Richard Wiig

I understand where you're coming from because I grew up around bigots.

You want to say one thing and mean another and have CYA so you can say you are reasonable.

I had to look CYA up. No need to cover my arse. I have nothing to hide.

Like Maher.

Bigots package hatred as reason and play the victim when someone calls them out on it.

I think that would depend on the intelligence of the bigot, and on whether or not they were out to hide anything.

I (and readers) get bored quickly with simple you're wrong, no you're wrong, no you're wrong,

I didn't address you for the sake of any readers. I was just calling you out on your unjust treatment of Bill Maher.

I'm happy to let readers decide at this point--to let them think for themselves

Here's a thought experiment for any readers. Let's suppose that a just punishment for bigotry is capital punishment. In a court of law, who here could convict Bill Maher to death? I'll bet that no one here would be willing, other than you.

Your evidence seems to be that when he says, most Muslims support violence - which is what he concludes from the polls he cites - he really means, ALL muslims support violence. You even stress the ALL. You've taken what he said and changed it completely. That isn't objective, and it isn't fair.

Is there anyone here who would convict Mr Maher to death? I'm interested to know.

It wasn't his switch. It was yours. You are unfair to Mr. Maher in your switch, and you misrepresent him.

Actually I don't.

I throw the light on Maher's bigotry just like I throw light on yours.

You haven't thrown any light. You've merely misrepresented what he said. He hasn't said that "ALL" Muslims are violent. As someone who supposedly values objectivity, and justice, you shouldn't misrepresent him like that.

I mean something along the lines of relegating radical Islamism to the status of Nazism. A few people will still be attracted to it, but as a force shaping world events, it can essentially be eradicated.

The trouble being that Muhammad himself commanded these things from his followers. Those who take Muhammad seriously, which is all of the jihad groups, and all who support the jihad groups, and all who support the idea that the world belongs to Allah and is no place for man-made law, are proud of following the example of their prophet. To relegate Mohammedanism to Nazism is to equate Muhammad with Hitler. That is fine, because it is an apt comparison, but I don't think it will be something that will make the attractiveness of a global Caliphate and the supremacy of Islam go away.

It's nice when that switch-a-roo is all out in the open, huh?

It wasn't his switch. It was yours. You are unfair to Mr. Maher in your switch, and you misrepresent him.

"Here's an example from the video above. Maher agrees that the West arbitrarily carving up the Middle East in the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI is part of the radical Islam problem, as is poverty, etc. That's the CYA at then end."

He did not say that at all. He said he agreed that those things are problems, but don't leave religion out of the mix. Nowhere did he connect those things to radical Islam. In fact, probably the reverse is true given what he said about poverty elsewhere.

"But at the beginning of the discussion, he says that he keeps hearing people say that most Muslims are peaceful. But he wants to know (as a fighter for The One True Truth)... (pause for effect)... are they really?"

Which, given the way things are headed, is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. You turn the mere asking of this question into a bigoted act.

"Then he pulls out the fact that young educated male Tunisians join ISIS as proof that the entire Muslim community is not peaceful. All the while ignoring the behavior of ALL the peaceful Muslims right in front of his eyes. (Until called on it. Then blah blah blah...)"

This is where you make your switch. Maher has apparently gone from most to entire. He hasn't of course, it's merely the switch you have made, in fact need to make, in order to caste him as a bigot.

"The pattern is always the same. This never gets any better. And it never will with people like that."

Having mangled what he said into a complete misrepresentation you are now free to say "people like that". That's the kind of expression that is common to bigots.

Now, it could be that you have misunderstood Mr. Maher, or it could be that you have deliberately misrepresented him. That is an option you don't give to Mr. Maher himself. He is simply dismissed as a bigot who is beyond reason and not worth reasoning with.

"This never gets any better. And it never will with people like that. "

Nice switch-a-roo, Michael...

"But at the beginning of the discussion, he says that he keeps hearing people say that most Muslims are peaceful. But he wants to know (as a fighter for The One True Truth)... (pause for effect)... are they really?

"Then he pulls out the fact that young educated male Tunisians join ISIS as proof that the entire Muslim community is not peaceful"

It came to Canada a long time ago.

Some good points made here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/you-cant-reform-islam-without-reforming-muslims/

George W Bush warned in 2007 that pulling out of Iraq would be deadly, and the US would be forced to go back in:

Infidel... you have calmly and eloquently made a very good case. While I can't speak for Miehael, I believe that his Muslim friends figure heavily into his responses.

I also have Muslim friends, but the difference is I understand that they are good people because they are bad Muslims. So I have absolutely no problem understanding your view without sinking into hate. The Islamic fascists have nothing to do with my friends and visa versa, because their values don't match.

The real threat to Western civilization is the bad people who are good Muslims. Their evil is most definitely spawned in the Mosques and the Medrasas.

