Beats the hell out of me. But Mark Steyn sure hits it the nail right on the head.
In theory, if you’d wanted to construct an enemy least likely to appeal to the progressive Left — wife-beating, gay-bashing theocrats would surely be it. But Islamism turned out to be the ne plus ultra of multiculti diversity-celebration — for what more demonstrates the boundlessness of one’s “tolerance” than by tolerating the intolerant. The Europeans’ fetishization of the Palestinians — whereby the more depraved the suicide bombers are the more brutalized they must have been by the Israelis — has, in effect, been globalized.
Anyone who’s mooched about the Muslim world for even brief amounts of time is struck by what David Pryce-Jones calls its “intellectual poverty”: It has a remarkable lack of curiosity about anything beyond its horizons. That hobbled it for centuries in its wars against the west. But our multicultural mindset is its mirror image: For isn’t the principle characteristic of “multiculturalism” its almost total lack of curiosity about other cultures? The multicultis make bliss of ignorance: You don’t need to know anything about Islam, you just have to feel warm and fluffy about it, and slap that “CO-EXIST” bumper sticker on your Subaru.
Oh that’s right…I forgot… even though the Islamists say they must kill gays, and they actually do kill gays, the real threat is President Bush! Because of those imagined, yet soon-to-be-constructed, gay concentration camps in Montana. That’s why the American Gay Leftists join in the anti-war protests that embolden the enemies of America!
Silly me, I keep forgetting…..
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bravo Bruce! You hit the nail on the head. I get sickened every time a gay or lesbian person announces solidarity with Islam. On July 12, I saw a rally in Lewiston, Maine that condemned the act of someone rolling a pig’s head in a local mosque. A lesbian was holding aloft a sign (one that was media camera ready & achingly PC) – “Lesbian stands in solidarity with Islam & Muslims”. I felt like telling this woman that the more extreme elements of said religion want people like her dead. But I surely would have been hounded out & labelled “intolerant”. Similar things have happened elsewhere. I was at the Boston Gay Pride parade one year when a woman was going around with a sign proclaiming solidarity with Palestinians & harshly condemning Israel. I went up to her & said “Excuse me, but aren’t you in the wrong parade?” I also pointed out that Israel is the most gay-friendly of all the nations in the Mideast & one could never imagine a pride parade in Saudi Arabia as was held in Israel. She left off in a huff.
The “progressives” side with whomever is against Israel only because Bush sides with Israel. It’s all simple really. Any enemy of Bush is a friend of ours, reality be damned.
Vera finds it disturbing the gay left doesn’t scream at the top of their collective lungs the fact that gays in the middle east are being hanged on lamp posts, stoned to death and having brink walls dropped on them by Muslims in Islamic countries – yet constantly voices the position that President Bush and his supporters are out to ‘exterminate them’ because he doesn’t endorse gay marriage.
News Flash: Islam isn’t tolerant of homosexuality.
And by ‘tolerant’ Vera means; ‘you’re breathing’.
As former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami informed us last Sunday in his visit to Harvard University in his speech on ‘tolerance’ – the ongoing state sanctioned murder of gays in Iran isn’t ‘violence’ – it’s the ‘punishment’ – for the ‘crime of homosexuality’. He doesn’t deny it takes place or makes any apologies for it. This from a man wearing a white frock after labor day!?! Talk about ‘tolerance’!
Silly question: What are the odds Mr. Khatami endorses gay marriage?
Anyone want to take a guess what a gay pride parade looks like in Tehran?
How about Syria?
Ever hear the expression ‘neck tie party’?
It’s apparent Mr. Khatami knows his Koran and speaks with some authority on Islam. Vera doubts you’ll be seeing any gay weddings endorsed by any Imam’s here in the US or anywhere else for that matter. It’s one thing for practicing Catholics and Jews to pooh-pooh gay marriage, it’s something entirely different to slaughter the happy couple because of your religion: “Sorry, we won’t be attending the nuptials – but we will stone you to death in a sand pit when you get back from the honeymoon. Thanks!”
Apparently the threats of the Islamofascists to exterminate the Jews, Gays, and infidels is less a threat than Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/GWB not being Grand Marshall at the next pride celebration.
Interesting side note: Guess the only Middle Eastern country that holds a gay pride celebration? Come on, take a guess….
(Hint: It was postponed this summer because this country was fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Another hint: They’re often described as ‘pigs and monkeys’ by Muslims. Another hint: The current President of Iran wants to wipe them off the map.)
All winners will be toasted by Vera with her daily Martinis.
The more winners the better.
I just want to point out that the GOP does not have a good record of reaching out to gay and lesbian Americans. They deliberatly ceded the field to the Demoracts. In fact the GOP still for the most part views “out” gay and lesbian republicans as a detriment, not an asset to thier party. Mainly of course because the anti-gay elements of the GOP are a larger voting block.
Bruce, you have claimed that the majority of gay and lesbian Americans voted for Bush in the last election. If this is true, they certainly didn’t vote for Bush because of any outreach efforts by the GOP in say, the same way the GOP does outreach to Hispanics or Christian Evangelicals. Instead gay Americans actually voted for Bush in spite of GOP anti-gay rhetoric and actions at its national convention and during its campaign.
BTW, Bruce, you constantly demean the majority of gay and lesbian Americans as Bush-hating Gay Leftists, or the “Gay Borg”. That doesn’t exactly square with your claim that the majority of them voted for Bush, does it?
Bruce, I think the biggest reason the GayLeftBorg marches with a single mind in defense of Islamic terrorists (like keogh-of-the-lower-case-clan did for Khatami’s current visit to the US) is that the Borg appreciates its political agenda of BushHatred can be advanced by successes from the field for the Islamic terrorists… and it’s why the GayLefties carry the water for the ACLU in protecting “terrorist rights” to an American-styled trial, freedom from monitoring or datamining or prudent searches, or not providing our police/intelligence services with the tools needed to battle the terrorists in the WOT. It’s why some here see Gitmo as a torture center (Patrick). See our troops as the moral equivalent to al-Qaeda (sean). Compare Bush to OBL(monty). Want Israel cut loose from US interests and be forced to accomodate Islamic terrorists’ interests (raj/Ian/blah sockpuppet).
It’s a simple matter of political expediency for the GayLeftBorg. Their friends are the enemies of Bush and the Right. It’s why the GayLeft’s lovefest goes beyond Islamic terrorists to include defending all-things-French, the minority political interests in Germany, or the radical Left in England.
