Sign in to follow this  
Brant Gaede

How to Fight Islam

Recommended Posts

(Am I the first to start a thread in The Garbage Pile?)

The Muslim religion has two different active components. The religion as such and the ideologically embedded fascism of spreading it and imposing it by the sword. Islam cannot be defeated. It cannot be rendered out of 1.3 billion human brains. The practically rendered fascism, however, can, insofar as it might involve other countries not Islamic, especially the United States which has the overt moral, economic, political and military power to do a lot of the job.

Terrorism is the exported product of sponsoring and succoring countries. What happens around the edges by individuals seemingly acting on their own is comparatively minor. Even 9-11 and that wasn't ad hoc the way the Boston Marathon bombings seemingly were.

What is going on in Iraq-Syria with ISIS is the attempt to establish a country from which to export aggressive terrorism while terrorizing its way to power. This "country" is weak. Just smash it. The US can put in a few troops on the ground to direct effective airstrikes--not the crap Obama ordered--re-enforce the Kurds and let Iran buff up the Iraqi regime such as it is (to the south) and essentially in that open terrain it's all over. The explicit and implicit message is it was fascism that was attacked, not Islam.

Most other sponsoring countries should get the message, probably not Iran. Because of distance, topography, oil and its soon getting the bomb, it's a much bigger problem, especially for Israel, but who is claiming the way to deal with Iran is to inform Iranians of how nonsensical their religion is and that its founder was a pedophile? There's a lot of nonsense in Christianity. Good luck in making it more rational and if you need to ideologically power a crusade you can sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" until the cows come home.

No need for that. What can be done is use anti-fascism to power the "crusade." What did Russia do in WWII but fight fascism? The allies? Everybody that counted. How easy for secular powers to turn on the jihadists with another anti-fascist crusade, no religion necessary (or desirable [or usable]). A religious war?--NOT!

That fascism, which is not exported and oppresses any country's inhabitants. is not going to be "liberated" by any army no matter how powerful. Here is where you get the Objectivism-NeoCon divide respecting this aspect of a foreign policy and interventionism "for democracy and freedom around the world." While a libertarian might be against all interventionism and a NeoCon for any interventionism striking his fancy, the Objectivist idea might be to intervene with other countries ideologically powered interventionism only, as with terrorism, absent a strategic threat's manifestation. Not even communism, what's left of it, does that any more, not even from China or Cuba. We all know what happened to the Nazis and fascists of WWII. We can treat this world through standard geo-political considerations of power butting up against power and finding stability therein. The ideological wars have all been fought and won. That's why the jihadists are hiding behind Islam. They cannot defend the fascism. It's fascism behind the curtain.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to fight Islam:

1. Tell the truth about Islam. Don't call it a religion of peace. Telling the truth is a megapowerful weapon. That's why people who tell the truth about Islam risk getting death threats.

2. Stop paying for your own funeral. Stop supporting them by buying their oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there were the internet in China and Iran. By golly, then the young people would rise up and demand freedom!

That may be happening but at a slower pace than anticipated. However, getting the truth, believing the truth and enacting the truth have different time lines.

The idea of *nation building* may have hit a snag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to fight Islam:

1. Tell the truth about Islam. Don't call it a religion of peace. Telling the truth is a megapowerful weapon. That's why people who tell the truth about Islam risk getting death threats.

2. Stop paying for your own funeral. Stop supporting them by buying their oil.

Tell the truth about fascism. That tells the Muslims what's wrong to the extent it's a concern of anyone else. I'm talking about state foreign policy on part of a non-Muslim state. What individuals do they do as individuals. Go ahead. Again, you cannot rend a religion out of the brains of 1.3 billion people or modify it. You simply make the fascism unexportable and say what you are doing and if they don't get that message they'll get smashed until they do or they are dead.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

That's their problem. I am an "enemy of Islam." All I'm saying is a secular country--the U.S.--does not, cannot, wage a religious war. That doesn't mean not knocking down the perpetrators of certain actions. As for the ideology, modern social media and Internet access will tear the heart out of that religion by the end of the century. Something needs to replace the bandit-prophet. No need to replace their God, but he'll have to put on some clothes for they don't have Jesus. Muslims are slaves. The de-slaving has begun and they'll mostly do it themselves as it's a lot to do with what's in their heads.

