Sign of the Times Middle East Style

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Geez, Richard,

What part of "I only have your words to go on," did you not understand?

Of course I judge you.

But I judge you from your own words and how you use them.

If you think a different judgment is in order, I suggest communicating a different message. My crystal ball is on the blink and I flunked Mind Reading 101, so I only have my own eyes to go on.

I'm only using the Hollywood standard, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't need to interview any muslims to know that there are nice muslims, Mr Lynam. I know there are nice muslims, from experience, and I know that not everything about Islam is bad. None of that interests me though, because it isn't the benign parts of Islam that are a concern. But anyway, seeing as it matters to you - for some strange reason - I have met muslims, and I do know muslims. I have travelled in Indonesia where I met many friendly muslims. I befriended a muslim woman there who'd had her bag stolen on a bus we were both travelling on. I stayed in her parents home and she took me all around the place introducing me to her friends. I spent nearly a week with her. But none of that matters. There is a jihad going on, and that's what matters. It seems to me that for many people, what they see as bigotry is of greater concern to them than such things as jihadists blowing people up at the baggage claim areas of international airports.

They are human beings--"But none of that matters"?

It's oil that's evil--no? I mean, the United States wouldn't have invaded Iraq except for the oil, thereby manufacturing Islamic warriors by the boatload. Afghanistan isn't as easy to figure out, but oil has something to do with that too. Again, the consequence is vast destabilization of an entire region and the radicalization of millions of Muslims. If you can't figure out that one of the main objectives of US foreign policy is the making and exploitation of war for purposes both domestic and foreign, you didn't take the same pill I did. They may have a rotten religion but it's theirs and they have been doubly confirmed in it both by the religion itself and "The Great Satan."

--Brant

drop more bombs--that'll do it--play the guitar on the MTV--oil for nothing and the fight's for free

[Richard Wiig]

A repetition of left-wing tripe, Brant.

[Richard Wiig]

I know you judged me, Michael. I was simply saying you are off in your judgement. Really, I don't care. Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

Richard,

It doesn't "keep me happy." It fills me with sadness and pity. It really does.

Michael

[Selene]

I know you judged me, Michael. I was simply saying you are off in your judgement. Really, I don't care. Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

Richard:

Let us try this, if you had that "magic wand" in the what if scenario world, how would you re-make Islam in a manner that you would be comfortable with?

I mean this question, in an open-handed manner. Believe me, I am not naive and I see the threat, but I also am a person who believes that constructive change is possible.

Adam

[Mike11]

It boggles my mind that we, after suffering a maximum of a few thousand casualties, would call the people we have tortured, humiliated, persecuted, and murdered by the hundreds of thousands the enemy.

[bmacwilliam]

Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

Richard,

It doesn't "keep me happy." It fills me with sadness and pity. It really does.

Michael

You really don't get it. Bob K. is by a wide margin, the most openly venomously bigoted person here.

Islam is not a race. It is a religion, a body of thought. Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

Islam is a fairy tale told by a megolomaniacal, mass-murdering warlord. It is objectively more dangerous than other religions.

You have to separate the criticism of Islam (which is worthy of the harshest imaginable) from the prejudice of middle-eastern people (which is NOT justified). You really have a hard time disentangling these concepts - that's what's sad.

Bob

Edited January 27, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[william.scherk]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't.

[ . . . ]

You have to separate the criticism of Islam (which is worthy of the harshest imaginable) from the prejudice of middle-eastern people (which is NOT justified). You really have a hard time disentangling these concepts - that's what's sad.

If I have this right, one can disentangle Muslim and Islam on one hand, and then entangle the two with the other hand.

So, the Aga Khan is not a good person. Zarqa Nawaz is not a good person. Tarek Fatah is not a good person. One can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. One simply can't.

That's so easy! Thanks to my fellow Canuckistani for giving me such a foolproof tool.

[Selene]

It boggles my mind that we, after suffering a maximum of a few thousand casualties, would call the people we have tortured, humiliated, persecuted, and murdered by the hundreds of thousands the enemy.

Joel:

What do you mean by "we" white man?

Can you clarify those numbers and who the "we" be?

Adam

[william.scherk]

For those who are wondering what might happen in Egypt tomorrow, a brief report from the Associated Press.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

And that's the root of bigotry.

Michael

[Selene]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

And that's the root of bigotry.

Michael

Michael:

Not to mention flat out ignorant and repulsive.

Adam

[william.scherk]

32%

It caim from an article I read at Pamela Geller's website. I didn't check its validity.

Update:

17% was the official vote count. The 30% to 35% figure was an estimate of what it may actually have been, due to voting corruption.

