Terrible news out of Jerusalem
Bookworm on Mar 23 2011 at 6:58 am | Filed under: Hamas, Israel, Palestinians
The world’s useful idiots never get it. Israel targets Palestinian soldiers, and is terribly troubled when she inadvertently kills the civilians amongst whom the fighters hide. The Palestinians deliberately target civilians, and try to kill the largest number possible. Today, they succeeded:
A bus explosion in Jerusalem has caused dozens of casualties, police said Wednesday.
Scores of ambulances converged on the area near the central bus station and a city conference hall in a Jewish neighborhood of downtown Jerusalem, Reuters reported, citing Israeli TV and radio.
People were lying on the ground and taken away on stretchers, according to The Associated Press.
The explosion appears to be the first bus bombing in several years and comes amid rising tension between Hamas militants and Israel.
Israel is fighting a principled war; if Sherman’s March through Georgia is any guide, the Palestinians are the ones who, ultimately, will be fighting a successful war. Wars end, not when the military gives up, but when the civilians give up. That’s why the Palestinians target that population. As long as Israel goes after buildings and specific fighters, she stiffens resistance, I think, without achieving a military goal.
Having said that, I’m not sure I see an option for Israel. She’s in an untenable situation, made worse by the fact that the world forgives the mass murderers and pillories the principled fighters.
Email This Post To A Friend
102 Responses to “Terrible news out of Jerusalem”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here’s an interesting historical thought-experiment….During WWII, the US and Britain conducted massive bombing of German cities, killing several hundred thousand civilians. (Precision bombing did not exist in those days, and many German industrial facilities were located in densely-built-up areas)
It is not totally clear that the massive Allied investment in this kind of bombing was the best use of resources, compared with more focus on tactical bombing, antisubmarine aircraft operations, and focus on the oil and transportation sectors….but here’s my thought-experiment: Suppose that the defeat of Germany had been accomplished *without* intensive city-bombing, such that civilians did not experience the war up-close and personal. After the surrender, would de-Naziification have succeeded as well as it did?…or would there have arisen another stab-in-the-back legend, as after WWI, and a revival of Naziism among the population?
David Foster is right, and it is along the lines of what you, Book, wrote about tyrants and the Passover story. In this case, there is no one single Palestinian to blame, but it will take the utter defeat of these people to change anything.
However, not only will Israel not carpet-bomb them (though today, I’m kind of feeling like, let ‘em–my daughter is in Jerusalem, a student, and she could easily have been on that bus), but most of the world is aiding and abetting the Palestinians, giving them a green light to murder and terrorize.
Palin asked “why are you apologizing all the time?”, while she was in Israel, and she was 100% right. It’s time for Israel to quit apologizing, build MORE housing on the West Bank, go back into Gaza if necessary and take whatever steps it needs to WIN. It gets the opprobrium anyway, so why not?
Seems like there could be a version here of “if you’re going to do the time, you might as well do the crime”. The Israelis are always blamed for agression etc. So maybe they need to _be_ aggressive. It might back the Palis off a bit, and then there’s also be some standard of comparison…
Any arab civilian is considered a martyr if they are killed by the Jews. Doesn’t help our side at all to kill them, even accidentally.
That bomb today was small, by the way. Only about 2 kg. Usually they are two to five times that size. That’s probably how it missed being found.
In other news, Hamas is launching missiles at Beersheva, and Ashdod and other communities in the Negev. It’s been intensifying over the last couple of weeks. My daughter is in college down that way and she’s called home a few times to say “she’s alright”. so Israeli.
I wish they had cleared out Gaza in the ’67 war.
It’s been three years in Gaza and 5 yrs in southern Lebanon since the last war. It has been enough time to rearm. And Iran and all the other dictators in the region would probably like the distraction and get back to beating up on the Muslims’ favorite scape goat. Time for another war, I guess. I still don’t live in a house with a bomb shelter, either.
Just a thought: think that they are doing this right now because they are being upstaged by Tunisia, Egypt and Libya??
A standard goal in warfare is to convince the enemy that you are willing to keep killing him until there is none of him left to kill. Even the Japanese finally got that through their heads after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But what do you do with murderous savages like Hamas, who are willing to see their people killed to the last person rather than surrender their triumphalist political agenda? It doesn’t help that the “Palestinians” are Arabs, therefore members of a culture in which love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family. Hamas no more cares about the fate of “Palestinians” than it does about the Jews it so gleefully slaughters. They are a means to an end.
That’s the problem Israel faces. It cannot commit to a genocide the way its enemies have, but it has to resist to continue existing. That inevitably means civilian deaths and the attendant ramping up of worldwide hand-wringing. Israel’s only hope is to convince the “Palestinian” people that Hamas, unlike Israel, is, indeed, willing to sacrifice them down to the last child and infant. How Israel does that, I do not know.
Charles Martel: It doesn’t help that the “Palestinians” are Arabs, therefore members of a culture in which love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family.
When I waked up just at daybreak he was sitting there with his head down betwixt his knees, moaning and mourning to himself. I didn’t take notice nor let on, I knowed what it was about. He was thinking about his wife and his children, away up yonder, and he was low and homesick; because he hadn’t ever been away from home before in his life; and I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their’n. It don’t seem natural, but I reckon it’s so.
Mosonny: build MORE housing on the West Bank
How will that help?
Zach, you pulled out the race card! You didn’t address the corruption of Arab culture, which is as I described, you just reflexively reached for a leftist nostrum.
I don’t care how much any man of any color pines for his family, if he belongs to a culture of death and he’s trying to kill me, I will try to kill him first. Rank sentimentality about how Nigger Jim was a human being is so beside the point that it makes me wonder if you ever really think about your responses or just automatically run to Wiki.
Zachriel, your comment is not responsive to Charles Martel’s argument. In your quote, Huck is surprised to find that Jim feels normal human love **for his immediate family**. Charles’s argument is not about love for immediate family but rather the ability to identify with and care about people who are *not* immediate or extended family.
Do you seriously not believe that there are cultural differences affecting loyalty to extended family/tribe vs loyalty to a wider society?
Looks like I sent this to the IJ a bit too early:
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
There is a lot of noise about peace in the middle east these days and a thought crosses my mind evaluating this complex puzzle or s it so complex after all? Inside Israel proper it a fairly peaceful place, a war free zone as it were. In many of the Arab and Persian lands that surround Israel they are essentially war free. Now let’s compare how individual Muslims are treated by the government in Israel (EG what kind of rights they have) and how individual Jews are treated in the surrounding lands led by Muslim and Persian Governments. Muslims hold about 10% of the seats of the Knesset. How many Jews hold seats in the Muslim and Persian Governments? Very telling.
I KNOW that I did not type all of that!
Zachriel
Mosonny: build MORE housing on the West Bank
How will that help?
Clearly he meant MOORE housing as in Michael since he love the Palestinians soooo much.