Things are getting better and better for people generally all over the world. This means not just food, energy and shelter but religion too. Think of Islam as a humanity dam holding back 1.3 billion people--a dam with cracks appearing all over its face. The U.S. fighting fascistic terrorism can weaken but not destroy that dam. The U.S. fighting the religion will re-enforce that dam by the people behind it taking off a lot of pressure in reaction to that either because they implicitly consider that welfare and stop working on destroying that dam or because they're pissed that their religion is being attacked as such. Let them learn but don't try to teach them anything except if they wage overt war they'll get killed and not for their religion but the fascism that powers jihad and enslaves them directly.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's their problem. I am an "enemy of Islam." All I'm saying is a secular country--the U.S.--does not, cannot, wage a religious war.

Brant,

The problem is you are talking to a dude who wants a holy war.

That's his thing.

He is not devoted to reason. (Just look at what he does constantly. Not his pious protestations of victimhood.) He is devoted to some version in his head of a pro-liberty side exterminating Islam. In other words, on a fundamental level, one dictatorship replacing another. Superior people damaging inferior people. At best, lording over and ruling them. His pro-liberty is not really pro-liberty. It's only pro-liberty for members of his tribe in a holy war.

Guess what would be left if his way of thinking prevailed?

We have seen this film before. This crap leads to thought crimes.

That is a fundamentally different fight than promoting reason and shutting down religious-state inspired violence.

Humans have dealt with and mostly eliminated animal and human sacrifices, genocide, killing out entire blood-lines of families, mass suicide, Nazism, and a whole host of bad ideas people have engaged in without resorting to waging holy wars and allowing thought crimes to emerge. In fact, when these have been used as weapons to defeat the bad ideas, we always got more bad ideas.

All we need to do is do what has always worked: restrict people's ability to bully innocents based on violence-based dogmas and punish them harshly when they do. The thoughts then take care of themselves.

We could do some catchy storytelling or reinterpreting of their stories, but that is another issue. (In fact, that is true intellectual warfare.)

The bigotry system uses oversimplification, blanking out, then belittling, mocking and bullying people. And they want a moral sanction to call this intellectual. But what happens if they win? Think about it. When one bully beats up another (along with the "collateral damage"), you still have a bully in charge.

There is no valid individual right to bully others because you don't like what they think.

Bullying is evil. All bullying.

A bigoted enemy of my enemy is not my friend. He's just another enemy who is not powerful enough yet to pose a threat.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

That's their problem.

It is your problem. You are telling critics of Islam that they shouldn't criticise Islam by pointing out that Muhammad was a pedophile or a "bandit prophet" because it radicalises muslims who would otherwise remain peaceful, but here you are criticising Islam. You've been making efforts to say that it's fascism, not Islam, that is the problem, but you're not able to maintain that fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Brant for opening this target in the Garbage Pile. Discussion about The Islam tends to bog down into sloganeering or worse. I like that Brant is trying to detail a plan to counter the menace, whereas the other folks with strong opinions still haven't offered much more than a sketch.

In the other garbaged thread which opened with Wilder's speech to his claque in Copenhagen, Brant takes issue with the Infidel Approach. The Infidel Approach seems to be mostly warnings and calls -- no particulars. It just isn't clear what right-thinking people in his nation should do, or what campaigns they should cooperate on. It's not apparent how the clear and present Islamic menace to Australia is to be countered. I think Richard's Infidel Approach would be less boring and less ripe for the garbage pile -- if it it were laid out like a series of steps to be taken in each realm of action and/or education, helping the rest of us grasp just what

an individual can do and ought to do.

-- personal and individual

-- social or cooperative

-- organized civil and criminal law

-- military and intelligence

Every thread that starts out about Muslims and their religion deserves immediate placement in the Garbage Pile because of Richard. It's no justice to a thread starter to wait until he posts on it. Know it going in. Either that or ban the guy according to the site owner's moral metric.

Part of me agrees to this immediate placement -- just because I don't want my haunt (OL) to get tagged as an anti-Islam or anti-Muslim forum. But to prejudge any and all topics concerning Islam, Islamism, Jihad -- as garbage -- is probably not indicated. I trust Michael's nose, though, if and when discussion veers off into bigotry.