Greg

Thank you Greg,

I haven't said anything here in the past that has any other meaning than the above.

Richard

Okay, Richard, we'll agree to disagree on tactics. We seem to be aiming at the same target, so WTF?

--Brant

a killer in the family

Blowed if I know, Brant. In a nutshell all I've said is that just smashing them on the battlefield is not enough. It won't be the magic bullet.

First off, I am not saying that you are narrow-minded, but I'm sure that is clear to you.

They're "being born" because of guys like you who want to fight religious wars with secular means. They're answering the call to arms.

Their call to arms doesn't even require the existence of guys like me. Why do you say that it does? Their call to arms is to establish Sharia. That is there imperative, and guys like me have nothing to do with that.

That's what Bush did when he invaded Iraq and the young Jihadists responded only to find themselves in an American killing field.

It's funny how the argument always goes one way and not the other. It's America, in whatever its latest flavour is, that is the problem. People respond to America and it is never the other way around. If only America did nothing all would be well with the world. You say that Bush deposing Saddam created Jihadists. By the same token, if you attack IS, won't you be creating Jihadists too just like Bush did?

And don't forget that in order to create Jihadists all you have to do is say I hate Islam, or draw a cartoon that Muslims find offensive. You don't have to go as far Bush did.

With over one billion muslims in the world you seem to want to fight them forever.

I don't know why it seems that way to you. I simply want to adequately deal with the problem of the rising jihad, not fight all the muslims, let alone forever. I want an efficacious approach to the problem, something that we are not getting at the moment, that is all. An efficacious approach is going to require truthfully looking at the problem, but ever since 9/11 it's been full-throttle to evade the truth.

This one ups George Orwell's 1984 and its perpetual wars amongst a small block of super-states.

The only reason they are calling it a perpetual war is because of evasion of naming the problem. Name the problem and there won't/can't be any perpetual war. Also, all the unnecessary surveillance could be removed.

The key trick in fighting these Muslim terrorists is deny them as much casus belli as possible while destroying state sponsorship of terrorism by various means as much under the table as possible.

Considering that all it takes to justify warring with non-muslims is a cartoon, it's a bit difficult to deny them as much justification as possible. They follow a religion that divides the world into two houses. The house of war (dar al harb) and the House of Peace (dar al Islam). Their religion tells them they are supposed to struggle until they bring all of dar al harb under dar al Islam. It prescribes a heap of rules for achieving that, some of which relate to terror. The rules don't say that all Muslims must strike terror into the hearts of the Kuffar. Only a handful are expected to do that. It is a means to an end, and the end is Sharia established universally on Earth. In regards to all the Muslims going to war, only a Caliph has the authority to make such a call. Since there is, so far, no firmly established Caliph that has legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of Muslims, we don't have a problem in that regard.

The terrorists want war.

The terrorists want to do their part in the struggle to bring dar al harb under dar al Islam, to bring the world under Sharia. The terrorists, or jihadists as they are properly known, are only one VERY SMALL part of that picture. The terrorism is the softening up, the scaring into compliance. The much greater part is cultural shift that is pushed for.

I left SOLO~Passion~eight years ago because I couldn't stand the bomb-the-mosque stupidity--but I have nothing against masturbation--and now that it's become a one-leg hopper you've decided to follow me here-

I didn't even know you were here, so how could I follow you. But in terms of constructiveness, my comment above, in saying your view was too narrow, was not non-constructive. I think that just killing them on the field won't stop them, because the problem isn't arising from out there in the killing fields. It's arising in the mosques.

-but I ain't leaving OL because of you,

I'd hope not, especially since I'm not doing anything against you or too you.

but I will trounce and denounce what you areabout and give you no mercy or surcease while bitch-slapping you all over this joint. If you only knew what you were really talking about I'd deal with you civilly. Since you don't, I'll have fun roasting you with words on the spit of rationality even if it catches your underwear on fire.

Whatever.

--Brant

that felt good--let's do it again!

Only if you take care of the birth control and make me breakfast.

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

The ISIS fighters are 1400 yo? (They'll stop doing it, mostly because most of them will soon be dead*.)

--Brant

hard to believe

*unless the President's balls are all in his mouth

That is quite a narrow view, Brant. For every ISIS fighter that dies, 2 or 3 or 4 are being born. Not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in your very own beloved America. This is a philosophical/ideological war, not a static numbers game.

The Sunni supporting ISIS in Iraq only need to turn on ISIS and destroy it there, but keep their Sunni authority and identity giving up this Caliphate-Jihad shit, which they would have done eventually.

--Brant

How do you know they would give up this Caliphate-Jihad shit? It hasn't been given up in 1400 years, so why would they suddenly give it up now?

As the President speaks:

"We will destroy ISIS."

