Half of British Muslims want sharia law.

52% of British Muslims want homosexuality made illegal. (the Guardian).

They, who were once well assimilated into UK society. (Not to cast aspersions on the large majority of US Muslims who fled there for rational, freedom seeking reasons and are undeserving of blame and any back-lash) .

Look to the wider world. Has the deluge of factoids from Europe and all over (those which actually reach publication) - statements by imams, killings of bravely outspoken bloggers in Bangladesh, female and homophobic repression, executions, etc. - not disturbed you?

And one hate-filled pastor gets your enrapt attention, when - outside of North America - there is not much loud condemnation I've seen from Muslims of this horrific outrage, while evidence points to a celebratory mood in places? You display an amazing moral selectivity. Do you have a problem facing the fact: Christianity in every department, is on a far higher plane of mature peaceability next to Islam. There is very little equivalence. And Isis is not the ultimate cause but a single consequence, of underlying religious dogma fed with hatred for the West for just being the West - not for what westerners have supposedly 'done'. Wake up William; there's a war on outside. It is ideological, and "liberal secularists" who relinquished principles and are avoiding facts are too lame to know what to do.

(If I want an English schoolmarm I'll find my own, thank you).

Deporting every Muslim (foreign born or native) would not make the U.S.  any safer.  In Spain,  being Jewish was outlawed.  Many Jews  become Catholics but maintained their Jewish practices in private and in secret.  Thus Spain's laws against Jews created Crypto-Jews.  Constitutionality aside, if such a policy were followed in the U.S.  there would be hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of Crypto Muslims  operating in the U.S.  and forcing them into secrecy and hiding will make it all the harder to find them.   Outlawing Islam (legality aside) is just a bad idea. 

12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Deporting every Muslim (foreign born or native) would not make the U.S.  any safer.  In Spain,  being Jewish was outlawed.  Many Jews  become Catholics but maintained their Jewish practices in private and in secret.  Thus Spain's laws against Jews created Crypto-Jews.  Constitutionality aside, if such a policy were followed in the U.S.  there would be hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of Crypto Muslims  operating in the U.S.  and forcing them into secrecy and hiding will make it all the harder to find them.   Outlawing Islam (legality aside) is just a bad idea. 

Let's stay focused on the refugees coming into the country (and Canada).

--Brant

What is it that you want to happen, Tony? I asked a few questions that don't appear to have attracted your interest -- questions posed in reaction to statements above. One that still sticks is "why is asking why Mateen killed 'psychologizing.'" (I mean in the Randian sense). Can you be more clear about your meaning, clarify it, entertain a conversation?

1 hour ago, anthony said:

You display an amazing moral selectivity.

Okay.  God Hates Fags.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

outside of North America - there is not much loud condemnation I've seen from Muslims

Oh well. Maybe you spend too much time among the drain-circling at OL.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Has the deluge of factoids [...] not disturbed you?

Yes, yes the facts of oppression and terror and murder and religious mania and complicity and theocracy has disturbed me. What do you think?

-- Tony, imagine a conversation between us, in real life. 

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let's stay focused on the refugees coming into the country (and Canada).

--Brant

Good idea.  Another good idea is to gain some understanding of how conflicts end. In the case of Syria/Iraq, I don't have a good enough imagination to foresee the end of armed conflict there.

Some end in fire some end in ice and many end in exhaustion, but none end in vice for the vice is what ended.

--Brant

3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Good idea.  Another good idea is to gain some understanding of how conflicts end. In the case of Syria/Iraq, I don't have a good enough imagination to foresee the end of armed conflict there.

23 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Some [conflicts] end in fire some end in ice and many end in exhaustion, but none end in vice for the vice is what ended.

I can think of outliers, but I kind of grasp what you are getting at. No conflict is exactly like another.

What I was getting at was the reason for the refugee flows (from Syria especially, but also from other conflict zones and Iraq).  The grievances of each 'side' have hardened around sectarianism.  The Sunni side has a raft of bad to worse to evil armed groups culminating in the ISIS death cult, followed by the Al-Qaeda franchise (Nusra).  The non-Sunni military side has the regime propped up by IRGC troops (and mercenaries from Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Shia world**}. Plus Hezbollah. It's the world's worst mess and I don't have any hope for that country at all.   I see it as a wound oozing refugees for the foreseeable future, though I expect the daily bombings will pretty much finish the job of crushing infrastructure of all kinds.  Another sad and disgusting note is the the dictator of Syria doesn't trust those refugees, whether they fled from his bombs or those of the other maniacs and murderous jihadis.