But what the hell. Why not do the SLOP approach? We can all sit around all day bitching about Islam as the root of all evil on a website from the comfort of our homes (maybe right before we get another beer or coffee) and pat ourselves on the back for trouncing the enemy and striking a massive blow for freedom. Remote control activism. Push the button and we can feel moral and righteous. Damn, I'm one of the good guys! Take that, bastards! Islam is scum! (burp...)

Or we can get our hands dirty and actually engage Muslims, publish alternative storylines in the different media (written words, audio, images, videos), support reform Muslims and reform Muslim organizations, try to help move the Overton Window in that culture, help set up terrorism detection, etc.

[...]

One way is garbage. The other is a plan.

One way is easy. The other is hard.

It's a choice.

The personal efforts of Infidel may be all that he knows, all that he does. He might just be satisfied with alarmist statements and reposting inflammatory material from elsewhere.

But I expect he could lay out a plan for one or several of the different realms. It would be in his interest to broaden discussion. I think. Maybe he is most expert on the personal and social, low-level efforts to inform, and that is what he sticks with. He doesn't perhaps have a plan in mind for the things people can do together, as an interest group, as information purveyors, as a social force (I'd like to hear what he thinks Australians can do better to confront Islamism/jihadism at home, how grass-roots activism can 'nip it in the bud,' how Muslim Australians should be encouraged to behave). But I'd still like to hear from him on each of the levels of action.

When the "jihadists" achieve their wildest dreams and perhaps kill 50,000 people in the united states. Maybe twice what are killed on our highways yearly. What happens then? I'll tell you, a Hiroshima event happens. If you frighten and piss off people enough they will become the nightmare opposite of multiculturally and politically correct. [...] I think there is some kind of stockholm syndrome happening in the muslim culture. Identification with very dangerous irrational people because that is better than living in abject fear. The antidote is the west has to show zero tolerance for terrorism and intimidation. No negotiation, no half measures. Show some backbone now or watch the Hiroshima event later, your choice.

The plan here seems to cross from the individual realm to the military in one jump -- with a stop at social psychology. It foresees a terrible death toll in America, followed by overwhelming destructive power. It sees 'the muslim culture' frightening and angering 'people.' It mentions 'identification with very dangerous irrational people' but not by whom, and it counters this murky general threat with an equally murky counterthreat: Zero Tolerance for Terrorism and Intimidation. No negotiation (with who?) or half-measures (like what?).

What are the details of this prescription? Before I join with Mikee I want to know what is entailed for me, personally -- what am I doing that is incorrect? or what can I do personally and socially, how do I engage in the civic space, which penalties or preventative measures need be taken in law? what should I agitate for that isn't being done now? Which group might I join? What military plans and actions are on the table?

-- parallel to Mikee's plan, what can an individual do to self-educate? What should I do to learn about 'The Muslim Culture'? Are there allies studded here and there in that otherwise awful mass of Islam?

That word "radicalize" or "radicalization" has got to go. ... It's a nothing word and anti-concept, foisted on us by a media in step with progressivist intellectuals; [...] If the world of Islam wants to be treated with the same civilised dues that every religion is treated - not feared - each has to look to themself and mature.

I want to know why there are only 90-odd Canadians on a CSIS 'watch-list' -- when there are over 800 thousand Muslims resident citizens and landed immigrants. I want a replacement term for 'radical' -- one that has the same connotations of extremist views and propensity to violence.

I want to know how to understand how to efficiently and accurately generalize to "the world of Islam" from [replacement term for 'radical'] Islam. I want to know what in particular I can do as an individual, and I want to know what Tony has in mind for the rest of the realms.

"Each [islamic 'radical'-supporting person] has to look to themself and mature" ... is a comprehensible statement, but I don't know what it entails. If each "radicalized Islamist/Jihadist" needs to mature and examine his or her self, how to potentiate this?

How to identify those 'radicalized'? How to identify and reach those at most risk of 'radicalization'? And who is to do the identification and persuasion? What are the tools at hand, and how should those tools be used?

I think Tony's negating of the term doesn't clear up the field. If we are concerned about continuing recruitment into the ISIS cult, I think we need to know how exactly the jihadis form their intents to do violence. In multicultural Canada, for example, I want to know what typifies these men who have broken away from their life in the West, who have gone to fight under the black flag.