Charles Martel: It doesn’t help that the “Palestinians” are Arabs, therefore members of a culture in which love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family.
David Foster: Charles’s argument is not about love for immediate family but rather the ability to identify with and care about people who are *not* immediate or extended family.
“Totally conditional” suggests otherwise, even within context. His statement says that love is totally conditional and necessarily depends on rank and family. Nearly all cultures stress family devotion as a positive good, but it is grossly ignorant to say that Arabs are incapable of love for people outside their immediate family.
Huck was ignorant, too.
So, clan and tribe are “immediate family?” Thanks for the lesson.
Didn’t say they were incapable. Just said whatever capability they have is conditional and contingent. God, you make me feel the way I did when I conducted business writing seminars for frickin’ college grads who couldn’t be bothered to actually read what they were critiquing.
Anyway, Jesus wisely observed that all people love their family and friends, but few love anybody outside of that group. Christians are enjoined to love every man as his neighbor. Perhaps you could direct me to the similar teaching in the Qu’ran—you know, the one that affirms Arabs’ duty to love their non-Arab neighbors?
Charles Martel: Just said whatever capability they have is conditional and contingent.
Just as it is for most non-Arabs. But Arabs and non-Arabs are capable of unconditional love.
Charles Martel: the one that affirms Arabs’ duty to love their non-Arab neighbors?
Um, many Arabs are Christians.
Zach, again, you are aliterate, that is, you do not know how to do close reading. The question was about the Qu’ran.
Charles Martel: you are aliterate, that is, you do not know how to do close reading. The question was about the Qu’ran.
We weren’t discussing Muslims, but Arabs and ”a culture in which love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family.”
Is there a good reason to engage with Zach? He seems to be unteachable and unwilling to learn so what’s the point?
If Israel is in a untenable position through to their methods, then they should break out of it by using methods they have never considered nor done.
That’s not very hard to imagine. They just haven’t done it.
Martel, what is this about a kuu rah? Curae? Curator?
Z is grossly ignorant of other cultures and perspectives. What did you expect of parochial leftists.
@Tonestaple
Is there a good reason to engage with Zach? He seems to be unteachable and unwilling to learn so what’s the point?
I don’t care if he agrees with us if he would engage the topic and make some argument that made sense in response. He can hold any opinions he wants, (more power to diverse opinions that can be supported logically) but the guy can’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag with a box cutter.
He couldn’t argue his way out of a pressurized dome in the Marianas trench with a 500 megaton nuke.
Zachriel draws moral equivalence between the “oppressed” Palestinians and Mark Twain’s “Nigger Jim”. Both, you see, are “victims” in Zachriel’s world template (Temple of Orthodoxy) therefore they are one and the same.
Here’s another great example of how the Palestinians are just like those poor black slaves in the antebellum American South.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vi9oNs42hs&feature=player_embedded
Yup…one just like another. Isn’t it obvious?
Danny Lemieux: Here’s another great example of how the Palestinians are just like those poor black slaves in the antebellum American South.
In fact, slaves were widely considered inherently dangerous if left to their own devices, and could only be productive under the slave system.
In any case, the issue wasn’t that there aren’t dangerous Palestinians, or dangerous slaves, but the overgeneralization and dehumanization concerning an entire people based on prejudice and ignorance.
“It doesn’t help that the “Palestinians” are Arabs, therefore members of a culture in which love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family.”
Zach, it has been noted here before that you have a severe problem with reading comprehension skills and English itself. It is not “dehumanizing” to describe the massive problems of Arab culture, including its members inability to extend love to those outside one’s clan/tribe/family. If you have examples of great exceptions to that generality, I’d be interested in seeing them.
(Also, thank you for the compliment. In your own endearing Asperger’s way, you have glommed onto a comment of mine that you have totally distorted and are holding fast to it like a puppy in love with a binky. I’m glad that I can inspire you!)
Charles Martel: It is not “dehumanizing” to describe the massive problems of Arab culture, including its members inability to extend love to those outside one’s clan/tribe/family.
Nearly all cultures stress family devotion as a positive good, but it is ignorant and condescending to say that Arabs are unable to extend love to those outside their own clan/tribe/family.
Zach, I asked for examples. I knew you could not provide them.
I’ll ask again: Perhaps you could run to Wiki or to your hive queen and get some references to the vast, world-impressing number of charities, orphanages, hospitals, research laboratories, foreign aid and compassionate outreach sponsored by Arab nations, provinces, towns and mosques?
The only ones they are dangerous to is themselves and helpless civilians.
To the rest of us armed contingents defending humanity, they are just targets. Shooting gallery. Marianas Turkey Shoot.
Charles Martel: Perhaps you could run to Wiki or to your hive queen and get some references to the vast, world-impressing number of charities, orphanages, hospitals, research laboratories, foreign aid and compassionate outreach sponsored by Arab nations, provinces, towns and mosques?
Before we look, what should we expect? That there are no Arab charities? No orphanages?
Zach, evasive as usual. Why so reluctant to document the vast extent of Arab fellow feeling? You know, the world-famous charities and outreach that so impresses the rest of humanity and is extolled globally?
If Zach wants to learn more about the Middle East, I would suggest that he peruse the following website.
http://www.memri.org/ Middle East Media Research Institute
Given what Muslim clerics say about the Joos, which the MEMRI has amply documented, Zach’s comments are rather comical.
Yes Zach , there are Arab Christians. Thanks for informing us. I have had Arab Christians as clients, as friends, as teachers, as employers, and as classmates. Not in the Middle East, but in the US and in Argentina. I lived for two years in the same household with a Palestinian Christian.
Several observations.
1) Christians in the Arab world are increasingly persecuted.
2 )Arab Christians can hate the Joos just as much as Arab Muslims hate the Joos. Helen Thomas is an example. I know at least one example of a Palestinian Christian who hates the Joos- a relative of the aforementioned. Whereas he says nothing about the Muslims. That is ironic for at least two reasons: 1) Before 1967 his grandfather told his children to get out of the West Bank because Christians would always be passed over for promotion; 2) a cousin of his can document Muslims persecuting him because of his Christina religion.
IMHO, many Arab Christians hate the Joos in the hope that Muslims do not go after them.
Gringo, what you say also points out the flaw in Zach’s thinking. On paper, the difference between Christians and Muslims is monumental. The New Testment clearly calls for agape and a peaceable demeanor. The Qu’ran fairly brims with hatred for non-Muslims, especially Jews.
One would think, then, that there would be a clear difference between the behavior of Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs, yet there doesn’t seem to be so. Could it be that the viciousness of Arabs towards Jews is simply a hallmark of Arab culture, especially as enshrined in that culture’s proudest product, the Qu’ran? Could it be that culture trumps religion in this case? (Think of all the so-called Christians in the South who supported Jim Crow and the mistreatment of blacks—a clear case of a racist culture triumphing over its own religion. So you can see how much worse it is when Allah’s word itself institutionalizes Jew hatred.)