Political expediency makes strange bedfellows. I loved it when, during the Path to 9/11, the terrorists opined that if they got caught they’d want well-known Democrat civil rights lawyer William Kunzler to defend them like he tried to defend the first WTC bombers. The terrorists in a 3rd world country know: get in trouble with the US govt, hire a Democrat to defend you. Just ask Saddam.
It even leads some on the Left to offer these LeftLoonBat observations:
“In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend,
notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed
evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, “It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government.”
from here: http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/470
Not hard to understand how they can jump to other conclusions –which are equally batty.
If it suits political expediency…then “fire up the spin, full speed ahead.”
Patrick, can your claim that Bruce has said most gays voted for Bush can be backed-up with some citation?
I doubt it. Spin and more shooting from the hip and lip.
Bruce and other gay conservatives have written that about 23% of gays voted for Bush… not most. Get a clue Patrick… the 23% Club??? Ring a bell, guy?
Unless you’re into doing that whole twisted perspective on elections the GayLeft subscribes to… Gore won, the election was stolen; Kerry didn’t lose, he just didn’t win.
“Bruce, you have claimed that the majority of gay and lesbian Americans voted for Bush in the last election.” -prove it Patrick.
I think the ideofacists on the left and the right are both the problem. It almost doesn’t matter what you and they blab on about. You insist that everyone do it your way, either fall down drunk left or way to the right of Attila the Hun. Most of us want to go about our business the way we choose to do it without either of your sides, left or right, butting your shit covered noses into it. Ruin your own lives but leave us the hell alone.
Your typical GOP talking point, inflammatory Title isn’t well served by the content.
Unless of course you are saying all Muslims are fascists…
Have rightists turn the corner? Are you now calling all Muslims fascists?
So, kill ‘em all!
Isn’t that what you are saying Bruce?
#3 Excuse me?
“GP, you said the sky was green. Well look up. See how stupid you are!”
#2 – Vera darling, let me take a guess.
Now which country in the Middle East holds a Pride celebration? Hmm…let me see…
Could it be…oh, I don’t know…ISRAEL ????
My martini runneth over.
Regards,
Peter H.
It seems to me like the anti-Bush, anti-war left is fond of making comparisons and equivalencies… it’s not the standard of free speech (as an example) it’s comparing conservatives complaining about the Reagan bio-pic compared to liberals complaining about the 9-11 docudrama. Why does Republican or conservative behavior define right and wrong? Why not look to the standard of free speech itself to define right and wrong?
#3 And why is it relevant that Republicans have not courted the gay and lesbian vote? Certainly the standard is separate and *both* parties should be held to it. And while it makes a little bit of sense to compare parties when deciding who to support, how can it *possibly* matter, even if the Republican party really were worse than the Democratic party instead of just failing to court the homosexual vote, when we’re talking about Islam?
Republican vs. Democrat at least makes sense as a comparison. Republican vs. Islam and then prefering *Islam* isn’t even sane.
*Even* if Pat Robertson had that lesbian from #1 in his clutches, all he’d do is tell her she was going to hell. Islam would try to send her there.
But this is the problem with “vs.”
It doesn’t give the option of rejecting both. Instead of opposing Bush and condemning Islam and demonstrating against Islam *both* the context is set up so that opposing one requires supporting the other. And since supporting Bush is not an option we get this truely insane spectical of “liberals” supporting a culture that stones rape victims and hangs gays.
Michigan-matt says: (and of course, insults as well)
I stand corrected. The post I was thinking of was written by GPW and it claimed that the majority of gay Republicans voted for Bush, not the majority of gay Americans.
From Dec. 2005:
http://gaypatriot.net/2005/12/06/why-gaypatriot-better-represents-gay-republicans-than-log-cabin
Nevertheless I think my first point stands. The GOP doesn’t care about capturing the gay vote. The Democrats do. So Bruce should not just be complaining about gays following the Democrats he should be complaining about the GOP ignoring the gay and lesbian vote.
If the GOP actually welcomed gays into the party and backed up the pleasantries with actual deeds, then most gays would vote Republican.
Its not about ideology, its about common sense.
Personally, I think that the GOP could get away with supporting some things that are of interest to gay and lesbian Americans without too much backlash from their Evangelical wing. Most Americans support the repeal of DADT for instance. But the GOP is not interested in straying from the anti-gay party line.
Gays and Lesbians are much more useful to the GOP as bogeyman to scare Americans with than as constituents. Thats what Rove realized in the middle of the President’s first term, and why the overtures made during the 2000 election, (compassionate conservatism, the Dallas 11, etc.) were quickly backtracked on and shoved under the rug in favor of the harsher rhetoric so cheerfully applied in today’s GOP campaigns.
The current tactic is to portray anyone who disagrees with the President’s policies, in any manner whatsoever, as a traitor to the country and being soft on terrorism.
At least that applies to everybody this time around, even to some long-time conservatives who are finding out to their surprise that apparently they are now considered part of the Loony Left.
And Bruce with his talk of “September 10th” Americans, follows that little demonization narrative closely. Rove says “Jump!”; Bruce says, “How High?”.
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
GP or GPW, I posted a rebuttal to Gryph; it’s caught in the spam filter.
And now, for keogh:
Unless of course you are saying all Muslims are fascists…
Have rightists turn the corner? Are you now calling all Muslims fascists?
So, kill ‘em all!
Isn’t that what you are saying Bruce?
I think GP made his beliefs on the matter abundantly clear — interestingly enough, in a response to you mere days ago.
Now, please give your explanation for your support of Khatami and his belief that people should be executed for being gay.
“Personally, I think that the GOP could get away with supporting some things that are of interest to gay and lesbian Americans without too much backlash from their Evangelical wing. Most Americans support the repeal of DADT for instance. But the GOP is not interested in straying from the anti-gay party line.”
Is that very different from the Democrats who get away with supporting things against the interests of gay and lesbian Americans but who keep to the pro-gay party line?
I can’t see the GOP offending evangelical christians by engaging in a lot of pro-gay rhetoric any more than I can see the Democrats abandoning their pro-gay rhetoric in order to woo the fundamentalists. Actual policies don’t necessarily follow the rhetoric.
because we ‘d rather live in peace with them and win the battle of ideas than to engage in a fruitless war that exists only so this guy can sell books and be an expert on a non issue.
we lost 58,000 in vietnam. today we are trading with them and they are leaning towards democracy.
so one involves people dying and losing, the other invovlves no one dying and winning.
the same people that want a “war on islamofascism” are the ones who want the NAFTA superhighway. the business elites who stand to profit at the expense of america.