"Radicalization" is the justification used by Westerners to explain the irrational, which is also, I believe, being utilized by some/many Muslims to justify their own actions. Double standards is the result. I have never heard the word applied to any other people or group.

This is murky -- 'radicalization' [a change in belief and behaviour, a willingness and ability to use violent terror tactics at 'home'; to join ISIS] is used too many Muslims to justify their own actions? Too many to mention a particular example?

Let's say there never were 'radicalized' Christians, ever. Let's pretend that no other 'radicalized' group has been identified that wasn't Muslim (like, say, the Tamil Tigers or the Buddhist 'radicals' who engage the Rohyngya).

Let's say all that is true. What to do, Tony, as an individual, as a social grouping, as a political movement for civil action or new law and policy, as a military entity and as intelligence service?

Do you have some kind of roadmap for action, education, propaganda, 'de-radicalization' or counter-radicalization?

[Richard's] whole approach bores me. If he's in a foxhole in Australia as Geert is in Denmark, then that's what he should be talking about. Then we can exchange and discuss sundry combat strategies, some ideological.

Geert Wilders bores me. He wants to ban the Quran, strip citizenship, bar Muslim immigrants, ban religious education for Muslims in his home country (the Netherlands). The speech is long on calls and warning, and short with particulars. No more Moroccans. No-one in the Netherlands wants more Moroccans. Round up hatemongers. There is only one Islam. De-islamize our nation ... clap in jail the all the Islamists.

Up till some years ago I was happy in the conviction that the huge majority of Muslims desired nothing but living good lives, getting along reasonably well with others, and assimilating into countries they immigrated to. Out on the fringe, was the mad minority who were despised by other Muslims. [...] But too much stuff has been happening recently, plenty inter-sectarian and international conflicts, too complicated for most of us to understand -- and along with it, hardening attitudes against the culture and policies of the West.

"The 'fighting'... has to be through our ideas on this forum, NOT against religionism and Faith ... but against force by any religions". I agree with that. Still, I bet you have specific recommendations for action in all the realms I noted.

When you say that recent 'intersectarian and international conflicts' may be too complicated for most of us to understand, that is the bigotry of low expectations. I think anyone wanting to weigh in on "The Muslims" or "The Islam" needs to know some basics about those billion and change Muslims. They need to know what means Shi'a and what means Sunni, what means Salafi and what means Takfiri, what means Ismaili and Sufi and Bektashi and Alevi and Alawi and Ahmadiyya.

If things are too complicated for us to understand -- then we don't understand. That's hardly a goal I would share.

The practice of praying five times a day interrupts all deep mulling where people try to think on their own--on premise-level stuff--and steers their reflective minds into pre-canned messages. They want to mull and meditate, but they have that Imam honking religious mind-control stuff in their ear five times a day.

This is how indoctrination works. Indoctrination technicians use the same mental-limitation process in reeducation camps and they try to in propaganda (often successfully).

[...]

If the Imam only (or mostly) presents the icky and violent stuff in the prayers, that's what your subconscious will absorb. If he presents love and peace and so on, that's what your subconscious will absorb.

[...]

For example, if a young Muslim goes through the phase where he believes adults all suck because they ignore injustice and are hypocrites and only young people know about life (didn't you go through that yourself? I did... :smile: ), then lands up doing the five-times a day routine with an evil fuck of an Imam (as opposed to a good benevolent Imam), he will become radicalized against his will.

He goes to that Imam to eliminate injustice and serve the good according to the perspective of his developing mind (aided by piss-and-vinegar hormones). He thinks that Imam (or ISIS or whatever) is kickass and stands up to bullies. He does not go there to learn how to kill innocent people and become a bully himself. His Imam turns him into that. Pure bait and switch.

How many people do you know want to go to church or learn a philosophy because they want to be bad guys? Learn how to be more cruel bullies? Learn how to oppress innocent victims more ruthlessly with more blood?

None. No one does that.

Yet the Imam turns our young Muslim into that.