Good thing we have arab Christians. Although to be honest, I don’t know how there can be many. It was many years ago when my husband was stationed in Saudi Arabia, but then as now (in other words, nothing new) he was not allow to bring a Christian prayer book or bible into the country, and the celebration of Mass was not permitted within the borders of the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/24/thousands-christians-displaced-ethiopia-muslim-extremists-torch-churches-homes-2057387870/
suek, that was what was so many about the ginned-up leftist indignation over New Yorkers’ unease at having a mosque built so close to Ground Zero. Here is a religion that clearly states its desire to kill or subdue the practitioners of every other religion, but somehow we are being “intolerant” when we point that out.
Zachriel: Before we look, what should we expect? That there are no Arab charities? No orphanages?
Charles Martel: Why so reluctant to document the vast extent of Arab fellow feeling? You know, the world-famous charities and outreach that so impresses the rest of humanity and is extolled globally?
Just wondering. If we discovered there were Arab charities, whether it would change your position? We’ll let you do the research. Let us know what you find.
Gringo: 1) Christians in the Arab world are increasingly persecuted. 2 )Arab Christians can hate the Joos just as much as Arab Muslims hate the {Jews}.
Unfortunately, yes to both points.
It also turns out that non-Arab Christians can and do hate the Jews. Other people hate the Muslims. Still others hate the Christians. But not everybody.
With respect to Arab charities, I can help here. Yes, there are Arab charities. Every mosque functions as a charity. The catch is …they are only for Muslims and they are local. Red Crescent is an example. They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.
As far as Arab Christians, I know many…including Iraqi refugees (from Saddam, that is). Some of them I consider to be very close friends. Unlike our resident philosophers at Zach’s Temple of Orthodoxy, they express absolutely no confusion about the nature of Islam and its view toward non-believers. However, their positions were forged in the crucible of real-life experiences, not armchairs.
Here are some generalizations about Muslims for you to ponder:
“Muslims are paranoid”.
“Muslims are totally screwed up about sex. In Islam, boys and young men are so sexually repressed they have sex with each other just to relieve their frustrations and convince themselves that it is not sex. This only increases their homophobia”.
“Many Muslims secretly wish that they could live in Israel. They know that they would be in a minority but they also know they would not live in repression and be able to vote”.
“Muslims know how to think rationally because it is not in their culture”.
“Many Palestinians only want normal lives lived in peace, however they have no power and must keep quiet”.
“Many Muslims are ashamed of the Jew-hatred of Islam”
What do all these statements have in common? These are statements that were expressed to me by…Arab Muslims. And not the ones that pontificate from armchairs.
Sa’laam.
“Just wondering. If we discovered there were Arab charities, whether it would change your position? We’ll let you do the research. Let us know what you find.”
Zach, I hereby award you the 2011 BarryBonds Award for laziness and chickenheartedness. BarryBonds was our resident pest before you showed up and he resolutely insisted, like you, that we do his homework for him. In your case, you are afraid that you will find, as Danny has indicated above, that your claim about Arab caritas is impossible to prove.
We certainly cannot have the Most High Jovian Poobah hoist on his own petard, can we?
Danny Lemieux: Red Crescent is an example. They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies “is the world’s largest humanitarian organization, providing assistance without discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions.”
http://www.ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/vision-and-mission/
Qatar Red Crescent launches emergency appeal for Haiti
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-red-crescent-launches-emergency-appeal-for-haiti-1.569849
“The Palestinian and Israeli first responder groups are the joint recipients of the first American Red Cross Humanitarian Prize. The winners announced in an American Red Cross release on Thursday are Younis Al Khatib, the president of the Palestine Red Crescent Society, and Dr. Noam Yifrach, the chairman of Magen David Adom’s executive committee. ‘Mr. Al Khatib and Dr. Yifrach are being honored for the historic work they have accomplished in establishing a formal, ongoing collaboration between their two organizations which has directly led to improved humanitarian conditions for Palestinians and Israelis,’ the release said.”
http://jta.org/news/article/2008/11/20/1001130/mda-red-crescent-get-red-cross-prize
Comments are disappearing for some reason. But anyone can discover for themselves that the Red Crescent is comprised largely of volunteers who are motivated by a deep sense of humanitarianism.
The Red Crescent is an offshoot of the Red Cross—a daughter organization started by the Red Cross, which was started by Christians. In none of its 1,400 years of existence has Islam (and particularly the Arabs) ever created a disaster-relief organization by itself motivated by caritas (which, by the way, the Qu’ran forbids to be extended to non-Muslims).
It should also be noted that the Red Cross is forbidden to operate in most Muslim countries, including the home of Arab culture, Saudi Arabia. That was why Europeans found it necessary to get around Muslim/Arab intolerance by creating a so-called Muslim variant of the Red Cross concept.
Zach, did you want to accept your BarryBonds Award at a formal sit-down dinner, or can we just e-mail you a PowerPoint presentation?
Charles Martel: The Red Crescent is an offshoot of the Red Cross
Yes, but that’s irrelevant to the point. The Red Crescent includes Arabs who voluntarily donate their time and money and effort for humanitarian purposes. And it certainly belies Danny Lemieux’s point that “they do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.”
Zachriel
But anyone can discover for themselves that the Red Crescent is comprised largely of volunteers who are motivated by a deep sense of humanitarianism.
Zach covered himself with largely. Google red crescent cover for terrorists. [no quotation marks.] You get over 250,000 hits.
The point about Arab versus non-Arab sense of charity is that Arabs while Arabs are charitable, their sense of charity is influenced by the Arabic tendency to be more xenophobic than non-Arabs. Recall the Egyptian proverb: My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger.
Regarding the Arab/Muslim sense of charity versus the Christian/West sense of charity, recall the tsunami that hit Muslim Indonesia some years back. Who provided the aid in double quick time? Wealthy Saudi Arabia, which has spent billions worldwide funding the construction and staffing of mosques and madrassas? No, the evil infidel United States, led by the Prince of Darkness himself, President Dubya.
Zachriel @ comment #38
It also turns out that non-Arab Christians can and do hate the Jews. Other people hate the Muslims. Still others hate the Christians. But not everybody.
It appears to me that judging by actions nowadays, Muslims do a “better” job of hating those not of their faith than do members of other faiths. As an example consider suek’s citation in comment #34 about the 50 Christian churches burned down in Ethopia. Or consider the Egyptian military attack recently on the Coptic monastery. Go to the Religion of Peace website for further examples.
Regarding tolerance of religion: what country bans the importation of the Koran? None that I know of. What country bans the importation of the Bible? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Sorry Zach, your platitudes don’t cut it. Reality interferes.
I suggest that you educate yourself. Go to the MEMRI website. Go to the Religion of Peace website.