The feckless idiot enabled ISIS when he surrendered Iraq.

Greg

And to work with the FSA is to work with Islamic supremacists too. All the world leaders are taking great pains to avoid linking the IS's actions with Islam. They are either that ignorant, or they are afraid of the repercussion of speaking the truth. Either way, it's the surest sign that it's going to get much worse before it gets better.

The Khmer Rouge used a lot of child soldiers too. I didn't post it because I thought she could carry a gun, but to show how thoroughly brainwashed she was.

Richard:

Have you seen The Patriot with Mel Gibson?

Are you aware of how many "boys" died in our Revolution? Our Civil War and hell I have known write a
few Marines who lied about their age and were 16 yrs old at Tarawa,they were also Federal Marshals post WWII. Wonderful men.

A...

I haven't, Adam. I generally shy away from Mel Gibson movies, but I'll make a point of watching it. I don't know much about the Civil War, but yeah, I'm not unaware of children fighting in wars or lying about their age in order to fight.

The Khmer Rouge used a lot of child soldiers too. I didn't post it because I thought she could carry a gun, but to show how thoroughly brainwashed she was.

As long as "regime" governs Saudi Arabia they are the same. You take out the "regime" and you've got a completely ungovernable mess. That's the threat to Saudi Arabia post regime.

Thanks for the Hamas clarification, but if it's getting Shia support Hamas is threatened by being weakened apart from the recent weakening.

--Brant

It would be one regime replaced with another. Partial implementation of Sharia for its full implementation. Hamas gets its strength from acceptance of its philosophy from within, and from without (outside of Sunni Islam) through propaganda effectively maintaining a lie. The Islamic regime of Iran is helping them because they have a common enemy, but I don't think that weakens Hamas. What will weaken Hamas is when the vast majority of decent minded Westerners start to see through the propaganda.

Shia Islam is only about 5% of the Islamic world. Sunni Islam is about 90%, so the Shia are vastly outnumbered.

ISIS's real expansionist threat is to Saudi Arabia and they are both Sunni.

The ISIS threat right now is to--aside from Saudi Arabia--Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria (Assad) and Iran.

They are no threat to Saudi Arabia. They are a threat to the regime. According to a recent poll most Muslims in Saudi Arabia support the Islamic State.

They are also no threat to Hamas. Hamas is a Sunni organisation and they have support from the Islamic State. Shia and Sunni will work together when it suits them.

I think he ignores the elephant in the room, Adam.

...and it is?...

Mohamadism.

ISIS is just another jihad group, the most successful so far, and as I've said before, you can smash them (and they should be smashed) but they aren't what really needs to be defeated. The whole movement is about sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and that is greater than ISIS, greater than Al Qaeda, greater than Boko Haram, greater than all of them. Muhammad is what needs to be defeated.

Darrell above suggests arming the FSA. The FSA, however, are working with the IS. Chances are you'll just be arming more muslims who will opt for the strong horse when the time comes, which just might happen to still be the Islamic State.

In my opinion a speech like this would do more to start turning things around than anything else could.

An ISIS Speech For Obama

I volunteer as a speech writer for the Radical-in-Chief.By Nonie Darwish

Author’s note: The speech below was written by me for Obama for one of his upcoming addresses on ISIS. Hopefully he will use it, because it is what America needs to hear from our president today. Such a speech is what the Muslim world needs to hear instead of what it heard from Obama six years ago in Cairo.

When I got elected president of the United States, I promised I would change the relationship between the Muslim world and America. That promise was based on my assumption that I understood the Muslim culture and religion better than any prior American president, because I grew up in Indonesia and went to Islamic school. To me, dealing with the Muslim world was a no brainer.

Instead of starting my presidency with a monumental speech thanking the American people for electing me, their first black president, and launching a new dawn in the healing of America from the ravages of race relations, I chose to give my most important first speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. I told them everything they needed to hear. I gave them the respect they desperately needed, and even bowed to his majesty, the King of Saudi Arabia. This all came at a cost to my popularity among my own forgiving citizens and my standing in the world.

I was willing to negotiate unconditionally with Iran and refused to take sides in their civil unrest. I removed every reference to Islam’s connection to terrorism from all of US government documents and labeled terrorist acts on my own military personnel at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” I did not respond to Islamists who embarrassed me before my re-election, when I blamed their attack on the Benghazi consulate and murder of 4 American officials on a video and not on Islamic terror. I made sure to lift up the spirits of the Muslim people even at the expense of my own people. I accused my opposition of being racists and allowed my attorney general to tell Americans that they are a “nation of cowards.”

But to my surprise, nothing worked. Today, the Middle East still hate us, is in flames and radical Islam is empowered like never before. The first radical Islamic State was launched during my presidency and the people of Egypt, to whom I spoke 6 years ago, are now calling me Satan and terror supporter. I also have lost the respect and confidence of many Americans, US allies and even our enemies.