Patrick, while we accept you were wrong again it’s important to underscore your attempt to spin (ala the lower-case-clan) this thread off into another anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-Rove spew without a single bit of proof that the GOP is anti-gay. I hate to do it, but let me respond to your unsubstantiated spin.
I just finished reviewing the 2004 Natl GOP platform and there’s nothing there that can be construed as anti-gay except by people riding inside the GayLeftBorg –like you and the lower-case-clan here. Point out the language you think is anti-gay and you might want to post something on your own blog about it.
Sure, you can take the GayLeft agenda and offer that the GOP doesn’t support the agenda items the GayLeft and radical Democrats want… you can point to the “PG-version” of the LogCabineers and say that they didn’t endorse Bush/Cheney because the winning team in 2000 and 2004 didn’t support the GayLeft’s agenda. So what?
Sorry, but the GayLeft agenda is not THE political agenda for all gays… anymore than NOW’s agenda is THE political agenda for all women… or the NAACP’s agenda is THE political agenda for blacks.
The very point of terrific blogs like this one is that Bruce, Dan et al offer a more diverse, more rational, less slave-like obligation to the GayLeftBorg and its political agenda. That’s so refreshing for so many in our community I can understand why, in your BushHatred, you’d miss that less-than-subtle fact.
Despite what you ingeniously opine, most gays will never vote Republican, Patrick, because they share too much in common with the VictimHood wing of the Democrats –they think govt’s sole role should be to advance their political claim when buttchecked at the ballot box, and want more special rights from govt. Frankly, they want their view that being gay equals a racial status… that being gay is all about sex… that society hates us even though poll after poll proves most Americans don’t –and would support domestic unions just not gay marriage.
Rather than for you and the GayLeft to whine about how either the GOP or Democrats don’t seem to care about the concerns of the GayLeft agenda… I’d submit our community needs to distance itself from that very agenda and leadership on the GayLeft because, for the last 25 yrs, they’ve only brought us political ruin, taken us farther afield into the political wilderness of isolated radicalism and rendered us so impotent that we can’t even get HowieScreaminDean to support our community.
How lame is that?
Despite your attempt to take this thread away from the central issue –which asks why the Left is so intent on denying the threat of Islamic Fascism– I thought your nonsense about the GOP needed a good three snaps.
Consider yourself snapped.
#13 Muslims certainly seem to be fond of fascist style governments. A death sentance for adultery or rape (which is why they seem to define rape as adultery so that they get to kill the girl instead of the men who raped her) or homosexuality or apostasy… this isn’t just some abberation of a small group of radicals, it’s the *law* enforced by police and courts and judges.
Are *all* Muslims fascist? Not as individuals, I don’t think, but there are enough of them to form governments and push for Shaira (sp?) law in Western countries. It’s really impossible to claim that it’s only some small radical element doing this.
keogh-of-the-lower-case-clan writes: “Are you now calling all Muslims fascists? So, kill ‘em all! Isn’t that what you are saying Bruce?”
Time to bring out the Foresnics 101 book keogh… you’ve skipped right over the central point of Bruce’s post and reduced it to an absurd statement.
keogh, no one is calling for the murder of muslims. The focus is Islamic Fascists.
So keogh, like with Khatami… why do you protect and defend these monsters? Why do you rationalize their illegitimate political claims on the West to equal ours against their WMDs and nuclear profileration?
Why defend these monsters, keogh? It’s gotta to be more than just “because the DailyKos told me to”.
so one involves people dying and losing, the other invovlves no one dying and winning.
Except for the million-plus Vietnamese who had to be “re-educated” by the Communists — all under imprisonment, many under torture, and most with a bullet in their heads.
But of course, lester, being a Democrat, you don’t care about the fates of non-voting minorities.
apologies to NDXXX at 13… we were on the same track with keogh’s comments.
these same societies excisted a hundred years ago. No one cared about them then? I don’t recall abraham lincoln giving any speeches about cliterectomies or stonings in rural nigeria. it’s none of our business. if these people are so awful we should get out of the middle east lock stock and barrel with out middle efinger raised. other wise we are forced into a relationship with them.
the war on terror is the war al queda wants
Synova says:
Sullivan has an interesting post up today that relates to this question I think. Its part of an analysis of Pope Benedicts Homily on faith and reason.
Sullivan:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/benedict_and_is.html
Sullivan goes on to quote several Benedict passages, they are worth taking a look at.
norht dallas thirty- libertarian actually. and what’s your point? vietnam is not a part of the united states. if you want to go fight a war on terror go ahead. not with my tax dollars. it’s more wasteful spending with no measurable results other than inflated stock portfolios for halliburton execs and innocents killed.
1. Could it be…oh, I don’t know…ISRAEL ????
Ding – Ding – Ding!
We have a winner.
Vera toasts Peter H’s sly deductive skills with a lady-like sip of her afternoon martini.
As for the rest of you: Vera toasts your health and well being for civil discussion on an explosive (no pun intended) issue.
Vera thanks GP and GPW for providing the generous forum and interesting topics.
When it comes to religion, sexuality, politics, etiquette and the future of our great nation, Vera loves good debate.
Cheers!
#21 lester you moron. What forces us into a *relationship* with the middle east is technology. Not oil, we could build nuclear plants and drill for oil on our own property. Technology, communication, all the things that support the way my children see the world.
What did children complain about when Lincoln failed to protest female genital mutilation? The big “crisis” in my household yesterday was that my son couldn’t connect to game servers in Malasia. Do you have any clue how mind shatteringly bizarre that is?
Or do you just take it for granted and assume that it hasn’t changed the world?
Do you have any idea what we’d have to do to NOT have a relationship with the middle east?
Are you willing to do it?
#22 Thanks, Gryph. I’ll look at that.
Patrick writes: “And Bruce with his talk of “September 10th” Americans, follows that little demonization narrative closely. Rove says “Jump!”; Bruce says, “How High?”. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.”
Sorry, I usually can follow Patrick’s insults to me and others… but this one is just looney. Rove is now controlling Bruce? LOL! From Patrick who gets his talking points from DemocratAtheistsUnited?
Patrick, were you actually trying to win the Hypocrite of the Week Award when you started that spew at #11 with the forked tongue barb “…and of course, insults as well….”
Wow, you’re playing both the pot and the kettle in that one, Patrick. Demean others for alleged insults and then insult your host before exiting. Brassy without a conscience… are you writing for Hollywood these days? You’ve got the drama and the imaginary friends down pat-rick.