Zach, your problem (among so very many) is that you conflate the humane actions of a few with the temperament of the many.
Certainly there were Germans and Japanese in WWII who did not indulge in murdering or torturing their enemies, but the great mass of them condoned such or averted their gaze. And now here you are struggling mightlily to convince the rest of us that Arab culture is not the moral cesspool that the rest of us can so easily see, and that the Red Crescent somehow is the rule, not the exception.
TheReligionofPeace.com – Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
In case Z has trouble finding the site of which you speak…
You beat me to the punch, Gringo, with the link to the Red Crescent providing cover for weapons and terrorist smuggling.
Actually, I don’t blame the Muslims for being uniquely xenophobic. Charity toward others is a pretty uniquely Judeo-Christian concept that seems to be taking hold in other cultures. You don’t see the Chinese (xenophobic), Russia (xenophobic) or many African (tribal) countries indulging in international charity except in small, tentative ways. I do credit the Western countries and especially the U.S. for the concept of international relief and charity and its influence in other cultures. The Japanese are a great case in point – it is doubtful that pre-WWII Japan would ever have indulged in international relief yet, today, it is one of the world’s great charitable donors.
It is fun to jerk Zach’s chain, though.
The concept of “hate”, though, is more problematic. Zach, you really should take the time to read the Koran and compare it to the New Testament. The Koran advocates openly the hatred of others, especially Jews. I challenge you to find one phrase…any phrase…in the Christian New Testament that advocates doing violence against or reviling others.
Gringo: Google red crescent cover for terrorists. [no quotation marks.] You get over 250,000 hits.
Yes, some people use ambulances as cover for terrorism or other criminal activities. Investigations, such as by Amnesty International, found there was no systematic involvement by the Red Crescent. In any case, there are thousands of doctors and nurses who treat people, often under very difficult conditions, regardless of their ethnicity. That contradicts the statement that Arabs are unable ”to extend love to those outside one’s clan/tribe/family,” and even worse, ”do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.”
Gringo: Recall the Egyptian proverb: My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger.
That’s typical of all societies that rely on tribal relationships for economics and security. especially those without larger social structures. Such as Europe before the rise of nationalism. Meanwhile, the Arab world has also seen the rise of nationalism, as people have sought a larger identity in the world.
Gringo: Regarding the Arab/Muslim sense of charity versus the Christian/West sense of charity, recall the tsunami that hit Muslim Indonesia some years back. Who provided the aid in double quick time?
It seems as if you have problems with the notion of particular vs. general. The U.S. is not only charitable, but as a rich and powerful nation, has the technological capability of providing aid quickly. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have that sort of capacity, but they delivered relief through the Saudi Red Crescent and aid to the Indonesian Red Cross.
Gringo: It appears to me that judging by actions nowadays, Muslims do a “better” job of hating those not of their faith than do members of other faiths.
This blog seems to be doing a pretty good job of hating a group because of their ethnicity. However, there are serious political issues within much of the Arab world. And many Arabs have risked their lives to try and solve some of those problems. Odd that. It doesn’t seem to fit the narrative, Arabs risking their lives for the sake of their country and a political ideal.
Charles Martel: Certainly there were Germans and Japanese in WWII who did not indulge in murdering or torturing their enemies, but the great mass of them condoned such or averted their gaze.
Fascism was a cultural aberration. It wasn’t fundamental German culture that caused the descent into madness. It could have happened in the U.S, or Britain or France. It did happen in Japan which has a very different culture than Germany. When the war was over, German and Japanese culture were still there.
Charles Martel: And now here you are struggling mightlily to convince the rest of us that Arab culture is not the moral cesspool that the rest of us can so easily see, and that the Red Crescent somehow is the rule, not the exception.
Can’t imagine why anyone would think that the Tea Party is comprised of xenophobes and racists.
Danny Lemieux: you really should take the time to read the Koran and compare it to the New Testament.
Let’s talk about the Old Testament, and condemn the Jews, shall we?
Gringo: It appears to me that judging by actions nowadays, Muslims do a “better” job of hating those not of their faith than do members of other faiths.
Zachriel: This blog seems to be doing a pretty good job of hating a group because of their ethnicity.
What actions, Zach? I gave examples of Muslims burning down 50 churches in Ethiopia and the Egyptian military attacking a Coptic monastery, and referred you to the Religion of Peace website, which documents thousands of violent acts of Muslims against adherents of other religions since 2001. Such as against Buddhists in Thailand. What examples can you give of actions by members of this blog that show their hating?
Zachriel: Yes, some people use ambulances as cover for terrorism or other criminal activities….In any case, there are thousands of doctors and nurses who treat people, often under very difficult conditions, regardless of their ethnicity.
Please give examples of non-Arabs using the Red Cross as a cover for terrorism. Please. Perhaps the Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka. The Tamil terrorists have certainly earned a reputation for scum equivalent to the reputation of Hamas. Please give examples of “thousands of doctors and nurses” of Red Crescent who “treat people ..regardless of their ethnicity.” Such as Joos. Oh yeah.
Zachriel: Meanwhile, the Arab world has also seen the rise of nationalism, as people have sought a larger identity in the world.
The rise and fall. Arab nationalism was a big deal a half century ago. Nasser and all that. The Ba’ath in Syria and Iraq were also manifestations of Arab nationalism.The Six Day War initiated the puncturing of that balloon.
Martha Gelhorn’s 1961 article in the Atlantic Monthly, The Arabs of Palestine, gives a good perspective on some of the issues. She used to be married to Ernest Hemingway. Interesting to note what they say they would have done had THEY won.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1961/10/the-arabs-of-palestine/4203/
Apparently, the Tea Party celebrates the murders of children, suicide bombings and genocide. Yup! Y’all really need to get out of your armchairs more and meet some of those Tea Partiers, including the black and Asian-American ones. Please, do give us specific examples of the “xenophobia” and “racism” of Tea Partiers….real examples, that is, not that silliness that supposedly took place on the Capital Steps without any evidence thereof.
BTW, I forgot to commend you on the other post (I was away on family business) where you lectured Sgt. Dave on what he really, really saw with respect to WMDs when he was in Iraq. Priceless!
Regarding Saudi Arabian “charity” – other than promoting Wahhabi madrassas, do you have any data that documents the levels of Saudi charity — both within their country and without? We would love to know. Or, do you consider funding of Wahhabi centers around the world (and U.S.) a legitimate form of charity? Just curious. There is a lot of information on Saudi and Islamic charities out there: it doesn’t look very good!
Thanks for pointing out that fascism could happen in the U.S. as in Germany. For once I agree with you — we call that the “Left”.
As far as the Old Testament, want to enlighten us on how you plan to use it to condemn the Jews? Have at it.
In the meantime, the challenge regarding the New Testament stands: cite one passage in the New Testament that advocates the use of violence against another.