Every day is such a fucking heartbreak in Syria.  During the 'ceasefire' the regime has continued to bomb hospitals and markets and other civilian targets. And ,,,  tomorrow, next week will be as awful.   Those refugees that survive our selfish intake system in Canada are usually the brightest and most stable and most educated among the fucked up folks who have fled.  They made a new home.

-- there is not much more for me to say about the nightmare in Orlando, except to say the killer was probably just as fucked-in-the-head as Dylann Roof and the other mass-murderers we know from our own countries and from shocking events abroad.  I didn't mean to start an argument with Tony, or expect much interest here on the blog.

______________

** Refugees in Iran (Shia refugees fleeing from Afghanistan) have been given a choice -- get sent back home at your peril, or join 'special forces' of the Iranian war machine, 'volunteers.'

I can only add it's not the quality of the refugees, it's what their male children will grow up to do upon getting in touch with their religious roots. Some of them may already be grown up enough.

--Brant

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I can only add it's not the quality of the refugees, it's what their male children will grow up to do upon getting in touch with their religious roots. Some of them may already be grown up enough.

The more I learn about the murderer, the more I think that taking a Single Cause position is not gonna help. "It's not the quality of the people, but of their children."  Yeah.  But.  Do you support a temporary 'ban' on Muslim entry to the USA? If not, what is your policy prescription?

-- I was watching some CNN today (not a habit), and Paul Ryan said there should be 'a security test' -- not a religious test (for entrance to the USA, whether visitor, student, immigrant, worker or refugee.  It made sense at first hearing. 

On another subject, I never comment on the gun 'debate' in the USA, except once in a while noting that the populace seems out of step with the big players (in politics/lobbying/persuasion).  

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let's stay focused on the refugees coming into the country (and Canada).

--Brant

The won't address the problem of self-radicalization among American born Muslims...

It is not immigrants that are the danger,  but memes. 

14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What is it that you want to happen, Tony? I asked a few questions that don't appear to have attracted your interest -- questions posed in reaction to statements above. One that still sticks is "why is asking why Mateen killed 'psychologizing.'" (I mean in the Randian sense). Can you be more clear about your meaning, clarify it, entertain a conversation?

 

Should I reiterate a position you've heard often? Nobody is pre-determined to commit such an act. The determinist narrative the left in particular has always espoused, leaps to justify ~explain~ whatever some individual does. Something 'happened' to him. After which we can go away content in the knowledge that the 'cause' lies somewhere and with something/someone outside himself. Pick one: He is a victim of radicalization? Isis enrolled him? Gays offended him? Too many guns are available? Was his country of origin ever bombed? A politician is planning to bar others of his religion from entry? Alright.

Anything but face and admit to last causation in individualism, thereby colliding with our fondly collective and "tolerant of all'' beliefs. And especially that there could be elements in the canon of that religion which are and will be a menace to lives and liberty, if practised consistently by followers.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What is it that you want to happen, Tony? I asked a few questions that don't appear to have attracted your interest -- questions posed in reaction to statements above. One that still sticks is "why is asking why Mateen killed 'psychologizing.'" (I mean in the Randian sense). Can you be more clear about your meaning, clarify it, entertain a conversation?

 

Should I reiterate a position you've heard often?

No. Tell us what you want to happen. Barring that intellectual challenge -- why is asking why Mateen killed "psychologizing."

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Nobody is pre-determined to commit such an act.

Agreed. Pre-determined.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

The determinist narrative the left in particular has always espoused, leaps to justify ~explain~ whatever some individual does.

There is no :"The Left" here Tony. There is me and Brant and Ba'al (and other readers ...). Please address my words, my arguments, not entities off-stage.

In my lexicon, Justification does not equate to explanation. 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Something 'happened' to him.

Who has written this or suggested this in this blog thread?  If no one here has done so, then bring in something that you would like to hear my opinion of.   Something happened.  Explanations abound.  

Do you have an 'explanation'?  If so, please share it with reference to whom you are arguing against.  