25. yes. we’d have to stop supporting egypt, pakistan, saudi arabia , and israel. who cares? you said yurself we could easily go without the 17 % or so of our oil we get from the middle east. I’d rather let our so called “allies” down than have another 9/11 wouldn’t you?
besides, all our presence does is strengthen the hardliners. bush was moaning about the elections in Iran and ahamdenejads popularity shot up overnight and he won. it’s called nationalism. the more sanctions we try to put on Iran, the more newspapers they shut down.
give me one good reason why we should spend one dime in the deserts of the middle east. save maybe finishing the job in afghanistan.
Synova, what lester is trying to say is that VietNam and the MiddleEast are not within our borders so why should we care what happens there… heck, with VN, leaving there ultimately worked to our advantage because now VN is nearly a Democrat-like country (I agree, it does resemble the DNC at times).
What lester doesn’t understand is that while sticking his head in the sand may feel good because he gets to block out all those bad things happening in other countries and retreat into his blind comfort… he forgets that when your head is in the sand, your butt is the biggest target around.
Splendid isolation is neither. It always leads to war; the Democrat’s founding father –Thomas Jefferson– wanted nothing to do with entanglements abroad and it caused us an additional 15 years of war and conflict –as well as lost commerce, grow and expansion at a crticial moment in our history.
But now we’re a long way from the Left Denying Islamic Fascism, eh?
matt- you think vietnam would have invaded the united states if we hadn’t gone there?
do you think 9/11 was an attempt to invade and take over the united states?
if not, your head in the sand analogy goes out the door. Also, military interventionism was a hallmark of the clinton administration. is that what you guys want to emulate. is that your kind of manliness? I favor a little more modesty all around personally.
Mark Steyn makes no distinction between Muslims and Fascists.
In fact Mr. Steyn insults the Muslims with his typical eye’s closed analysis of the “Muslim World”
Its obvious. Bruce and Mr. Steyn quake in fear when they see a Muslim.
Its amazing how their reaction to Muslims is very similar to how my uncle treats gay people.
Further their reaction to progressives is very similar to how my uncle treats straight people with gay friends.
#30
I get the libertarian idea that you leave your neighbor alone to his own business just so long as he’s not a threat to you. But how can you say that radical Islam and its demonstrated brutalities is not a threat? Just because an attack on our soil that killed thousands wasn’t an attempt to *occupy?*
What is it about the right to self defense requires that I not only wait to be attacked in my home, but wait until I’m sure the attacker plans to move in permanently?
Maybe we could have built high enough walls instead of fighting WW2. Maybe we didn’t need to do anything but sit behind those walls to be safe from communism. And maybe we can just ignore Islamic terrorists.
But today isn’t the 1940’s or the 1960’s. Heck, even in the late 1800’s farm magazines in Texas printed the weather reports for Egypt because even then events on the other side of the world affected lives within our borders.
Please explain to me how isolationism works without, you know, actual isolation?
#31 Recognizing a threat is not fear. Denial is not bravery.
synova- I think you and i have differing inpretations of 9/11. my guess is you think they hate us for our freedoms or because we aren’t muslims. I think it was a response to our presence in saudi arabia, our one sided support for the israelis and the subsequent support of corrupt dictatorships who are neutral towards israel because we pay them to be. these are the same guys who fought the soviets in afghanistan. with our help. they are against foreigners intheir lands. they make no distinction between us and the USSR. The CIA, FBI and pentagon agrees with me. mark steyn and that guy from harvard who wrote that book on “masculinity” agree with you.
and as my vietnam analogy shows, I am for trade with all these countries. we got farther in ending communism by trade with them than we did by killing them.
besides, what could be more isolationist than unilateral interventionism? look at how isolated we’ve become lately. ironic isn’t it
I think it was a response to our presence in saudi arabia, our one sided support for the israelis and the subsequent support of corrupt dictatorships who are neutral towards israel because we pay them to be.
All of which do the same thing: prevent them from carrying out their genocidal fantasies of finishing what Hitler started.
What you are doing, lester, is confusing reasons with rationalizations.
Who do you mean when you say “they” lester? Al Qaida? The Muslim Brotherhood? The Taliban or whoever the heck it is taking charge of Somalia? That “they?”
The Somali “government” has graciously agreed to allow a radio station to go back on the air just so long as they don’t play any music or love songs.
And you think that if we *trade* with Muslim countries we can infect them with our culture and our ideas without setting off the nut-jobs? You really think that the radicals and oppressive governments are going to stop looking for an external scapegoat to redirect the anger of their citizens? You really think that the Imams won’t see the existence of our culture as a threat?
As for the horror of unclean persons blighting Saudi soil, we were never in Saudi without their invitation and permission… and that’s why I think that the purpose of 9-11 was to get us to nuke mecca.
It would have been for a good cause, after all, waking up all those Muslims that weren’t overly bothered by our presence, all those people in the region who didn’t find our actions enough to incite violence, because they’d finally see that we are evil.
And for what it’s worth, Vietnam was a cluster f**k beginning to end. I do not believe that it is analogous of *anything* but itself. Not analogy but anomoly.
#34 – As usual, lester has a right his personal opinion… but it is unbelievably nutty, and – Bruce/Dan permitting – I have a right to say so out loud, as my opinion.
First, let’s be clear on this: When the Democrats in Congress abandoned the government of South Vietnam to its communist enemies in 1975 – after the U.S. had defeated those enemies in 1973 and forced them to a peace they had NOT wanted – Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians died.
Millions. Were killed. And today: if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan too precipitously (before those new democracies can defend themselves from terrorists / al Qaeda), then millions of Iraqis, etc. will die.
Next, lester says 9-11 “was a response to our presence in saudi arabia, our one sided support for the israelis and the subsequent support of corrupt dictatorships who are neutral towards israel because we pay them to be.”
Well folks, 1 out of 4 ain’t bad.
It’s true that our past support (under both Republican and Democratic Presidents) of dictators over democrats helped terrorism grow. After 9-11, to their eternal credit, Bush and the Republicans “got that”, and started genuinely supporting democracy. Though we obviously can’t wave a magic wand and have it done all at once.
Other than that:
1) 9-11 was hardly response to our presence in Saudi Arabia. A little bit of bin Laden’s propaganda said so, but it was just that: propaganda for suckers like you (or sympathizers). We mostly withdrew from Saudi Arabia a few years ago, and the terrorists haven’t changed. More important: They hated us and committed terrorist acts long before 1991, which is when we went into Saudi Arabia.
