« Birth rates and social proof | Main | Arab-Americans »

September 12, 2012

Comments

In order to go crazy, you have to start sane.

I wonder what the solutions proposed will be:

Outreach to muslims?
More democracy?
More immigration to the west?
More diversity to the west?
Maybe some sharia law in the west?

The nightly news will probably have a Rabbi, Priest, and some muslims consoling each other and condemning intolerance or some other nonsense. Its a real life movie that keeps replaying itself.

"I have to admit that I'm enjoying the reaction in the Islamic world..."

What kind of person gets enjoyment from the violent overreaction of others that results in the deaths of his countrymen?

Answer: a deeply cynical, spiteful, and sadistic one.

"Extremists like Hasidic Jews or Catholic monks are just as bad as Islamic extremists."

This is totally true, the problem is a numbers game. When your religion has 1 billion adherents and 30% are extreme that's a big issue. There are 10 million jews, the hasid's are just as crazy but they don't have the numbers. There are very few really crazy catholics today, both as a percentage and as a total number, but that is subject to change, as per history.

By attacking Islam you remind Muslims how their societies are failures. The only thing worthwhile they have is a religion that was good at conquering. It's the loser theory of human behavior.

Religion of peace.

lol

@ Patrick

I'm enjoying the carnage myself and I hope it gets worse. Nobody cared about Gaddafi's brutal death one bit. Remember? The US had it coming. Either Gaddafi loyalists carried out the hit on the ambassador, terrorists, or rioting radicals. A who done it.

Muslims overreact to a film and kill Westerners. Media already excusing away behavior and focusing on the problem of insensitivty to Islam. Michel Houellebecq's "PLatform" had this exact scenario years ago. The West's media and self hatred really is destructive.

Half,
the most perceptive thing I have ever heard from you is the "loser theory of human behaviour"

This theory explains so much. Thank you for it. And of course Conquisador is correct, it explains why muslims are doing what they are doing.

Literally anything is better than feeling like a loser.

That is why I subscribe completely to Larry Auster's "separationism"

There is more than enough energy in the Western hemisphere to supply the needs of the United States in perpetuity. Let's divorce ourselves completely from any interaction with muslim countries and build the future of America in this hemisphere

When someone tells you this Bacile guy is the problem, remember that they killed Pim Fortuyn merely for saying if he had his druthers he'd close down the Dutch border.

Keep in mind, we helped put the current regime in power. Gaddafi tried to curb this as much as possible. Western governments intervened to give the muslim brotherhood the government on a silver platter.

The MSM is trying really hard to get Syria the same way.

The Berkeley professor who has developed an clever and objective method for measuring bias ranks the WSJ as one of the most left-biases news publications.

The editorial page is another matter entirely. I got sick of reading left-wing headlines above the fold and cancelled my subscription. Now I get IBD and Forbes and read other people's WSJ.

Mercy

The WSJ is only economically conservative, not socially. No one of any recognition in the media is. Pat Buchanan was fired.

That "Hasidic Jew" is just some secular Jewish nutcase who dabbled in Hasidic Judaism. The clothes alone don't really "make the man."

"the hasid's are just as crazy but they don't have the numbers."

That's just not true. If you walked through a Chassidic neighborhood in Jerusalem or Brooklyn with a sign that says "Judaism is a false religion," you won't get lynched. A girl who walks alone through such a neighborhood in a miniskirt will not get stripped and raped.

The MSM goes to great pains to downplay the fact the only Muslims decapitate those who "offend" their religion. Christians, Jews, and even mean old Rush Limbaugh never do these things.

"Muslims go crazy"

You mean, Muslims Act Like Muslims.

Efforts to differentiate between the "bad" Muslims (crazy, extremist, Islamofascist, Islamist, etc.) and the supposedly "good" Muslims (whoever they are) always amuse me.

"If you walked through a Chassidic neighborhood in Jerusalem ... with a sign that says "Judaism is a false religion," you won't get lynched."

Depends if you do it on a Saturday or not. ;)

Seriously though - the litmus test is how they treat promiscuous women.

A slutty Orthodox Jewish girl will be disinherited and exiled from the community.

A slutty Muslim girl will be murdered by her own family.