3 hours ago, anthony said:

After which we can go away content in the knowledge that the 'cause' lies somewhere and with something/someone outside himself.

Maybe you can go away, content with your explanation. But you haven't yet given an explanation to the readers of this blog thread. If you are up for a conversation, lay out some framework for discussion.  What is it you want to happen?

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Pick one: He is a victim of radicalization?

No. He is not a 'victim.' He is a murderer, a mass-murderer.  He is responsible for his act -- not some murky etheric force.   If you have found some material somewhere that supports the notion that someone has called him a victim, please share it. Otherwise, I might think you are just making shit up and laying at my feet --  as if I were responsible for someone else's claims and arguments. 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Isis enrolled him?

No.  Nobody here is suggesting ISIS 'enrolled' the killer.  Information suggests he claimed to have murdered the club-goers in the name of ISIS, to murder in the name of ISIS. 

So, strike two.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Gays offended him?

At best, at this stage, there is lots of speculation and near-certainty among people that knew him (at the police academy, his first wife, regulars at the club) -- the killer was 'conflicted' about his sexuality, and possible had homosexual impulses that he may or may not have acted upon.

If you want to develop an argument that it is foolish to probe this man's motivations, I'd like that.  But I do not  think you are arguing that to probe for the motivations is silly or foolish.  

I could say that you already know all you need to know about his motivation, but that would be putting words in your mouth and assigning to you opinions that you do not hold.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Too many guns are available?

Says who?   If you are asking, have Americans actual opinions about the availability or ease-of-acquisition of assault-style weapons, yes. Yes there are opinions. The majority in the latest soundings do not want assault-style weapons to be easily acquired. If you would like a link to such opinion, please ask. I suspect you already have read such opinion research. 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Was his country of origin ever bombed?

His 'country of origin' is the United States of America. He was born in Queens, New York.  

Was his father's homeland bombed? Yes.   Did you use a passive construction in your question? Yes.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

A politician is planning to bar others of his religion from entry? Alright.

Donald Trump has called for a total and complete ban on Muslim entry "until we figure it out."  

When you write "Alright," does that mean you support Mr Trump's proposal?  Or are you perhaps not convinced?  It is important that you clarify your stance. Please answer the question above.

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Anything but face and admit to last causation in individualism,

I unpack this .... "[You, William, do] anything but face and admit to last causation in individualism"  -- but this is murky.  Who are you addressing, if not me? 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

thereby colliding with our fondly collective and "tolerant of all'' beliefs.

Please take some advice on clear writing. Please include a subject and object in sentences.   What is colliding?  Who set it on a collision course? Who is the 'we' of "our fondly collective" and :"'Tolerant of all'" beliefs?

I am not tolerant of all beliefs.  If you are suggesting that I have some tolerance for terror and hate and murder, please make it clear. Make it clear who is the Actor in your sentences. 

Earlier you seemed to sneer at the suggestion your written English could be improved.   I don't know how to respond to that except by saying your arguments will only IMPROVE if you take the time to analyze and edit your remarks. 

Why don't you take the time to consider your words -- where your words might be mistaken?

3 hours ago, anthony said:

And especially that there could be elements in the canon of that religion which are and will be a menace to lives and liberty, if practised consistently by followers.

The Canon of Islam ...  is the rule of ISIS?  Is that what you are saying?  That every Muslim on earth 'could be' a menace, since your reading of their religion is smarter and better and more exact, and you see into their souls?  

If practiced consistently by followers.   What does that mean? I will guess:

"You, William..." Ha. William if the cap fits, wear it, but I was hardly thinking of you. What makes you believe so? I find you get lost in insignificant detail and sidebars a lot and I'm as usual trying for the bigger picture.

But do you recognize those determinist "narratives" of the Left, which hasn't the foggiest idea of how to address Islam? I suspect you do. It must be a confusing one for them; it seems (I think) that while leftists appreciate the show and sentiments of altruism, this ultimate - logical - extreme of self-sacrifice, "Submission", is a bridge too far even for them. 

No, the "Canon" is what is written in to Islamic scripture. "The rule of Isis" is not the point (only an effect) nor is the Syrian war. C'mon, hatred for the West (for being the good) is not new. When those wars end, who believes the religious edicts inherent to Islam will not remain as strong? You must have read passages from the koran and hadiths. Force, control, and more force. Do you not believe that some/many Muslims believe in them implicitly and completely? - and only "some" amounts to a huge number.