2) “our one-sided support for the israelis…” Oh, where to begin with that one? Clinton Administration, anyone? Oslo accords, anyone? 2006 pressure Israel to stop its fight against Hezbollah, anyone?
3) “dictatorships who are neutral towards israel because we pay them to be…”
Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. They’re neutral toward Israel because in fact, Israel is an island of progress in the region, helpful by its presence and example. (Not to mention trade, etc.) Even if they don’t admit it – and, with certain important exceptions – they have little desire to completley fuck their own countries by being permanently at war with Israel.
I could go on, but it’s too much to type. You get the idea and can see through his nutty points yourselves, I’m sure.
And the Islamo-fascists hate us, yes, because we are free. I.e., our morals and philosophy are the exact opposite / mortal enemy of theirs. Check out this book sometime. Learn who Sayyad Qutb is, and why he invented Islamism after visiting and seeing America in the 1940s.
Even if Israel were wiped off the map (per the Islamo-fascists), they’d still want to terrorize us into accepting Islam, per their long tradition of religious conquest. Check out this book sometime. Learn why al Qaeda is, in fact, still smarting from the centuries-old Christian reconquest of Spain.
Final note on this back-and-forth you guys are having with Gryph:
I agree he is both pot and kettle… but I say, it’s NICE to see him have one week where he doesn’t degenerate multiple times into names, playground insults, etc. (as he did a week or two ago). Cheers!
lester, this afternoon the guy who does our lawn and takes care of our orchard stopped by and we chatted about a conversation I was having earlier with a guy who thinks VN is on the path to democratization and that the VN war was a fruitless venture and all for naught.
Tho (pronounced “Ta”) is a US citizen. He travels “home” to VN every other year to visit family. His new bride is VN and still there awaiting a visa.
He escaped the horror that gripped his country in 1976 but not without a terrible cost. 9 km from the border, he was caught by the VN police and he had to watch his brother get raped and beg to be executed. He was then dragged back toward his island with the intent of the police to kill his family and then shoot him in front of the villagers. He escaped again and made it to a US refugee camp run by the Lutherans on the other side of the border.
He came to the US without knowing if his family was alive or not. 6 years later, he was able to telephone them, travel under an assumed name with French money and visit them for the first time since his escape and his brother’s death. He had to tell his parents and family about their son’s death –they thought he was in America too.
Tho had some crystal clear advice for you: you’re dead wrong when you think VN is on a path to democratization. He knows they are not; he sees the communist regime in full power and concentrating power over distant provinces on each visit home. The public face you’ve been reading about in GQ or Details or over at GayCom isn’t the real VN.
When I told Tho that you thought more was gained by trade than through the years of war, he offered that you are either a fool or an idiot. I told him it was likely you were both. He asked: “How can someone even think that?”
“we lost 58,000 in vietnam. today we are trading with them and they are leaning towards democracy.” —lester-of-the-lower-case-clan
One other thing Tho pointed out he learned in his citizenship classes –in America, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the idiots. And they’re allowed to express them. Even the idiots. But it doesn’t mean they’re correct; it just means they have an opinion –informed or uninformed. The danger lies in their capacity/ability to vote that opinion.
The next time you want to advise us on foreign relations, lester, save your time. You’ve proven your idiot status. Tho’s struggle nails your coffin shut.
Matt, you reminded me of something else I had wanted to point out.
The very phrase, “leaning to democracy”, speaks volumes.
For lester, as probably for the Noam Chomskys and Jimmy Carters of the world: it’s enough that a brutal, evil, murdering dictatorship should trade with us, and thus – while gaining far more important benefits from the relationship than we do – give a shallow appearance of “leaning” to democracy.
In their world, that’s enough to justify the denial (of reality) and policies of appeasement. The basic fact that the regime IS NOT democratic, operates by murder and would kill or imprison them and/or gays if it got the chance, doesn’t seem to enter the equation.
Same as keogh and his Iran stance.
#30 – “Also, military interventionism was a hallmark of the clinton administration. is that what you guys want to emulate. is that your kind of manliness?”
Um, lester, are you completely delusional? The only “military interventionism” as you so engagingly put it by the Clinton regime were utter failures – Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti et al.
If we want to “emulate” anything, it would be the forcefulness and power that made America great some 60 years ago. Unfortunately, too many RATS are so emasculated that they feel guilt over being a superpower.
Go borrow some of Grandpa’s meds and please rejoin the real world.
Regards,
Peter H.
“That’s why the American Gay Leftists join in the anti-war protests that embolden the enemies of America!”
Is that really why the American Gay Leftists join the protests or is that your imagination at work again? Have you asked an American Gay Leftist or two or more to explain to you or are you just doing one of your funny posts again?
And do you really think that the “enemies of America” give a shit about protests? They love the protests, not because they find themselves emboldened by them, but because Bush is emboldened by them (and the 101st Fighting Keyboards jump in the fight, too!) and will continue to engage them…on their terms. Only fools think Bush is running this showdown. Let’s start with this: how much money have we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much have they?
Finally, no one on the left denies this thing you call ‘Islamic fascism’. They just don’t think the term makes any sense at all and fails at being meaningful and, therefore, helpful in eradicating terrorism. You might as well start calling it the Death Star while you are at it.
The complete inattention to complexities within Islam exhibited in these comments is pathetic. You would think that, by now, years after we’ve been engaged in this thing that the simple like to term “Islamofascism,” people might have actually read something about Islam or talked to a Muslim or a gay Muslim. No, instead, the nonsense flows freely, as if “Christianity” is tolerant of homosexuality and the GOP is the kinder, gentler party when it comes to gays.
Do you not know about any of the members of Arab and Muslim royal families who are gay and lesbian? Do you not know about the long traditions of men loving men and women loving women in Islamic societies? Have you never slept with an Arab or Muslim in your life and talked to them about their lives? Instead, the comments on here read like auditions to play the parts of your favorite shrill blogger or talking head, like Coulter and Malkin and those types, peddling vapid talking points.
ps one of the the guys that threw “islamofascism” around alot when it first came out is the same guy that talks about “christianists” by the way. you might have heard of him: andrew sullivan, your hero.
Death Star. I like it. Islamofascism/Death Star. Six of one…half a dozen of the other.
sean-from-the-lower-case-clan writes: “… andrew sullivan, your hero.”