Richard's reliance on Pamela "Obama is a Muslim" Geller is thrilling. The piece he refers to was titled "FALL OF SECULAR REGIME IN TUNISIA PAVES WAY FOR ISLAMIC REVOLUTION."

In the story she rants about a 'jihadi revolution taking place in Tunisia,' and excerpts another paranoid retread from the folks at Jihad Watch, which itself cribbed from a Reuters story:

Renaissance, Tunisia's largest Islamist movement, officially won 17 percent of the vote, coming second to the ruling party.

Jourchi said there was widespread electoral fraud and the real figure could have been closer to 30-35 percent. That compared with a combined total of three percent for all the secular opposition parties that ran in the same elections.

Now, this is all fine, except the Reuters staff muffed the story. Renaissance was banned going in to the election, not after; all supposedly Islamist candidates ran as independents, supported by Renaissance on the ground. Seven parties ran, the governing party won all seats; the largest vote totals for the independent list was in several urban ridings, where they hit 30% in a handful. Their national totals were 17%.

The year? 1989.

I just love the way Richard Wiig approaches gathering information on Jihadi menace.

The Islamist party, when it was given some liberty a few years back, received 32% of the vote, so Ben Ali banned it.

If a large 'could be' figure appears, go with it, assign certainty to it, misquote it, make up your own number, ignoring the cited lower figure, and do no further research whatsoever.

Rely on the loon Geller, offer no links, declare "I didn't check its validity" and "I don't know a hell of a lot about Tunisia."

Good show, dude. Good luck in finding the exit from your intellectual cul de sac.

Edited January 28, 2011 by william.scherk

[Selene]

For those who are wondering what might happen in Egypt tomorrow, a brief report from the Associated Press.

Folks:

I just got off the phone with my Egyptian friend Mohamed whose family is well connected in Cairo. He seems to feel that the country may get through this alright, but Mubarak has to go.

The Egyptian military has put troops into civilian garb to "mingle" with the expected demonstrations today. Also, three (3) to five (5) divisions have been mobilized. Several are armored to be prepared to put down any serious problem.

His people seem calm over there, but I see this as a tipping time for Egypt and if Egypt goes bad the whole middle east collapses. I am sure that Israel is very active and very worried about this situation.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

Richard,

It doesn't "keep me happy." It fills me with sadness and pity. It really does.

Michael

Well, you shouldn't waste your time on it, because I am not a spiteful bigot. It's what you see, or think you see, but you are wrong. There's are far more important things to focus on. The recent bombing in the airport in Moscow and what it is is what's important. Whether or not I am a bigot is of zero value.

[Richard Wiig]

I know you judged me, Michael. I was simply saying you are off in your judgement. Really, I don't care. Think of me as a spiteful bigot if that keeps you happy.

Richard:

Let us try this, if you had that "magic wand" in the what if scenario world, how would you re-make Islam in a manner that you would be comfortable with?

I mean this question, in an open-handed manner. Believe me, I am not naive and I see the threat, but I also am a person who believes that constructive change is possible.

Adam

All that Islam needs (in terms of it not being a threat to us, but only to its followers) is to be rid of the Jihad imperative, but for that to happen the Qur'an must be seen in an interpretive light and not as the literal word of God. Trouble is, so far as Islam is concerned, it is firmly entrenched as the literal word of god. I don't know how Islam can be reformed. I'm really not sure that it can be. As lovers of freedom, we have to simply protect ourselves from it.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

You know, I really don't give a damn. I don't need to get every thing exactly right all of the time. There is a mountain of incontrovertible evidence that there's a global jihad underway, and it is murderous and destructive and heinous and evil, yet you prefer to spend your time picking holes in people who take that seriously, as if the people you are picking holes in are the ones who are murderous, heinous and evil. Good show to you, dude.

Good show, dude. Good luck in finding the exit from your intellectual cul de sac.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Infidel

[william.scherk]

You know, I really don't give a damn. I don't need to get every thing exactly right all of the time. There is a mountain of incontrovertible evidence that there's a global jihad underway, and it is murderous and destructive and heinous and evil, yet you prefer to spend your time picking holes in people who take that seriously, as if the people you are picking holes in are the ones who are murderous, heinous and evil. Good show to you, dude.

You don't need to get anything right about Tunisia, Richard. You don't need to give a damn about truth or accuracy. You don't need to change a thing. If you prefer to think that a 'global jihad' best explains events in Tunisia, and if you prefer to accept cooked-up numbers and shoddy analyses of the situation there, that's your choice.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can sharpen your game. If you don't really give a damn, carry on.

[Richard Wiig]

Of course I need to give a damn about accuracy, and I do. I don't think that's what really concerns you though.

You don't need to give a damn about truth or accuracy.

[Richard Wiig]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

And that's the root of bigotry.