Quran Surah 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Gringo: I gave examples of Muslims burning down 50 churches in Ethiopia and the Egyptian military attacking a Coptic monastery, and referred you to the Religion of Peace website, which documents thousands of violent acts of Muslims against adherents of other religions since 2001.
Within living memory, Western Civilization set up death camps for Jews. But even though anti-Semitism has a long history, and the Holocaust can be seen as the fruition of centuries of hate, it was still an aberration and doesn’t condemn all of Western culture as a “moral cesspool”.
Zachriel: Meanwhile, the Arab world has also seen the rise of nationalism, as people have sought a larger identity in the world.
Gringo: The rise and fall.
Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans are all working for their national interests. They have forged national identities. Keep in mind that Italy only became a unified nation in 1861, while Germany didn’t unite until 1871. The United States was ostensibly a single nation, but didn’t truly become unified until after the Civil War.
Danny Lemieux: Please, do give us specific examples of the “xenophobia” and “racism” of Tea Partiers
Arab culture is a “moral cesspool.” “They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” Their “love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional.” “Ungodly wretches.” Of course, these views may not represent everyone in the Tea Party, but it’s important that such views be repudiated by the Tea Party.
Moderation queue, please.
Here is a paper on Saudi funding. It actually has done a fair amount. Not just madrassas and mosques. Give credit where credit is due. From Saudi Arabia as a Humanitarian Donor: High Potential, Little Institutionalization . [March 2011 GPPi Research Paper No. 14]
Here is an excerpt.
Saudi Arabia has emerged as the world’s largest donor of humanitarian assistance outside the Western states, traditionally the members of OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). In many recent natural disasters, the country’s contributions far exceeded those of any traditional donors. In 2007, in response to Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh, which killed more than 3,000 people and left millions homeless, Saudi Arabia gave Bangladesh $158 million for humanitarian purposes, compared to $20 million from the United States and less from the United Kingdom (Smith 2010). Following the Haiti earthquake in 2010, the Saudi Kingdom made $50 million available to the Emergency Response Fund, a pooled funding mechanism set up by the United Nations. Saudi pledges for the ongoing response to the floods that ravaged huge swathes of Pakistan in 2010 amount to $220 million – surpassing the pledges of all European donors taken together ($209 million) (Saudi Ministry of Interior 2010 and Smith 2010). In 2008, Saudi Arabia provided $500 million in cash to the World Food Program, the largest contribution in the Program’s history. For development and humanitarian aid to the Arab and Muslim world, Saudi Arabia is the undisputed leader. Between 1975 and 2005, total Saudi aid to developing countries amounted to $90 billion or 3.7% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP), far higher than the UN 0.7% of GDP target for development assistance and four times the average achieved by OECD-DAC countries. Saudi Arabia also helps finance many key regional development funds and instruments.1
For some reason I cannot explain, my browser now downloads PDFs, but doesn’t open PDFs with the URL showing.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/JARR-8F2J5D?OpenDocument try this for a link
Sorry, the first indirect link didn’t work. This works.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/JARR-8F2J5D
OK,
Danny Lemieux: Please, do give us specific examples of the “xenophobia” and “racism” of Tea Partiers
Arab culture is a “moral cesspool.” “They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” Their “love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional.” “Ungodly wretches.” Of course, these views may not represent everyone in the Tea Party, but it’s important that such views be repudiated by the Tea Party.
Let me hit this one with the hammer. Zach, to paraphrase you (and the Princess Bride) I do not think that these words mean what you think that they mean.
Xenophobia – fear of the alien or different. The above quotes are not fear – they are less than polite, but not fearful.
Racism – discrimination based on racial genotype, generally considered as skin tone or national descent in the modern vernacular. There is no “Islamic” race. It is a faith based group.
You’d be looking for, say, theophobia – fear of a religion.
“Ungodly wretches” is, in fact, a fair statement by a member of a different faith. It is inflamatory, but if you actually follow Christianity, the statement is one that implies pity, not fear or loathing. Context is king, but you’ve missed the boat. Christians believe that anyone not saved by Christ are, indeed, ‘ungodly’ – not familiar with God; they are also wretches – to be pitied, since they will, at best, be limited to the outermost areas of hell even if they lived a good life.
You failed on that one.
“They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims”. Let me enlighten you. Jews are, according to the unrepudiated holy men of Islam, the descendents of monkeys and pigs, subhuman, and a scourge upon the face of the world.
You failed on that one, too.
“[Their] love for their fellow man is conditional”. If a man has not come to Allah and submitted to his will, he is unworthy of your salt and bread; cast him out once more until he has submitted to god’s will.
You fail a third time.
Why, indeed, should the Tea Party repudiate these words – especially when the Democratic and Republican parties seldom, if ever, repudiate the intemperate words and actions of their members. Like, say, siccing the IRS on your political enemies (Clinton), or on racism (David Duke). Even though Duke “bowed out”, he still remained in the power workings for far too long.
I’ll do this one – First remove the plank from thine own eye before helping your brother with the splinter in his.
SFC Dave
“Did you feel that? It was like someone sucked all the intelligence right out of the room when he opened his mouth.”
SFC Dave, very well said, but pearls before swine.
Zachriel: Within living memory, Western Civilization set up death camps for Jews.
Uh, no…National Socialism (concentration camps) and Eastern Communism (gulags) set up death camps for Jews. Western Civilization defeated the National Socialists and Eastern Communists.
Zachriel claims that Tea Partiers claim: Arab culture is a “moral cesspool.” “They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” Their “love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional.” “Ungodly wretches.” Of course, these views may not represent everyone in the Tea Party, but it’s important that such views be repudiated by the Tea Party.
Please show me where in the Tea Party annals (cites! sites!) these points (debatable as they are) have been expressed? And, to follow this logic —- Zach believes that the Tea Party (no other) is obligated to publicly repudiate any position that may be offensive to Zach, just in case Zach is offended? Fair enough. So, now Zach, we ask you to publicly renounce each and every point of view that we at this blog may find offensive. Please provide a complete list…we don’t want any left out.
Gringo, thanks for the link. That is impressive!
It’s very obvious that Zach knows next to nothing about Islam or the Qu’ran, or for that matter, Christianity. He might want to start making up for his yawning ignorance by reading Samuel Huntington’s seminal work, “Clash of Civilizations” (it’s OK, Huntington was from Harvard so Zacky won’t get cooties reading him).
Then, pick up a translation of the Qu’ran. Penguin has a good paperback version. As Zach begins plowing through the violence-obsessed morass of Allah’s word, he should keep in mind such concepts as taqqiyah and abrogation, and perhaps ponder that charming non-moral cesspool aspect of Arab culture, schtupping 9 year old girls.
Just a thought.
Danny, Zach will be unable to provide proof. That is, unless you’re willing to accept “witness testimony” from John Lewis, which according to Zach is proof.