LOL! I don’t think anyone not part of the GayLeftBorg would contend andiesullivan is a hero, sean. Are you so clueless about sullivan and the concept of a real hero that you confuse the two? I thought so.
No sean, the only one auditioning here is you –for lapdog of the GayLeft. “Have you ever slept with an Arab and talked about his dreams, his life…” –spare us that nonsense. Sex as a substitute for true intimacy was debnked in the 80’s… mature a little, will you? Intimacy comes from the struggle to keep an LTR growing… it isn’t found in one night stands with an Arab.
By chance, did you work in the Clinton White House? It sounds like their foreign relations strategy… “have sex, sleep with them, make ’em our friend”.
Haven’t read the responses (most of them are probably the typical partisan sniping, anyway).
I’m struck by the idea that threats to American Values come only from outside the US. By abandoning traditional American values (like due process and open government) the threats to our country are both “foriegn and domestic” and need to be addressed.
“Have you never slept with an Arab or Muslim in your life and talked to them about their lives?”
I agree, that one is a LOL moment for me. Only a gay lefty would think bedroom & pillow talk is a valid form of knowledge about a person – much less a country or a culture! 🙂
Pillow talk that, sadly, the other guy would be killed for (under an Islamist / Islamo-fascist regime, that is) if it became known.
One person, does not a country make.
That’s ambiguous.
Question: Would you be implying, keogh, in context with your known Iran views, that the killing of that one person is not very important? Or that the fact that a regime kills some innocent citizens – gay ones, perhaps – somehow isn’t evidence of the regime’s deeply evil intentions?
“One person, does not a country make.” -Nothing ambiguous about that. And it answers your question….
Obviously it doesn’t keogh, or I wouldn’t have asked.
Your #51 response amounts to “Because I said so, nyah nyah” so I will ignore you now. Whatever point you wanted to make, or thought you were making, is lost. Bye.
The complete inattention to complexities within Islam exhibited in these comments is pathetic. You would think that, by now, years after we’ve been engaged in this thing that the simple like to term “Islamofascism,” people might have actually read something about Islam or talked to a Muslim or a gay Muslim.
Unfortunately, most of these “complexities” are buried under moonbat regimes like Iran’s.
I am not of the belief that a majority of Iran’s people support what its government is doing, but the simple fact of the matter is that they can either keep quiet or face the hangman’s noose — especially if they’re gay.
The way to allow the “complexities” of Islam to be expressed is to get rid of governments like the Taliban’s and Saddam’s that use force to obscure the differences.
that’s your right.
As well as its my right to not repeat myself.
Good Luck.
north dallas- do you understand that there are two sides to the israel question? have you ever heard that? that the zionists were not welcomed by the people who lived there and resentyed being kicked off in the name of creating a new country. or is that totally new to you. because all scholarship on the subject acknoweldges this. all of it. You are certainly entoitled to support the israeli position, but to say that people who have another opinion on it are like Hitler is ridiculous. How often are new countries built in this day and age? It’s a legitamate argument.
“Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. They’re neutral toward Israel because in fact, Israel is an island of progress in the region, helpful by its presence and example.”
that’s not factual. at camp david we literally agreed to pay egypt 2 billion a year to not wage war on israel. You can’t get more explicit than that. this money is used to strengthn the egyptian government which is largely resented by its people. Same as Pakistan. There are no jews even allowed in to suadi arabia. their state religion is wahabi islam. to say that they recognize israel without our advice is clearly ridiculous.
and in regards to vietnam, we went there to stop the spread of communism not to help the vietnamese people. more to the poiont, we thought they were under the USSR’s influence. that’s why we went there. not to help them.
and speaking of the USSR, no one has answered why al queda through them out of afghanistan. The USSR certainly wasn’t “free” by any stretch of the imagination. and it wasn’t christian or jewish.
the answer: muslims don’t want the west invading their coutries and getting invoved in the internal affairs of their governments. and why should we? why ? we get 17% of our oil from there. who cares about the middle east
“For those who think that communism is the wave of the future…let them come to Berlin.” — John F. Kennedy
The policy of containment won’t work with islamofascism. It is strike, or be stricken. Have we learned nothing from 9/11 or the eight years of bureaucratic bungling/spinning during the Clinton regime?
Regards,
Peter H.
peter- apparently you haven’t. you still think we can invade and occupy muslim countries with no comeuppance on our own soil. and you still think that the federal government has a clue about terrorism . so you have learned nothing from 9.11 and nothing from the bungling of the clinton years.
Michelle Malkin and Mary Katherine Ham have tea and cookies and talk about Rosie’s remarks on “The View” on Malkin’s show “The Vent”. (Actually, I think it’s “Vent: with Michelle Malkin.”) I don’t have Vent bookmarked so I followed a link from Wizbang.
From Townhall Mary Katherine Ham links to book info for Bruce Bawer: “Having recently published an indictment of Christian fundamentalist intolerance in the U.S. (Stealing Jesus), New York native Bawer relocated to Europe with his Norwegian partner in 1998 and found an even more dangerous strain of religious and cultural bigotry ensnaring Western Europe.”
have you ever heard that? that the zionists were not welcomed by the people who lived there and resentyed being kicked off in the name of creating a new country.
Are you aware of the fact, lester, that Palestinians are in fact NOT excluded from living in Israel?
It’s just that they don’t want to play nice with those icky Jews.
#57 – lester, you ignorant slut.
You apparently believe that our “comeuppance,” as you so quaintly put it, was a result of our retaliation to those countries which harbored terrorists who were directly or indirectly responsible for 9/11. According to your half-baked theore, we decided to “invade and occupy muslim countries” per se and therefore are receiving our “comeuppance” for those actions.
For starters, we didn’t do anything to warrant the 9/11 attacks. It was done purely based upon islamofascism.
Secondly – if our presence in the muslim world is contributing to so many terrorist acts, then what is their excuse for attacking us in the first place?
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
You could take it back even further, Peter, to the Hezbollah attack on U.S. forces in 1984 or to the year-long Iranian occupation of legal U.S. terrority in 1979-1980.
But then lester will just try to claim that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was the big affront, or the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, or whatever. We, in turn, could cite what the Muslim world did, that fully justified the West in doing those.
Let’s go way, way back to the beginning. The establishment of Islam.
Islam was founded by an ultra-aggressive “Islamist”, Mohammed, and the Muslims immediately set out to conquer way, WAY beyond the Arabian peninsula or what would be needed for their self-defense. Contrast to Christianity, which spent its first 3 centuries as a Roman-area religion with absolutely no interest in conquest or government, and no interest, in those centuries, in even spreading beyond the Roman borders.