I now declare that I am a changed man and it is not too late for America. I now declare that the problem we face in the world today is not the US, but Islam, period. US policy towards the Middle East was at worst imperfect and confused, but its failures fall squarely on the shoulders of a Muslim world unable to live in peace, neither with itself nor with the rest of the world. It is time for moderate Muslims to take control of their Islamic states if they are truly the majority and the terrorists are truly the minority.

The king of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are warning us that ISIS will attack Europe in a month and the US in two months. This is my response to them: Enough trying to scare us into doing your dirty work for you, while you come out smelling like a rose. You have no control over your jihadists because jihad is a basic educational requirement for a Muslim and the Muslim head of state. If it is true that moderate Muslims reject jihad as violence and war and are truly the majority, and terrorists are the minority, then you should have no problem with crushing Islamic terrorism. But somehow your Muslim leaders seem helpless and refuse to be open with your own people about condemning jihad by name. You keep financing it while winking at terror groups to do their jihad obligation against the outside world rather than within your kingdom. Moderate Muslims are not acting with the confidence of a majority and you keep pandering to the jihadists at the expense of the safety and security of America.

We in America will not play this game anymore. It is up to you to prove to us that moderate Islam is the majority and that you are capable of handling it, otherwise we in the West must take the terrorists’ word that Islam has declared war on us.

I agree with the solutions of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, but I will even go further. The following are executive orders effective today:

1- Citizenship of Naturalized Americans who join terror groups to fight against our nation will be revoked and their passports confiscated.

2- Assimilation of Muslim immigrants already inside the US is a requirement for citizenship.

3- All Muslim immigrants must declare they have renounced Sharia Law and those who do not wish to do so will be deported.

4- Muslim Groups sympathetic to ISIS and other Islamic terror groups will be dissolved immediately.

5- Religious visas and immigration from Muslim countries must be brought to a halt until Islamic terrorism is defeated.

6- Since Islam as it is practiced today, is more of a political ideology than a religion, all permits to build mosques must be placed on hold until further notice.

7- We demand equal access inside the Muslim world. If Saudi Arabia can build mosques in the US, then the US must be able to build churches, synagogues or temples inside Saudi Arabia. Access for access will be our policy.

8- Any religion that condemns its followers to death for leaving it would be declared illegal to operate inside the US.

8- Drilling for oil and building refineries on American soil is a matter of national security and must start immediately for the benefit of America and its allies.

I Barack Hussein Obama declare that the above would be my most important legacy as the first black president of the United States of America.

Nonie Darwish author: The Devil We Don’t Know

She doesn't miss a beat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VEKYECCIQ

I think he ignores the elephant in the room, Adam.

Children of the Caliphate.

It's really too bad that some of us here quit trying to understand the scope and breadth of Islam,

Quite an assumption on your part, but regardless, it is inconsequential in regards to the global Jihad. All that matters is how to deal with it, not whether or not people are getting closer to Bernard Lewis. Your view strikes me as somewhat snobbish, being more concerned with erudition than with a proper defence against a rising tyrannical force. You don't need to know that Islam had a so-called Golden Era, or that Averroes was a great man, in order to combat the Jihad. You just need to value life and detest its destruction.

I do know that Richard finds it scary

I certainly don't feel personally afraid, but any rational man should find it scary. What is rising in the Islamic world is evil and savage and indeed scary. And you are more concerned as to whether or not people have a full appreciation of Islam in all it's breadth than you do with combating that rising evil.

It's funny how opposition to socialism is not treated by you as bigotry to Socialists, but opposition to Islam is treated by you as bigotry towards Muslims.

Socialism need not be malevolent. It is the correct way of managing a life boat with limited supplies of food and water and seeing to it that every one who can row or bail, rows and bails.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Socialism is the first step towards Communism, and it certainly is malevolent. Just two days ago I was seeing comments from socialists about wishing some rich persons boat would sink simply because they did not like that he is wealthy. To my mind, that is a malevolence that arises from socialist ideas creating feelings of envy and resentment in the minds of its victim. Regardless, though, malevolent or not, Socialism does require combatting in the war of ideas. It is not bigotry to do so. In regards to Muslims, I am no bigot. I do not think all muslims are jihadists, just as I do not think that all Socialists are malevolent, nor do I treat them that way. I let each person reveal themselves on an individual basis and judge their character on an individual basis. I do treat Islam as a graver threat than most of the other isms though, and you can thank 9/11 and the ongoing war for that. Prior to 9/11 I knew nothing about Islam, nor did I care. I started when I saw all those people being murdered in the name of Islam. Are things better or worse now since 9/11? I think they are much worse. I think it's worse because people are largely ignorant of the ideology that is advancing. Ignorance will ensure that things get worse still.