I'm not convinced that the mob attacks were a "reaction" to the video. I think the video was used as an excuse after the fact. There is evidence that the mob attack was organized. Which suggests that the motive was the anniversary of 9/11. The embassy should have had snipers on the roof with orders to shoot anyone who crossed the line.

On a related note, would it be legally feasible for the government to declare the entire religion of Islam (not just particular segments of mainstream Islam such as Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood) a terrorist organization and then procede to unilaterally revoke the citizenship or legal immigrants status of all muslims in the US on the grounds that all muslim residents belong to an official terrorist organization?

Again, I'm talking about labeling the whole religion of Islam to be an certified terrorist org, not a particular branch.

"I'm enjoying the carnage myself and I hope it gets worse. Nobody cared about Gaddafi's brutal death one bit. Remember?"

I wrote at the time we should have declared war on the rebels and backed Gadhaffi on grounds that, while Gadhaffi may not have been the greatest head of state of all time, the yokel/prole Muslims would prove to be more homicidal than Gadhaffi.

I have been proven correct.

"The WSJ is only economically conservative, not socially. No one of any recognition in the media is. Pat Buchanan was fired."

Buchanan is a flaming leftist on Muslim issues.

Sabril: Try it with a swastika. Everyone has their buttons.

What were Christopher Stevens thoughts on Muslims and Muslim theology? I'm betting he was a bleeding heart liberal sympathizer of Islam for his entire career.

"A girl who walks alone through such a neighborhood in a miniskirt will not get stripped and raped."

You mean Laura Logan *wasn't* finger fucked by ululating Orthodox rabbis in Tahrir Square?

The most dangerous thing about Jews is that if you get 2 of them together, you might get 3 opinions.

Ambassador Stevens, who had no US military protection, had his position given away by his Libyan security guards.

This is exactly what the Koran according to Half Sigma predicted would happen during the end times of the singularity:

"Oh Muslim, there is a US ambassador behind me who wants to piss trillions of dollars away in the third world. Come and lynch him to raise your social status and become elite.

Amen."

It will be incredibly interesting to watch how the MSM narrative is affected if the makers of the video turn out not to be American, even better if they are ARAB! The Narrative will be at great odds with itself then.

Of course, the Libya attack may have had nothing to do with this video. It could be plain Qaddafi retribution or a 9/11 anniversary thing...

Islam is a savage death cult.

It could be just as much about wanting to kill foreigners as a religious, Muslim thing.

If, say, China helped American right wing militia or neo-Nazi types rebel and take over the government, and in the aftermath there wasn't much peace, order, and stability and it was still a chaotic situation without centralized gov't and police forces, it's easy to imagine some of the militia or neo-Nazi types getting riled up and attacking and killing a Chinese consulate and ambassador in the US somewhere, just because they can.

"Islamic extremists" would have been more appropriate for the WSJ to use (and only didn't use because of political correctness). But you and many of the commenters are overreacting to this. Obviously Islamic extremists are more violent, crazy, suicidal, backasswards than extremists in just about every other religion, and it is stupid for anyone to refer to these savages as "religious extremists". Most people not beholden to PC would agree on this.

However, people here are going too far with over-generalizations. Islam does contain more violent passages as compared with most other religions, but the majority of Muslims in just about every country are not "extremists" and would not resort to violence. Many have this misconception because many of the stories we hear in the Middle East and the Arab world are about the acts of extremists. We don't hear stories about regular Muslims because someone leading a normal life isn't really news and someone blowing themselves up is news.

Have people here actually met American muslims or Muslims studying in the U.S? Every single one of them I've met (probably more than 50) were regular nonviolent people. I've met people who were in the Pakistani military and they hated terrorists. Some of these people had a dislike for Israel, but none of them would leave the comfort of America to fight for Palestinians (and most whom I talked with did not care about the issue.) Most of the Muslim Americans I've met were focused more on their careers and not violence towards infidels.

So in short: the Qur'an is one of the more violent religious texts out there, it is absurd to refer to Islamic terrorists as "religious extremists", a much higher proportion of Muslims have absurd savage reactions when they get offended than just about any other people. There are plenty of negative aspects of it.