In other words: from the very beginning, Islam has been uniquely rife with Islamists wanting total world domination. (I do accept that there are non-Islamist branches of Islam, such as Sufism, which are different.) Absolute submission to Allah, and to them.
The very name, Islam, means “Submission”, or “Submit!”. Both because of their initial success, and because they view Islam as THE one true religion, these traditional Islamists in Islam do feel ENTITLED to total world domination.
No one can contradict this from anything in Islamist propaganda today – nor from anything in the historical record. The Islamists’ record of aggressive and brutal expansion beyond Arabia, starting in 633, is undeniable. By 732, they even conquered southern France. (Charles Martel’s victory at Tours was only a rearguard action to stem their further advance; it did not regain the parts of France they occupied.)
What we’ve had in the centuries since then is a back-and-forth. The Muslim Caliphate repeatedly threatened to conquer Europe, and exterminate those who wouldn’t submit. The Crusades were a bit like Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption; the Medieval equivalent of saying “Come on guys, let’s get back on the offensive so we don’t have to fight them in our homes and cities.”
By the 1200s, both the Crusaders and the original Muslim Caliphate were well exhausted – but then various other Muslim world-dominating empire groups came along, latterly the Turks who tried a strategy of conquering Europe from the Balkans, rather than from the Mediterranean. The Turks reached the very Gates of Vienna in 1529, and again in 1683.
BUT – an interesting thing started slowly developing from the 1400s to the present. The West had two vast historical waves of reform and enlightenment whose legacy we are still living under, namely the Renaissance and the Enlightenment proper.
Those waves slowly but surely established the idea of individual Freedom and of secular society in the West. Consequently, due to people’s creativity being unleashed, the West slowly but surely built a massive scientific, economic, and military-technological superiority (as well as moral superiority, in my book), especially from the early 1800s / Industrial Revolution to today.
THAT is what the traditional Islamists hate. They are all about “the Muslim community”. They hate the very idea of anyone (countries or individuals) not being converted OR at least ruled by them. And they hate it that, for at least 200 years, they have fallen behind the West and made absolutely no headway in conquering the world.
THAT is the backdrop for the current conflict, or “who started it”.
Israel is an interesting subplot. So-called “Palestinian” national identity is actually a historically recent, artificial construct.
In the mid-1800s, there were no “Palestinians”. There were only a few Arabs who happened to live in Palestine, the former JEWISH homeland. VERY few – because Palestine was a freaking worthless desert. Those few Arabs considered themselves Arabs – Not “Palestinians”.
Starting in the mid to late 1800s, Jewish settlers returned to Palestine. They homesteaded in undeveloped areas, or bought plots of land legitimately, etc. THEY, and almost only they, re-developed Palestine / Israel into something worth having. They made the desert bloom.
Being a local majority, and deserving independence from corrupt Arab dictators, they were morally right to declare their independence and establish the State of Israel in 1948. So that’s where Israel came from.
They (Israel) have been under attack ever since. And we (U.S.) have been right to help them. Why? Because Israel does have a right to exist. And because a Western-style democracy (even a half-socialist one) that values individual rights and women’s rights and even holds gay pride parades, *IS* morally superior to regressive (8th century), expansionist Islamists that want to destroy them.
You’d think that lester, keogh and the rest would know these obvious facts. But they don’t, so I have to spell them out.
You’d think lester, keogh, etc. would be gay (coming compulsively to a site called Gay Patriot), and you’d think it would be a no-brainer for them that societies / civilizations / religions which murder all LIBERATED women and gays are morally wrong and inferior next to societies / civilizations / religions that, in actuality, permit women to be liberated and permit gays to even to hold Gay Pride parades in the public square.
To summarize:
(1) Whatever lester, keogh, etc. might try to say: Islam has always been a uniquely oppressive, expansionist religion, on the level of its leadership. The leadership wants to make others submit, spreading death and conquest as needed. The historical facts bear this out. “Islamists” are only traditional Muslim leaders, feeling themselves entitled to a world conquest they have always tried to achieve at swordpoint, when they thought they could. In other words: Yes, “they started it.” Just look at the borders of Islam / Arabia **in 631**.
(2) The traditional Islamic philosophy of non-individualism, or submission to the Islamic community, is morally wrong and inferior to the West’s philosophy of individualism / individual rights / freedom.
(3) While Islam has had MOMENTS of partial enlightenment and MOMENTS of partial tolerance for some gays and a few members of other religions, those moments have always been exceptions to the general pattern, and moreover, have only developed in historical contexts where Islam first conquered completely and murdered everyone who disagreed with it.
(4) No one should know these things better than gays and lesbians. No one is going to be more oppressed and murdered, if and when the Islamists win, than the West’s uniquely public and liberated gays / lesbians. And economically / sexually liberated women.
(5) The Islamists today – both al Qaeda, and Iran with its satellites – stand squarely in the tradition of the other 14 centuries of Islamist leaders. They openly proclaim their desire for world domination, i.e. for worldwide submission to Sharia and the Islamic community, and their desire to kill all who don’t submit. That’s what we’re fighting.
(6) It’s true that the “common people” of Muslim countries don’t necessarily want what the Islamist leaders want. So, our hope is to help the “common people” establish real democracy and better, Westernized lives (while retaining private Islamic religion for themselves as they see fit), against the power of the Islamist leaders who are perfectly willing to sacrifice and kill them.
And
(7) For lester, keogh, etc. to not know all this – especially points (4) through (6) – can only be a manifestation of some deep kind of self-hate. We can argue about the details: whether they hate themselves more as Americans or as gays per se; whether it’s something they deeply support, or only something they’ve picked up from the gay and/or leftist Establishment; etc. But yes: in full context, it is w-e-i-r-d. Messed up.
Why Does The Left Deny Islamic Fascism?
Because both hate Bush and his worldview.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Even when that enemy of your foolishly-imagined “enemy” is about to kill you?
Sounds like a ticket on Hell’s express train.
Calarato, well said at 61, 62 & 64. Too bad the lower-case-clan will fail to grasp the lesson or the information.
And ShermanSt has it right: the GayLeftBorg has a lot of self-interest in seeing Islamofascism succeed because it means more grief for our twice elected Pres Geo Bush, tougher times for GOP leaders who control all the branches of govt now, and mostly because it places our military and troops in Harm’sWay and that always makes the GayLeftBorg smile.
wow. how do people this stupid even tie their shoes in the morning.