All clear now?
Danny Lemieux: Xenophobia – fear of the alien or different. The above quotes are not fear – they are less than polite, but not fearful.
xenophobia, fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia
Danny Lemieux: There is no “Islamic” race.
Arabs are an ethnic group, and can be identified on genealogical as well as cultural grounds. If you prefer, call it bigotry.
Danny Lemieux: “Ungodly wretches” is, in fact, a fair statement by a member of a different faith. It is inflamatory, but if you actually follow Christianity, the statement is one that implies pity, not fear or loathing. Context is king, but you’ve missed the boat.
Yes, context is important. Luther said to burn their temples and holy books, raze their homes, and drive them out.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
Zachriel: Within living memory, Western Civilization set up death camps for Jews.
Danny Lemieux: Uh, no…National Socialism (concentration camps) and Eastern Communism (gulags) set up death camps for Jews. Western Civilization defeated the National Socialists and Eastern Communists.
Huh? Fascism is an offspring of Western Civilization. Italy, Germany, Spain, even Britain, the U.S. and France were home to large numbers of fascists.
Danny Lemieux: we ask you to publicly renounce each and every point of view that we at this blog may find offensive.
Thanks for the encouragement. We will continue to do so.
Zach,
You’re blaming Danny for my work.
Follow this. ARABS are an ethnic group; MUSLIMS are followers of a faith. Not the same at all. Arabic Muslims are not a majority of the faith. Indonesia has that claim, with racially distinct believers. You’ve made the common error of identifying all Muslims as Arabs.
Luther was a product of his times; you’ve taken something out of context, since the Islamists of the day were, in fact, burning temples and holy books, razing the homes of Christians, and driving them north out of the Balkans. Luther embraced the fight because it was a time of war.
And by the way, Luther was not a Tea Partier.
Xenophobia has moved colloquially from its original meaning because of people, like you, using it to imply hatred. “Phobia” is fear. Bad education causes connotational drift from the denotational intent. Just because most people have become ignorant of the correct meaning does not mean you are correct. And Mirriam-Webster is not the end-all and be-all of dictionaries for academic work.
Stop changing the argument, Zachs. And remember, Luther wanted the Jews and the Mohammedians and even the CATHOLICS to get out. Very, very different argument, time, and context.
SFC Dave
“Hey, if you’re going to be pissed at someone, at least pick the right guy.”
Incredible! The kid is utterly tone deaf when it comes to Christianity or Islam. Goes rummaging crazily around the Internet like somebody on crystal meth, and expects to persuade us and show how smart he is by citing Luther!
I’m going to take a leaf out of long-suffering Joe’s book (he engaged in similar pointless “discussions” with Zach on another site): Hey, Zacky, let’s debate in real time. You assert, I’ll answer, you’ll respond immediately. No running like a little boy to your Wiki/hive sources; engage me intellectually with your own knowledge and devices. (I promise I will not correct your grammatical howlers or mock your Dukakis-like inability to answer a quetion directly. Wait a minute, on second thought, I will.)
How about others here suggest a topic and you/I will pick the top 2 that we like. Where’s there’s congruence, there’s our topic.
I eagerly await your Jovian Majesty’s response!
Danny Lemieux: we ask you to publicly renounce each and every point of view that we at this blog may find offensive.
Thanks for the encouragement. We will continue to do so.
Nice try, Zach. Nope…in advance! You stated that the Tea Party needs to renounce comments such as “Arab culture is a “moral cesspool.” “They do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” Their “love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional.”
Now, either provide links to where these statements have been made by the Tea Party, or if you can’t, start renouncing all offensive beliefs and statements that we may or may not attribute to you, whether you have professed them or not. You might want to start by retracting all those vile statements and implications that you have made about the Tea Party (see above) without more corroborative proof than recycled hearsay from Leftwing echo chambers.
Here is how it works: leftwing protestors in 2003 yell “Kill Bush!”. Some make movies and write plays on this same theme. In 2007, MoveOn.org posts an ad slandering U.S. General Petraeus as “General Betray Us”. Now, we happen to think that you might ascribe to such ideas. We have no evidence, but conjecture works fine. So, in accordance with your thinking as expressed in #53 (above), we believe that it is important that you publicly repudiate such thoughts in advance because there is a chance, based on absolutely zero evidence to-date other than conjecture , that you might be associated with such views. And, please don’t stop there…keep refudiating anything, anything that we might possibly associate with you in a negative way in the future.
SFC Dave: ARABS are an ethnic group; MUSLIMS are followers of a faith. Not the same at all.
Yes, as we pointed out above.
SFC Dave: Arabic Muslims are not a majority of the faith. Indonesia has that claim, with racially distinct believers. You’ve made the common error of identifying all Muslims as Arabs.
Not at all. This discussion concerns Charles Martel’s statement that for Arabs “love for one’s fellow man is totally conditional and contingent upon that man’s rank relative to you, and his membership in your clan, tribe or family.” Since then, we have had added Arab culture is a ”moral cesspool”, and Muslims “do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” ”Ungodly wretches” as you noted, was used by Luther against the Jews to justify their persecution.
Charles Martel: the one that affirms Arabs’ duty to love their non-Arab neighbors?
Zachriel: Um, many Arabs are Christians.
So, we have not conflated the two, but drawn a clear distinction.
SFC Dave: Luther was a product of his times;
Yes, he was. Nevertheless, Luther used religious texts to justify his pogram against the Jews. He felt fully justified in condemning an entire people.
Danny, I was the one who called Arab culture a “moral cesspool.” I don’t recall ever stating whether I am a Tea Party member, and I certainly don’t recall anybody in that party saying that.
But you have to remember that in Zach’s self-contained universe (he is, after all, the master of Jupiter!), he can make it up as he goes along. In some ways he is like the god he would love if there were room for him to love a god besides himself, Allah.
Charles Martel: the one that affirms Arabs’ duty to love their non-Arab neighbors?
Zacky, you left out the first part of the sentence that asked you to find the Qu’ranic quote that tells Arabs to love their neighbors.
Can you do that?
Obviously not.
“Muslims do not recognize the humanity of non-Muslims.” From Allah’s lips itself:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/027-disaster-relief.htm
Explain away, Zach.
Zach,
You’re off target, again.
We’re not going to debate Luther. We’re not here to debate Luther.
I made statements about Muslims. I also made note that the “ungodly wretches” that Luther used is not the same as the “ungodly wretches” embraced and ministered to by the Jesuits.
You’re conflating statements, also. A large number of Muslims hew to the doctrine of the non-humanity of Jews and Christians, much less atheists and pagans. This doctrine has not been revoked or repudiated by Islam at large. A number of Muslims (including many in the U.S. and many of my friends) do not hew to this doctrine; they do, however, admit that in places under Sharia a non-believer is “half a man”. As is a woman. And a woman non-believer is NOTHING.