There won't be a permanent military solution, and not one blocking movements of people for much length of time, either - the shift to a modern Islam will have to come about ideologically and culturally. Then, by firm rule of law in nations. Reason is the only base, which means thinkers (and - 'leaders') being prepared to identify plainly and make value judgments clearly, and not sit timidly on the fence. I support those outspoken ~objective~ Muslim voices who are doing just that, we all should. All the prevaricating and appeasing which the liberal, Western pols and commentators have so far indulged in, has sabotaged those staunch individuals.

Maybe it's hard to take in, particularly for many in the West who've dismissed personal conviction for so long, but whereas all we who live by Western standards live "selfishly" (of course for most - not explicitly and consciously), placing and finding value in life and in our limited lifetimes, the entire thrust of Islam and many of its devotees look far beyond their lifespans to that future, when ~undoubtedly~ Islam is world wide. After all, for them: "Islam is right". They "have conviction" - although irrational. And right and proper it will be for all men and women to be adherents of Islam, no matter how long it takes; and in the meantime each Muslim ~should~ serve a miniscule part to that end.. Here is a level of self-sacrifice never known before, I reckon.

"InshAllah, ameen". If God wills - so be it. Enough from me for now.

On 6/14/2016 at 9:20 PM, william.scherk said:

The more I learn about the murderer, the more I think that taking a Single Cause position is not gonna help. "It's not the quality of the people, but of their children."  Yeah.  But.  Do you support a temporary 'ban' on Muslim entry to the USA? If not, what is your policy prescription?

Yes. (All I have time for. I'm working 14 hrs a day.)

--Brant

edit: state sponsorship of terrorism: destroy the state: Saudi Arabia, Iran et al.--and don't let any state replacement unless it agrees not to sponsor terrorism and jihad

bury individualist terrorists with eviscerated pigs--make a federal law mandating federal prosecution and claiming the body for the with-the-pig burial of the terrorist to trump any state law

such is war and war grants no mercy: thinking through and identifying cultural and ideological this and that causing moderated response is crap (you burn upTokyo; Japan surrenders; next is the next book; the next book was/is pretty swell)

I admit it--I was a medic, a killer medic; that was/is compatible with my philosophy then and now and I lived up to it: is this a ground for disgust or-what?--I submit it is grounds for previous comments for I know--liquored up and loving it--WTF I am talking about!

respecting Japan: in the 19th C, the Emperor of Japan informed the Shogunate (WTF was that?), your time has come and gone--and this was to the benefit of Japan--then in the 20th C The United States informed the Emperor of Japan, your time has come to a new time for the old time has gone so adapt or go so he stayed, but all of it was to the benefit of Japan

now, in this first C of this new thousand years the United States says to hoi polloi Muslim "individualist" get "modern" or get buried with pigs and to Muslim-export-terrorism states "Stop or get killed"--if it does--it will but when?--and burns up Tokyo, again!--back to earning my living (WTF, William, do YOU think War is about?--you want peace--don't we all?--but peace is only made possible by those whom War "Peace" is their "Profession!" (Assuming we are the good guys)

the libertarian rejoinder: just withdraw and let the bad boys deal with each other: damn!: that's no (American) fun!--won't ever happen regardless (a bridge too far)

As far as Single Cause, I am sure there isn't one. For mankind everything is neither only 'psychology' (etc.) - nor, all 'philosophy'. It's some mixture most of the time. When unintegrated, I guess the hatred emanating from one person's nil sense of selfhood (plus sexual insecurity, etc.) can well be enabled into action by the authoritatve dogma of a commanding Philosophy which lends prior approval to his hate-act. Everyone seeks righteousness in even a wicked action. Again the hunt is on to place the blame squarely under psychology and availability of guns, Trump, 'radicalization', Christianity, and so on. Especially the last. Let's attack our own Christians before being seen to criticize another faith. Secular-progressives, by definition, are distinctly uneasy about religious conviction (or any) and -naturally- final self-determinism and responsibility, a.k.a. individualism.

Sure there's a "Single Cause"--if you put causes into an appropriate hierarchy--this one--the basic one--is the religion.