“For starters, we didn’t do anything to warrant the 9/11 attacks. It was done purely based upon islamofascism.
Secondly – if our presence in the muslim world is contributing to so many terrorist acts, then what is their excuse for attacking us in the first place?
”
islamofascism?? lol. so you think 9/11 was an attempt to TAKE OVER the united states? that’s what your implying. they wanted it to be muslim terrirtory. well, they failed pretty miserably didn’t they.
we did nothing to warrent the 9/11 attacks. that i a gree with. but we did do something to inspire them among a small radical group with a couple thousand followers. again, I go back to the USSR in afghanistan. the same people were their driving the soviets out. osama bin laden was fighting the commies with our help. obviously it has nothing to do with our freedoms. the commies weren’t known for that. they weren’t jews or christians either.
what is their excuse for attacking us in the first place? so you are saying that our, say, supporting saddam hussein was only in response to THEIR attack on our embassy. ever heard of the shah? or his torture squad the SAVAK? we booted out a man named mossadeugh, who was democraticaly elected ,and put a KING in his place. pretty unamerican huh? ever see “lawrence of arabia”? our lies to the arabs are not forgotten there.
You guys need to expand your reading beyond right wing blogs. Your musings on islam are just foolish.
calarato- “common people in the middle east don’t want islamist leaders” where have you ever heard that? I talk to muslims every day. that’s where i get my information from. you just made that up. admit it
The left doesn’t deny Islamic fascism, it is just an incorrect term. Our enemies are Islamic fundamentalists.
As a liberal, I want to see religious fundamentalism, in all it’s myriad forms, driven from the public sphere and defeated. I want to see the Islamic fundamentalists wiped out and I want to marginalize the evangelicals here at home.
One may just be a mouse, the other a rat, but I don’t like either of them.
chase- the three abrahamic faiths are the three stooges of humanity
#67 – Chase, that sounds like an equivalence between “evangelicals here at home” and the Islamo-fascists.
They are not equivalent. The difference between them, for liberated women and for gays, is quite literally life and death.
(you did say you only wanted to “marginalize” evangelicals in the U.S., vs. “wipe out” Islamo-fascists, so perhaps you weren’t drawing a total equivalence)
Calarato – That’s why I said the one is a mouse, the other a rat. Mice don’t bite, rats do.
Fortunately, in this country, our fundamentalists are too preoccupied with entertainment options to be really vicious. Burning an effigy in the street vs. watching the latest epsiode of “Lost” on your 42″ plasma? It’s really a no brainer.
But let there be no doubt; If our Christian fundamentalists were dirt poor with no jobs like those sand (expletive), with nothing better to do but think about every little thing that pisses them off, they’d be some nasty azz mofos too. Because they are 2 birds of the same feather. Ours have just been declawed by prosperity.
That’s why we do need to export our culture around the world.
Chase – History shows that, though Christianity has done some black stuff, Islam has in general been more concerned with conversion through conquest.
Christianity spent its first 15 centuries either (1) staying within the old Roman Empire borders, or (2) outside those borders, sending relatively peaceful missionaries, e.g., Ireland. (Note the Crusades were within the old Roman Empire borders – lands they had reason to consider Christendom.) The Spanish conquistadors did their bit in the 1500s.
Islam started its “conquistador” non-peaceful tradition (going outside Arabia’s borders) in its first 15 years. I’m not sure why they’re different but I think they are.
Calarato, I don’t know if I agree with your reasoning. It takes 2 sides to fight a crusade and I think early Christians were just as complicit in such events taking place as were Muslims.
If you look at the history of our country, you’ll see that some of the same backwards sort of barbarism that we condemn in the mid-east today was once accepted practice in early America. I have read about instances in American history, all during the 18th or 19th century, where homosexuals were excecuted because of their percieved or actual sexual orientation. The western world has only advanced ahead of the mid-east because of its prosperity. Our evangelicals would be just as dangerous if America lived in poverty. Our mass media also, because it is protected by our system of governance, has helped liberalize our social values, as well.
Though I want to be clear, I’m not saying that poverty is an excuse for Islamic fundamentalists, as they are still dangerous. It’s just an acknowledgment of one of the chief causes behind the situation at hand. Radicals prey on the poor and combined with religion, it can be a volitale cocktail.
Which is why it is important to be weary to the rising tide of fundamentalist fervor in this country. Just because we have advanced doesn’t mean we couldn’t move backward.
Not that this article is anything great, but if you’re patient with it, it could suggest a few clues toward the answer:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008071.php
All religions, by their nature as religions (dealing with life/death, absolute questions and answers), are prone to bully people into silence and submission. But Islam, for peculiar reasons in its tradition or “theological DNA” so to speak, is especially prone to.
#72 – I don’t know if you understood my point.
Of course Christians were responsible for the Crusades. My point is that
(a) it took 3 centuries for Christians to even concern themselves with governing anything,
(b) it was 14 centuries (sorry I had said 15) before you saw major Christians efforts at conquering non-European or non-Mediterranean – i.e., non-ex-Roman – nations.
Whereas in Islam, they set about both of those things in the first fourteen years.
There is a difference. Now, people who dig into the theology and the philosophy say those things (philosophy and theology) are the root cause: that, much as we love to put down the conquistadors today, Islam views people as souls to be converted-or-sent-to-Hell beyond anything we can imagine.
Not to be rough Chase, but statements like the following honestly make no sense to me:
“The western world has only advanced ahead of the mid-east because of its prosperity.”
Have you ever wondered where prosperity comes from? Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t come from natural resources (look at Japan). It comes from human intelligence, applied creatively to solve problems in free enterprise, over several generations.
In other words Chase, I think you’ve said it backwards. The western world has only become more prosperous than the Middle East, because it advanced. Intellectual and cultural progress don’t come from prosperity; instead, prosperity comes from intellectual and cultural progress.
When the people in the Middle East learn to value human life, human freedom, and human reason (vs. Islam dominating and stultifying every little thing they do), then they will become deeply prosperous (vs. just having a bunch of oil wealth).
“I’m not saying that poverty is an excuse for Islamic fundamentalists…”
Cool, because poverty has nothing to do with their behavior or motives. Many, if not most, of them are educated scions of the middle-to-upper classes. They simply want to make the world “submit”. (meaning of the word “Islam”)
I don’t know if I want to read something too lengthy, it’s almost time for college football. I already know the fundamentalists are lunatics, so I think I have a good understanding of the situation.
Only answering what you said. Cheers!