I am going to disagree with you on the notion that it is Imams and Mosques who turn the pre-radicals into violent radicals. My understanding is that in North America and in the Middle East/North Africa, the mosques have 'lost' these young men to ISIS/other jihadi fascists. In Tunisia for example, the radicalization is outside the mainline Islamism of Ennadha (the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood). In Egypt, the mosques are state-controlled, same in Turkey, Jordan, Syria (though not in Iraq). They do not preach the ideology that requires militant, violent Jihad right now right there.

Another example is the guy who shot up Parliament Hill. He chafed at the mosque in Vancouver, and was told to seek another congregation. It is the mosques in Canada, too, that act as an 'early-warning system' -- and share with police and secret services the names of the 'too radical' elements.

Not that there aren't preachers and self-styled sheiks on the internet or on religious television shows who urge Jihad against the Assad regime or the 'Crusaders,' but by and large the extremists are adopting a New Age of Old Ways religious justification that stands outside the regular institutions of faith. Eg -- no mosque in Algeria or Morocco may indulge in Jihadi recruitment -- it is underground.

In the European countries, for better or worse, mosques have at once more freedom to be 'radical' and more reason to be under surveillance. It is the un-official semi-underground 'recruitment' that predominates. In the UK, for example, radical clerics and self-styled leaders have emerged outside the mainstream, such as Anjem Choudary, and have found themselves on the edge of the knife of sedition (and newer anti-terror laws). Others are under close scrutiny.

I have a few links to flesh out this angle, bu will include just this one from the New Statesmen. The author tracked some of the British jihadis to Syria and ISIS and their deaths.

The US can put in a few troops on the ground to direct effective airstrikes--not the crap Obama ordered--re-enforce the Kurds and let Iran buff up the Iraqi regime such as it is (to the south) and essentially in that open terrain it's all over. [...] Most other sponsoring countries should get the message, probably not Iran. Because of distance, topography, oil and its soon getting the bomb, it's a much bigger problem, especially for Israel, but who is claiming the way to deal with Iran is to inform Iranians of how nonsensical their religion is and that its founder was a pedophile?

I don't know what you mean by 'effective (non-crap) airstrikes' ... the US is being extremely careful not to target other than ISIS or Al-Nusra. In the Syrian context, this means practically that the USA is acting as arm of the Syrian air forces. The Syrian regime is the enemy not only of ISIS, but also other Jihadi groupings, as well as the near five-million refugees. The Syrian regime did not at any time bomb Kurdish areas in the same way they continue to bomb 'rebel' areas.

The Syria war is the war of a thousand proxies. Sectarian militias range from Alawite-dominated National Defence Forces to 'volunteer' militias staffed by Iraqis and Lebanese -- Shi'a sect militias -- to a thousand Sunni and a few 'secular'.

Defeating ISIS in Syria does nothing to advance US interests in terms of a bloodthirsty family dictatorship. The war against Assad will continue regardless, beyond removing ISIS from control of its cantons.

Israel is still in a state of war with Syria (with a decades old disengagement agreement). It has established an aid and medical relationship with rebels who have taken control of the former UN buffer zones. Binyamin Netanyahu has been pictured with an injured Syrian rebel soldier (they are patched up and return to the Syrian front).

As Tony suggested, Brant -- it's way complicated! I haven't in all these years following Syria seen a plan to end the war that makes any practical sense. Nor have I seen a practical military plan to take down Assad without turning the entire country to a mad sectarian bloodbath to end all bloodbaths (with its millions of refugees and million casualties and wrecked urban fabric and non-stop state torture-machine it is hard to imagine an even worse situation).

Care to revisit the 'non-crap airstrikes'?

How to fight Islam:

1. Tell the truth about Islam. Don't call it a religion of peace. Telling the truth is a megapowerful weapon. That's why people who tell the truth about Islam risk getting death threats.

2. Stop paying for your own funeral. Stop supporting them by buying their oil.

Jerry, you rarely disappoint. This simple prescription is about as simplistic and stupid as it gets. You haven't managed to engage with one part of the real world (starting with Alberta: what do you think of the brown Muslim Mayor of Calgary? Why don't you tell a little bit of truth about his nasty religion?).

-- Calgary elected and reelected their first Muslim mayor, for those who don't follow Alberta's political news. His name is Naheed Nenshi. I would love Jerry to fight Nenshi's religion with his bold two point plan.

