The other side does that job for the West by coming back at it continually. That's 9/11 in a nut shell. The Islamists wanted more war so they called us out for one. As kids we all remember other kids showing up and telling us to come out and play. That was 9/11, except it was for grown ups.

--Brant

now William will ask me to document several different items, but this is just a think piece and I'm not addressing the National Security Council (I know good research but I'm no researcher)

And when Muslim terrorists get a hold of nukes, what shall we do?

[Brant Gaede]

Turn lose Ba'al.

--Brant