--Brant

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Sure there's a "Single Cause"--if you put causes into an appropriate hierarchy--this one--the basic one--is the religion.

--Brant

How do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that do not commit mass murder?

That's because they choose not to. The religion itself is passive. It does nothing. Mass murder isn't a natural human default. Males hunt and fight and females bear and raise the children. That's the natural human default. There is no survival value in mass murder. It's just a massage for someone insane with the wrong ideas.

--Brant

On 6/15/2016 at 9:50 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

The won't address the problem of self-radicalization among American born Muslims...

It is not immigrants that are the danger,  but memes. 

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that do not commit mass murder?

What's going on here?  I'm agreeing with Bob.  Or at least with the apparent thrust of a couple quotes from him.

On 2016/06/16 at 2:57 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Sure there's a "Single Cause"--if you put causes into an appropriate hierarchy--this one--the basic one--is the religion.

--Brant

Okay. That's why I commonly refer to a philosophical "background". Bad actions come from bad ideas which come from an irrational philosophy (which are all religions, but others have generally moved forward, matured and the people become more rational, largely). Any faith has the potential for force, as we are aware. Of course I think that all religions, their doctrines and the behavior of individuals must be assessed by and responded with the same objective standard, so I don't accept the (sometime) double standard I hear from politicians and secular intellectuals of leaning over backwards to make allowances for Islam and Muslims while castigating Christians for whatever they say and do. What goes for the Pastor, goes for the Imam. Perhaps familarity breeds contempt. Or is it "the soft bigotry of low expectation"? Or 'white man's guilt'? Or plain fear?

I know about as much as I care to concerning Islam, but I have fair insight into the collective, Arab psychological mindset, which is also a significant but overlooked factor. There is plenty of angry 'victimhood' cum tribalist vengeance of past 'injustices' from The Other in there, which can quite potently slot in to that religious dogma. (What "they" did to "our people" back then - stirring up a fervent avenger, and his so-called 'reprisal' - obscuring, and conveniently forgetting, that adherents to Islam were aggressive, conquering, converting by force, repressive and enslaving, since way back). Hierachically, you're right, but I think in the twisted mind of a terror killer as in the minds of a percentile minority (though in not tiny numbers) who back him, logistically or merely with moral support, exists a mixed-up swamp of self-justifications, together making him "righteous".

The huge difference between China historically and the West is the Christian religion with its common locus of one God and salvation through Jesus Christ for its individual equality before God. Replacing that work of staggering genius with the "rationality" of Objectivism is the philosophy's silly conceit save for a certain type of individualist coming out of and being part of an essentially Christian nation. Rand went so far as to claim that "rational" men wouldn't have arguments and conflicts not easily laid to rest by their rational minds--you know, like right here on OL.

--Brant

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

 Replacing that work of staggering genius with the "rationality" of Objectivism is the philosophy's silly conceit save for a certain type of individualist coming out of and being part of an essentially Christian nation. Rand went so far as to claim that "rational" men wouldn't have arguments and conflicts not easily laid to rest by their rational minds--you know, like right here on OL.

--Brant

It's why personally I don't anticipate this as a philosophy for the world. I'm not sure if I'd even want that outcome, although its background influence will be valuable. For me I get along with anyone who can see facts, thinks, arrives at the best conclusions they are capable of and acts with self-interest - so, is "rational" and human - that goes for certain Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists too.

What it boils down to? It is all individual. Ultimately the whole Objectivist endeavor is all geared to your own understanding and 'good' (and the good of those one cares for, which amounts to the same thing).

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The huge difference between China historically and the West is the Christian religion with its common locus of one God and salvation through Jesus Christ for its individual equality before God. Replacing that work of staggering genius with the "rationality" of Objectivism is the philosophy's silly conceit save for a certain type of individualist coming out of and being part of an essentially Christian nation. Rand went so far as to claim that "rational" men wouldn't have arguments and conflicts not easily laid to rest by their rational minds--you know, like right here on OL.

--Brant

Aristotle should have said Man is the   occassionaly rational animal...

I speculate that ____ ______, the Orlando mass murderer, was killing his disowned self using his victims as proxies.

--Brant

13 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I speculate that ____ ______, the Orlando mass murderer, was killing his disowned self using his victims as proxies.

--Brant

An interesting speculation.  You have transformed murder into suicide.