Perhaps Jerry can conduct his fight closer to home, and go tell truth about Islam to Edmonton Muslims on an outreach night at one of the eight local mosques. Or he could volunteer for the Al-Rashid Mosque at the local kid-friendly pioneer-heritage park at Fort Edmonton. It was built by a Ukrainian, which is why it looks a bit Slavic ...

640x392_48135_133286.jpg

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to disagree with you on the notion that it is Imams and Mosques who turn the pre-radicals into violent radicals. My understanding is that in North America and in the Middle East/North Africa, the mosques have 'lost' these young men to ISIS/other jihadi fascists. In Tunisia for example, the radicalization is outside the mainline Islamism of Ennadha (the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood). In Egypt, the mosques are state-controlled, same in Turkey, Jordan, Syria (though not in Iraq). They do not preach the ideology that requires militant, violent Jihad right now right there.

William,

Maybe I was not clear, but I think I was.

I did not mean ALL Imams. (And where did I say Mosques?) I meant some (remember Anwar al-Awlaki, for starters? :smile: ). And what the hell, I'll include some Mosques.

Some of them actually turn young idealistic Muslims really nasty.

Obviously, the radicalization pipeline is not made up of a single person or any on-off switch. It would be disingenuous to think that. But it is equally disingenuous to think a young Muslim full of piss-and-vinegar is not going to get orientation on how to get to ISIS and what Imams to listen to in some of these Mosques. That's the way it works here in the USA. In fact, we have hotspots here where Americans are recruited to ISIS and other jihadist undertakings.

No Imam or Mosque could possibly be involved in that, huh?

:smile:

I agree that an underground community is an important part, though.

And I maintain that the brainwashing part as I laid out is fundamental to radicalization.

btw - Thanks for the link to the article where I came across the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation.

When I get some time, I'm going to bop around there a bit and see what they think and what they are doing that might be working.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

That's their problem.

It is your problem. You are telling critics of Islam that they shouldn't criticise Islam by pointing out that Muhammad was a pedophile or a "bandit prophet" because it radicalises muslims who would otherwise remain peaceful, but here you are criticising Islam. You've been making efforts to say that it's fascism, not Islam, that is the problem, but you're not able to maintain that fiction.

Excuse me. Go right ahead and criticize Muhammad, the bandit and little girl fucker. He ain't listening. He's 1400 years dead. You go tell the Muslims for the good it does you or them. I don't give a shit. Go to the mosques and tell them. And since I'm an atheist I'm going to church on Sunday and laugh at Jesus for saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." Then we'll stand back and watch these two religions fall down on top of each other (if we make it out alive).

I think it was right before WWII. My uncle, who died last March, who would have been a student at Ohio State University, went with a buddy or two (or three?) to where John L. Lewis, head of the AFL-CIO was giving a union speech in Columbus. They got backstage to work their little trick. As Lewis was yakking away, suddenly a huge Soviet flag unfurled behind him. They barely got out of there without the union goons beating the crap out of them.

--Brant

thanks for distorting and misrepresenting what I've been saying: note I've been advocating kicking--really kicking--ISIS ass, but you're only into talking--I don't care enough about Islam to hardly even think about it (and while George wrote a great book on atheism I never would have if I could have [not as well as he did, for sure])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to disagree with you on the notion that it is Imams and Mosques who turn the pre-radicals into violent radicals. My understanding is that in North America and in the Middle East/North Africa, the mosques have 'lost' these young men to ISIS/other jihadi fascists.

I did not mean ALL Imams. (And where did I say Mosques?)

Imams are mosque worship leaders, prayer leaders (in Sunni traditions). They are the public face of a congregation. I think we pretty much agree on the complicated nest of factors leading to radicalization. If I left the impression that mosques are not ever seedbeds of radicalization in some purlieus, that was wrong. I did want to underline how disinfected Canadian mosques have become -- how mainstream. There are of course other ways to ground religious fanaticism. That Canada has hundreds gone to Syria to fight Assad/the infidels/the west, and has hundred more under some kind of surveillance -- this suggests there is something else at work than a faith or attendance at public prayers. Otherwise I would expect much greater numbers of radicals being spawned by Canadian Imams of the mainstream mosques.