However, most muslims are not violent or extremist, the vast majority of American muslims are regular people. That's why comments like "Efforts to differentiate between the "bad" Muslims (crazy, extremist, Islamofascist, Islamist, etc.) and the supposedly "good" Muslims (whoever they are) always amuse me." and "Again, I'm talking about labeling the whole religion of Islam to be an certified terrorist org, not a particular branch." seem particularly dumb and said out of emotion.

People need to get better at looking at things from both sides, avoiding simplistic good/evil explanations, and avoiding overgeneralizations. If we get super-serious, are people like my Muslim friends who hate terrorists evil and people like HS who enjoy the carnage good? But this is more of a fun thought-provoking blog so it doesn't make sense to be so serious.

Calling them Muslim terrorists is correct, but saying all of Islam is a terrorist organization and there is no difference btw good and bad Muslims are silly statements.

"Sabril: Try it with a swastika."

You seriously think it's just as dangerous to walk through a Chassidic neighborhood with a stastika sign as it is to walk through downtown Cairo with a sign deeply offensive to Muslims?

Seriously?

If you can't differentiate between the tiny few crazy fundamentalist Muslims and most other decent Muslims, you are as hopeless as a delusional schizophrenic who thinks he's the successor of Mohammed and talks to Mohammed on a constant basis often asking him for advice about how to prophetize.

"Islam does contain more violent passages as compared with most other religions, but the majority of Muslims in just about every country are not "extremists" and would not resort to violence. Many have this misconception because many of the stories we hear in the Middle East and the Arab world are about the acts of extremists. We don't hear stories about regular Muslims because someone leading a normal life isn't really news and someone blowing themselves up is news.

Have people here actually met American muslims or Muslims studying in the U.S? Every single one of them I've met (probably more than 50) were regular nonviolent people."

Nobody who is a member of Islam should have US citizenship, even if they can be nice on an individual basis, because the religion of Islam in its totality is an enemy terrorist organization.

Not every member of the Nazi party wanted to declare war on the France and Britain, invade Russia, and kill all the Jews, but that still didn't change the fact Churchill was right not to let Nazi party members (unless they defected) immigrate to Britain.

Most members of the Nazi party probably supported Hitler's election in 1933 because they liked his social nationalist economic policies more than his foreign policy.

Given that most Germans initially supported Hitler for economic reasons, the percentage of muslim immigrants who strongly desire to kill Americans and Jews may actually be higher among muslim immigrants than it was among regular Nazi party supporters before Germany invaded Poland.

"So in short: the Qur'an is one of the more violent religious texts out there, it is absurd to refer to Islamic terrorists as "religious extremists", a much higher proportion of Muslims have absurd savage reactions when they get offended than just about any other people. There are plenty of negative aspects of it."

The violence that plagues many Muslim countries probably has more to do with the heavy inbreeding and strong tribal rivalries that exist there. The violent content in the Koran just gives them an excuse to fall back on. American Muslims tend to be fairly educated and removed from all the tribal warfare.

Setting aside the question of whether most moslems are extremists, let's consider Taylor's hypothetical about China helping US insurgents mount a coup. Foreign intelligence agencies use such tactics to destabilize other countries and meddle in their internal affairs all the time. It was par for the course during the Cold War. And it's par for the course now.

Considering how common the tactic is, why allow immigration, diversity, etc knowing that foreign govt's will ultimately use it to destabilize the US? It only ensures that such conflict will occur.

"American Muslims tend to be fairly educated and removed from all the tribal warfare."

The best educated Muslims also partake in terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a Western educated architect and Zawahiri is a doctor.

Anyway, the "there are Muslims who don't take the Koran seriously" is a weak justification for muslims to retain citizenship/residency in America or Europe because their religious organization is a terrorist outfit and there is no way to tell which muslim immigrants are either homicidal or if the currently sane ones will have a sand nigger chimpout if they see a dumb anti-Islam on Youtube.

Just as Churchill and Roosevelt were right not to allow Nazi party members immigrate even though there must have been Nazis who didn't take everything Hitler said about foreign policy seriously, we also shouldn't allow muslims to immigrate just because a certain percentage of them don't (yet) want to blow up a shopping mall.

All muslim "Americans" all be automatically be considered incompatible with American security and security threats - including the "good" ones.

The first step should be declaring the entire religion of Islam to be an official terrorist organization.

The comments to this entry are closed.