Michael

How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

[bmacwilliam]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't.

[ . . . ]

You have to separate the criticism of Islam (which is worthy of the harshest imaginable) from the prejudice of middle-eastern people (which is NOT justified). You really have a hard time disentangling these concepts - that's what's sad.

If I have this right, one can disentangle Muslim and Islam on one hand, and then entangle the two with the other hand.

So, the Aga Khan is not a good person. Zarqa Nawaz is not a good person. Tarek Fatah is not a good person. One can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. One simply can't.

That's so easy! Thanks to my fellow Canuckistani for giving me such a foolproof tool.

Fatah = devout muslim? Now that's funny!!

If you think Fatah is a devout muslim then you equate

"one who ignores Islamic scripture" = devout muslim

Sorry, different definitions here.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, you shouldn't waste your time on it, because I am not a spiteful bigot. It's what you see, or think you see, but you are wrong. There's are far more important things to focus on. The recent bombing in the airport in Moscow and what it is is what's important. Whether or not I am a bigot is of zero value.

Richard,

Zero value to whom?

When you constantly express bigoted arguments, then say, "I'm not a bigot and you don't know me," I read that crap. I don't turn off my brain just because you suddenly post and then claim I shouldn't take you seriously.

I see what I see. My vision is of extreme value to me. My vision may not be of value to you, but it is to me.

And I'm not alone. The spirit I foster on this forum is for each individual to use the best reasoning he or she can muster from their own first hand observations.

Spiteful and hateful oversimplifications don't stand up to that. If you want to spread your spite and hate, you need to learn a different way of saying it when you address people who think for themselves.

How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

This is another example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

My words don't have to be explained from a filter of bias. Nobody will find what I am "essentially claiming" as given by you unless they adopt your bias and feel the need to push an oversimplified view of the Islamic world.

On the contrary, as I consistently define my terms, my meaning is pretty clear to most of the readers.

But, judging from your posts, I can see how you don't understand my meaning.

The correct fundamental thinking sequence is identify, then evaluate. When you invert that, i.e., judge, then go about seeking facts to justify the judgment, you miss a lot. Rand called this blank-out, but that makes it sound like a conscious choice to not see. From what I observe (in general, not just in this case), it is more like a blindness imposed by an incorrect thinking sequence.

It is impossible to rationally judge what you do not know. That goes for anywhere at any time. You just cannot refuse to identify and claim to be rational.

But it is not impossible to judge haphazardly without knowing. People do that all the time. You just have to give up the need to correctly identify something, then bash away to your heart's content. If you find enough people who do the same so you can get some social proof, the judgment even feels good inside. Suddenly there's a good "us" to fight the evil "them."

Just don't examine the premises too closely and you will be fine in that world.

Er... unless you interact with people who think for themselves according to the identify, then evaluate system. Your pre-chewed memes (which Rand colorfully called "bromides") stop working with those folks.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Is someone a "bad person" if they come from a muslim country? No, but you can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. You simply can't. No more than you can be a devout communist and be a good person. "Good" people from the middle east are "good" to the extent they reject Islam.

This is a perfect example of normative before cognitive reasoning.

And that's the root of bigotry.

Michael

How do you figure that? By what standard do you judge devout Islamic religiosity to equate to being a good person? You're essentially claiming that Bob hasn't studied Islam before he reached his conclusion. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from his post, because I certainly can't see it. I don't have a clue what Bob does or doesn't know about Islam.

Micheal writes nonsense, quite regularly.

Just have him answer this question:

What can you say about the moral character of a person that is an ardent, devout communist?

Being a devout anything means in the simplest terms that the moral teachings and conclusions of the body of thought in question are largely or completely in line with the person's own morality.

What I can conclude, quite easily, is that a devout communist or muslim MUST have a moral code virtually directly opposed to my own. I think Michael (and certainly Rand without question) would be happy to make this conclusion wrt communism (in fact, Rand quite emphatically did on many occasions) but he denies the obvious conclusion wrt to Islam.

"Normative before cognitive" - nonsense. He simply puts political correctness or some other distaste for the truth ahead of logic.

He has demonstrated numerous times that he has no idea what bigotry is at all. He doesn't even understand the ideas behind Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" - I've tried to explain it - no avail.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

My words don't have to be explained from a filter of bias. Nobody will find what I am "essentially claiming" as given by you unless they adopt your bias and feel the need to push an oversimplified view of the Islamic world.

You need to read what was written - talk about bias!

Making conclusions (oversimplified or not) about the "Islamic world" is completely different from Islam. One is a complex and varied group of people, the other is a book written by a tyrant. An individual from the former should not be judged without evidence (that's called prejudice), the latter can be judged quite effectively, yet you refuse. Why?

Is is so complex?

Bob