(of course, I should mention that 'virtual congregations' or 'masjids' are penny a thousand. And the Gulf-states, especially, sponsor or finance a variety of crazy Salafi preachers and their media networks. And a real international radical network of Salafist-style jihadi leaders certainly exists.)

Obviously, the radicalization pipeline is not made up of a single person or any on-off switch. It would be disingenuous to think that. But it is equally disingenuous to think a young Muslim full of piss-and-vinegar is not going to get orientation on how to get to ISIS and what Imams to listen to in some of these Mosques.

I need to do some additional research to find out which are the most radical of Canadian mosques, or which might shelter the equivalent of Anjem Choudary -- freelance 'educators' or 'community leaders' who comprise a kind of parallel structure to the mainstream. It will be a good further discussion to get down to some particulars. Thanks for opening that door.

That's the way it works here in the USA. In fact, we have hotspots here where Americans are recruited to ISIS and other jihadist undertakings.

No Imam or Mosque could possibly be involved in that, huh?

:smile:

I agree that an underground community is an important part, though.

Formal and informal (even virtual) congregations that have 'spawned' handfuls or more of committed warriors for ISIS -- these need attention. As you style them, "hotspots" are real-world groups of indoctrination. The fullest accounting will bring up their names and associations and what they preach. What might push communications into the underground (and virtual underground via the Internet) is that most agitating for holy war or counselling congregants to join the ISIS cult would be illegal (here in Canada). Those public leaders who want to conduct this kind of business should be careful not to cross the obvious lines.

The more I learn about recruitment, the more I think Brant is right in that there is a zeitgeist right now that is attractive to young 'warriors,' and that much of the inculcation of terrorist ethic can be done completely outside the formal framework of organized Islam; there is enough material and operators on the jihadi-internet, that a would-be ISIS warrior can find a way to his goals without the knowledge or encouragement of the would-be Muslim leaders in his home community. It's in this sense that jihadis are disaffected not only with 'the West,' but also with their mainstream non-violent community of faith.

I look forward to your further thoughts and findings on radicalization routes. The more we know, the better.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, spotters on the ground greatly increase the effectiveness of air strikes and is only a military tactic. This was true in Vietnam and is still true even today in spite of drones and "smart bombs" and all the technological advancements. They also reduce collateral damage.

The US had and has no business with Syria but has had and does anyway. However, for purposes of this discussion The Calphate is partly made up of what used to be Syria. It is proposing to be a terrorist state exporting terrorism so just break its back because its eminently breakable sending the message to all and sundry that state sponsored terrorism is verboten for the U.S. is going to get ya, get ya, get ya! That's possibly doable. Without state-sponsorship most terrorism cannot happen. Not all of it; most of it.

Now, we're really not having a discussion of the morality and philosophy of war and what wars the U.S. can and should fight. I introduced the idea of self defense, but no one chimmed in on that one. It's just I'm no neo-con. My broader perspective is general military disengagement from the world leaving more treasure and forces available for self defense. It's easiest in Europe. It's hardest when it comes to China, Japan, Taiwan, the South China Sea, etc. The Middle East is an inbetweener.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is the religion of Muhammad. It is not the religion of the mayor of Calgary. The mayor of Calgary did not invent Islam. Muhammad did. If you want to know the contents of Islam, you read the sayings (not writings because he was illiterate) of Muhammad. That is the definition of Islam. By Muhammad's own statements of what he did, he was a terrorist and a pedophile and a rapist and probably almost everything else you can think of that is bad. By his own statements. This is the founder of Islam.

It is possible to be both a Muslim and a good person. And perhaps 99% (or whatever) of all Muslims are good people. But in order to be a good Muslim according to Muhammad you must follow his example; that means to be a good Muslim you must be a bad person.

There is no way to modify Islam so that it is good without making it something that is not Islam. To modify Islam to make it good would mean deviating from the teachings of Muhammad and then it would not be Islam.

The billions of people who are Muslims and at the same time are good people are bad Muslims.

There are enough websites telling the truth about Islam for anyone who wants to know the truth about Islam, straight from Muhammad himself (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits), not opinions. If anyone is interested, check out the websites of Ali Sina and Craig Winn.