When stating that Arab culture is a moral cesspool, I am sure that the creative imagery is intended. However, having lived for a year in Baghdad I can state, assuredly, that from a U.S. centric point of view that the culture is so different from ours it appears as such.
“Morals” are cultural. “Cesspool” is a pit of refuse, unpalatable and repugnant to those who view it.
From my point of view, calling Arab culture a moral cesspool is an understatement. The moral of the land is “I have, my family has, my tribe has.” “You” have no rights save what you take from me. My land is what I can take and hold with my family and that my tribe will support. If you can take it, it is no longer mine. If I can take it, it is no longer yours.
It isn’t nice, it isn’t moral, there is no “rule of law”. It is Heinlein’s “Golden Rule” – Him that has the guns, makes the rules.
I do agree that Charles misspoke of Arab Culture. It is an AMORAL cesspool.
Now I’m worked up. And I’m tired of you using German socialistic individuals to accuse the capitalistic exploiters of racism. FIND ME A REAL SON OF A ##### THAT WAS NOT A SOCIALIST TO CONFLATE WITH THE TEA PARTY!
Every example you press out there is one who espouses the opposite of the Tea Party ideal – self reliance, individual freedom, limited government, and free markets. You’ve given us, over the past week, Fascists (national socialists), religious reformers (strongly interested in returning the wealth of the Church and the German princes to the working class), and Islam (all things to God, who will then give them to the faithful).
I’m angry, and I need to stop now. You kids go put your heads together and make a coherent thought. You need at least two for a synapse to form.
SFC Dave
“I don’t care what you do in the bedroom. You, however, don’t get to do it in the street in front of my kids.”
SFC Dave: We’re not going to debate Luther. We’re not here to debate Luther.
We’re not debating Luther. He’s an example of someone justifies his hatred of an entire people.
SFC Dave, don’t let the twerp get to you. One of trolls’ favorite activities is inciting people. So far, we’ve enjoyed Zach as a chew toy and I don’t think we should elevate his status much higher by rewarding him with anger.
Let me try to follow:
Martin Luther said bad things about Jooos in 16th Century. Some Tea Party members are Lutherans. Therefore Tea Party is antisemitic and should apologize.
Muslims in Middle East say bad things about Jooos today. However, they are not typical and Mohammed was just being multicultural when he wrote those bad things about the Jooos in the Koran back in the 7th Century. But, since Martin Luther also said bad things about the Joos back in the 16th Century, that OK: the Tea Party should apologize to the Muslims.
Hmm-mmm.
Danny Lemieux: Martin Luther said bad things about Jooos in 16th Century. Some Tea Party members are Lutherans. Therefore Tea Party is antisemitic and should apologize.
Nope. But actually a good point. Lutherans are followers of the theology of Luther, who justified persecution of the Jews on religious grounds. Yet, most Lutherans are not anti-Semitic. We can point at Luther’s teaching on Jews all day long, but it doesn’t indict the entire body of Lutherans. However, Lutherans have the same obligation everyone does, which is to denounce prejudice when confronted with it.
Zach, you still owe me:
—That Qu’ranic quote
—A response to my challenge to debate you in real time
—Proof that I am a Tea Party member or represent its views
Charles M. I right behind you…I’m still waiting on Zach’s quote from the Christian Bible that advocates doing violence to others. Also, we asked that they contrast and compare the Bible and the Quran. After all, they are equivalent, aren’t they? I also asked that they explain how they planned to use the Old Testament against the Jews. No answer there, either.
Quran Surah 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Danny Lemieux: I’m still waiting on Zach{riel}’s quote from the Christian Bible that advocates doing violence to others.
Apparently, Luther found more than enough justification. He provides extensive Biblical references, which you are free to study.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
We responded to your last point, and thought it would forward the discussion, but you ignored it.
Zach, I didn’t ask about Martin Luther, I asked about what words in the Christian New Testament advocate violence against anyone.
You really don’t have an answer, do you?
Martin Luther wasn’t and never claimed to be prophet, only a man…a priest, a fallible man and a product of his times.
Mohammed, however, claimed to be a prophet, in that his written words are judged by Moslems to be infallible because they come directly from God. That is a huge distinction and it does not leave the Quran open to interpretation.
Yet, you insist on drawing a moral equivalence between the two. We suspect that this may be because you are incapable of making moral distinctions because you have no moral anchor. Thus the descent into fatuous moral equivalencies.
Go ahead: prove us wrong, though.
Quran Sura 2:191 “And kill them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”
>>If you can take it, it is no longer mine.>>
Well…
Except for the land inhabited by the Israelis. That’s mine even if you took it from me.
Danny Lemieux: I didn’t ask about Martin Luther, I asked about what words in the Christian New Testament advocate violence against anyone.
Martin Luther is a theological expert by any estimation. We don’t accept his conclusions, but it is clear that some Christians, including very prominent Christian thinkers have found justification for violence in the Bible. You can find the justifications in the Luther’s text. We can’t make you read them.
Danny you can ask the question a hundred different ways and it is obvious he cannot answer. When he cannot answer something, he resorts to red herrings like Martin Luther or imaginary Tea Party members. Very typical and very predictable.
His performance today, so lacking in courage and integrity, was abysmal even for him. I think Zach is pretty much done here. Nobody in the room—nobody!—respects his skills or knowledge, and he certainly has no respect whatsoever for ours.
We need a new binky.
Ah, a new binky! Yes we do.
They can’t find what they are looking for in the New Testament because they are afraid to seek it. They are so transparent. They are so lost.
I fear you are right, Charles M. They and we are just talking past one another across the veil that separates alternate universes at this point.
Still, it has been great entertainment.
suek, good point. I think that in the clamor about so-called Israeli atrocities the bien pensants forget that Israel won her lands far and square by defeating the Arabs in war. It’s funny how if Arabs conquer a land—Persia, North Africa, Spain—it belongs to them forever, but if a bunch of scruffy Jews beat you time and again, it’s unfair.
The Qu’ran states clearly that Allah preordains everything that happens in the universe, from second to second. Obviously Allah preordained the successive Arab defeats. Go figure.
I agree, Danny, it has been great entertainment. Now we should retire to a warm corner with beer and brandy to await the arrival of a true match for this room, not the troop of nescient clones we’ve been putting up with. (<–ended a sentence with two prepositions. . .a new room contest? )
Gringo: It appears to me that judging by actions nowadays, Muslims do a “better” job of hating those not of their faith than do members of other faiths.
#49 Zachriel: This blog seems to be doing a pretty good job of hating a group because of their ethnicity.
#50 Gringo What actions, Zach? I gave examples of Muslims burning down 50 churches in Ethiopia and the Egyptian military attacking a Coptic monastery, and referred you to the Religion of Peace website, which documents thousands of violent acts of Muslims against adherents of other religions since 2001. Such as against Buddhists in Thailand. What examples can you give of actions by members of this blog that show their hating?
No reply. I wonder why.
Gringo: What actions … No reply. I wonder why.
We repeatedly quoted bigoted statements about Arabs and Muslims.
We understand the distinction you are attempting to draw between rhetoric and other types of actions. Being a blog, words are all we have. Are you saying we should ignore bigoted speech? What about Luther’s words posted on the Wittenburg church door? Are they meaningless, too, even though they set off a revolution in Christiandom?
Danny Lemieux: They can’t find what they are looking for in the New Testament because they are afraid to seek it.
Centuries of Christian scholars have found Biblical justification for persecution of Jews, Muslims, and other Christians. We cited Luther as a representative and influential example. It doesn’t go away because you refuse to acknowledge it.
>>not the troop of nescient clones we’ve been putting up with. (<–ended a sentence with two prepositions. . .a new room contest? )>>
Well there’s always the “That is something up with which, I shall not put” (connection to Churchill, I think), but I can’t see any way of forcing it even further to work into _your_ sentence…!
Dave is producing pearls, but I’m picking them up before the swine gets to them. So by all means, keep on producing em.
You’ve made the common error of identifying all Muslims as Arabs.
An obvious proof of public education background. Z, you weren’t worth the education others here paid for.
suek, I remember reading a sci-fi novel years ago where the running gag was a character who kept trying to end his sentences with as many prepositions as possible. Toward the end of the book, he came up with a 5-preposition finish that induced a fatal heart attack in an English-loving fellow character. I laughed at that about as hard as I ever have at anything, it was done so plausibly and well. I swore I’d write down the sentence, but didn’t. Mr. Martel regrets the error.
We suspect that this may be because you are incapable of making moral distinctions because you have no moral anchor. Thus the descent into fatuous moral equivalencies.
Z is one of those who would instantly bend their knee to might and power and then come up with some spiritual or moral justification. Currently the Left and Islam are ascendant, so they have bought his allegiance. When they are no longer ascendant but considered like the Nazis, Z will suddenly be against the “Left” like “he was always”.
A man with a gun tells Z to hand over the cash. Z says this is the right thing to do. Because he bends knee to power.
In fact, Z is more contemptible than that. If a man with a gun tells the little girl over there to hand over her money and clothes, Z would say that the right thing to do would be her to comply.
Z doesn’t see other people’s problems as his. Only sources of self-lubricated moral justification.
Gringo: What actions … No reply. I wonder why
The point is that the best metric for “hatred” is in action. You could come up with none. I did with minimal effort.
Zachriel: Being a blog, words are all we have. Are you saying we should ignore bigoted speech?
Actions speak louder than words. Actions are the best metric for “hatred.” Example: while Nixon made bigoted statements about Jews, he also saved Israel’s hide in the Yom Kippur War. I find it rather comical that you are concerned about “bigoted speech” from others, given what you have written here and on other blogs about “teabaggers.” Contrary to what you claim, making such a reference is not a joke any more. The joke ended within a day or two in the spring of 2009 after Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow etal made clear the sexual innnuendo about the term.
After that, use of the term “teabagger” was clearly an insult, clearly a bigoted statement, as it states the following: “Adherents of the Tea Party lick male genitals.”
If someone said that about Muslims, you would clearly consider that an insult, clearly a bigoted statement.
Stop making bigoted statements before you get on your high horse claiming that others are making them.
Gringo, Z keeps making them because he feels safe on the internet. In a normal face to face encounter, people are naturally limited by physical force and verbal force. There is no verbal and no physical options here, only written words.
And that means people like Z can feel safe when escalating matters, because they know it will not go beyond what they are comfortable with.
In the real world, of course, it’s a bit different.
suek: Except for the land inhabited by the Israelis. That’s mine even if you took it from me.
Just curious. What are the borders of the Promised Land. And what about the people that live there now?
SFC Dave: Why, indeed, should the Tea Party repudiate these words – especially when the Democratic and Republican parties seldom, if ever, repudiate the intemperate words and actions of their members. Like, say, siccing the IRS on your political enemies (Clinton), or on racism (David Duke). Even though Duke “bowed out”, he still remained in the power workings for far too long.
Actually, along with many other ‘conservative’ Southern Democrats, Duke switched to the Republican Party. There was an infamous, and very unofficial campaign slogan from the period, “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important,” urging a vote for the Democratic crook Edwards over the Republican racist Duke.
People are free to switch to whatever party they deem fit. It’s called freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Or is Z implying that Republicans can stop people from leaving or joining, sorta like Arlen Spectre?
You cannot measure either the Democrat or Republican parties by single individuals but only on how such individuals fit within the respective parties’ frameworks. Anybody can run, after all, and sometimes a party label is only a flag of convenience (e.g., NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg and Cali’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. For example, I don’t consider Rev. Fred Phelps of the execrable Westboro Baptist Church to be representative of the Democrat Party, even though he is a self-declared Democrat.
Thus, David Duke was roundly condemned by the Republican party and quickly driven out. Curiously, I don’t recall any Democrat ever condemning the late Sen. Robert Byrd for his Klan ties and subsequent racist remarks, however. Neither have I ever heard the Democrat Party ever condemn the socialist and communist ties of some of their members, which I consider far more egregious than Klan membership, given the respective histories of those movements. Van Jones comes to mind.
Danny Lemieux: You cannot measure either the Democrat or Republican parties by single individuals but only on how such individuals fit within the respective parties’ frameworks.
That’s right. In this case, Republicans repudiated Duke, as did Democrats. (SFC Dave had used Duke as an example of Democratic and Republican Parties not repudiating the intemperate words of their members.)
Zach,
I was actually citing Duke as a Republican example of the worst sort. Both parties did, finally, repudiate his actions. The parties, however, repudiated him not because he was morally reprehensible, but rather because he was becoming a danger to their ability to gain votes. Duke’s flip from D to R was a progression less of Duke changing his stripes, but of the party in his region adjusting to the national picture. Duke was only cast out of the Republican party because he was embarrassing on a national level. Realpolitik drove the indignation, not morals.
I had actually forgotten that Duke’s first wins were under the Democratic flag – I only started tracking him when I returned from overseas (’96) and had to get smart on potential domestic terror issues – especially racially motivated extremists. I really didn’t care which card Duke was carrying; he was/is a dirtbag. It made me very, very angry that the local Republicans were willing to look past his record to try for a win. I don’t know what was worse in the situation – the fact that the GOP was willing to try and win an election with a candidate that divisive, or that the local Democratic party had nominated a candidate so awful that the GOP thought Duke could win.
SFC Dave
“There is only one problem with politics – politicians.”
Another point about David Duke is that like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, he made the pilgrimage to Damascus to show his abhorrence of Dastardly Dubya’s policy in Iraq. I have never known of a Democrat to acknowledge that fact.