Ali Sina says Islam is on the way out, because people are learning the truth about it. It has been said: the pen is mightier than the sword. Update that. Perhaps the internet is mightier than the nuke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry,

I'm going to address this because I believe you are making a mistake in thinking, not in spirit (like the other dude). I think you are a good person.

So let's look at the logic.

You say all the bad Muslims practice true Islam, and the good Muslims do not practice true Islam, because the bad stuff is what Muhammad said and it is impossible not to follow the bad stuff and be true to what he taught.

But let's turn that around. Where on earth did you get the notion that the sacred books of Islam are logically consistent? Muhammad himself said lots of contradictory things.

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree with this, I suggest you do not know the texts.

If you agree that Muhammad contradicted himself a lot, then according to you, the Islamist fundamentalists do not practice true Islam either. You want to know why? Because nobody can practice a contradiction with logical consistency. It is impossible to practice what Muhammad said in some places without contradicting what he said in others. And if a Muslim doesn't practice what he said, according to you, the Muslim is not practicing true Islam.

In other words, of the billion and a half Muslims in the world, not one of them practices true Islam according to your standard.

In other words, Islam cannot be the problem or cause of anything.

Nobody practices it.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good Muslim (which implies a bad person) follows the teachings and example of Muhammad, including the contradictions. Muslims are not required to be logically consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me. Go right ahead and criticize Muhammad, the bandit and little girl fucker. He ain't listening. He's 1400 years dead. You go tell the Muslims for the good it does you or them.I don't give a shit. Go to the mosques and tell them. And since I'm an atheist I'm going to church on Sunday and laugh at Jesus for saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." Then we'll stand back and watch these two religions fall down on top of each other (if we make it out alive).

If I have misrepresented you then it's because I haven't understood you. I don't want to misrepresent you. I'll make an effort to read you correctly. Likewise, your comment above misrepresents me. I am not about going to the mosques and hounding Muslims. That Muhammad wasn't a nice guy is simply a fact. It's a fact that I think should be widely known amongst non-muslims and not hidden.

thanks for distorting and misrepresenting what I've been saying: note I've been advocating kicking--really kicking--ISIS ass, but you're only into talking--I

No. I advocate really kicking the Islamic States ass too. I'd go further and decimate Iran's nuclear facilities.

don't care enough about Islam to hardly even think about it (and while George wrote a great book on atheism I never would have if I could have [not as well as he did, for sure])

Fair enough. You don't care enough about Islam to look at it, but that doesn't mean other's are like you. They do care, and do look at it, and they do not like what they find.

P.S. I'm not quite sure just in what way I've distorted what you've said? Do you mean my voluntary submission blasphemy law comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good Muslim (which implies a bad person) follows the teachings and example of Muhammad, including the contradictions. Muslims are not required to be logically consistent.

The average Muslim relies on Islamic scholars to tell them what is halal and haram. Islamic scholars have used the doctrine of abrogation to overcome contradictions. So, when Allah told Muhammad one thing, and it is later contradicted by another, it is the latter that has authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good Muslim (which implies a bad person) follows the teachings and example of Muhammad, including the contradictions. Muslims are not required to be logically consistent.

Jerry,

A bad Muslim in your speak, meaning a good person, follows the contradictions, too. That's the way you define these people. Contradictory.

So how can you judge the difference between contradictions when all follow them?

No one can.

If "good Muslims" are not required to be logically consistent, neither are "bad Muslims."

According to your way of thinking, no one follows Islam correctly. Or all do .

You can't have it both ways without becoming a bigot. Or confused at best with a double standard--meaning you do not require yourself to be logically consistent.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good Muslim (which implies a bad person) follows the teachings and example of Muhammad, including the contradictions. Muslims are not required to be logically consistent.

Jerry,

A bad Muslim in your speak, meaning a good person, follows the contradictions, too. That's the way you define these people. Contradictory.

So how can you judge the difference between contradictions when all follow them?

No one can.

If "good Muslims" are not required to be logically consistent, neither are "bad Muslims."

According to your way of thinking, no one follows Islam correctly. Or all do .

You can't have it both ways without becoming a bigot. Or confused at best with a double standard--meaning you do not require yourself to be logically consistent.

Michael

Muhammad was a terrorist. A good Muslim is a terrorist. A good person is not a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this