Thursday, July 07, 2005

Anger

To begin with, we have the deepest of sympathies for the people of England. I have a friend who has lived in London most of his life and I'm hoping he's alright.

Understandably, many are very upset with the recent events, and this particulary rant by Jason Coleman prompted me to make a point about stereotyping.

This is really a point by point response to the rant, sorry if it sounds a bit bizarre in places.

Point 1, if you will:

"Angry with the cowardly, ignorant, evil fuckers who did this.

Angry at Bush for insisting on poking away at a hornets' nest.

Angry at Blair for going along with Bush's fucking crusade.

But mostly angry with the morally corrupt and utterly hypocritical pieces of shit that consider that indiscriminate bombing of civilians is an appropriate way of furthering their aims and their bastardised version of religion."

This is from one of those "moonbat" threads. They're angry with Bush but that doesn't mean they're the enemy. Heck, I'm angry with Bush, the liberals, & the terrorists, there ain't no white and black here.

Point 2:
Yes, there are some idiots on the left, but there are also idiots on the right (that's why you go to the Practcal Party!). To figure out what's best to do, one has to respectfully diagree with the idiots & alienate them, not lump them together with the rest of the party and put them down as terrorists (what Jason has just done).

Point 3:
Not only have you bounded a few cowardly liberals to the whole party, you've also bounded a few terrorists to the whole religion. Wake up, read some news about Iraq, there are alot more Iraqi, MUSLIM, people dying than any other affiliated group. These guys aren't out to inflict Islam on the world (This is not to say there aren't people out there trying to spread Islam, it's trying just as hard as any other religion to sell its message). Nay, they're out to better themselves through the only means they have. A bunch of oil dicatorships are trying to maintain their power & deflect criticism from their state (See On Iraq). Thus they amplify the idiots (every group has its idiots) of Islam to manipulate them to strengthen their governments. Sometimes intentionally, more often as a sideproduct, these hard-to control, yet well funded extremist organizations spawn terrorists and "jihads". Thus refrain from pinning the other 99.9% of Muslims to these dictatorships & their pools of money which are really the root cause of Islamic extremism.

We're all angry, let's just make sure we get angry at the right people. What we need is a double attack on the dictators. We need to use political pressure, on the extreme end regime change in Iraq. Here we're doing kind of well. We also need to deny them their money. This means consuming less oil and ultimately less natural gas. Here our performance is abysmal. On Iraq and my most recent post, the energy one, gives a pretty good picture of the practical way to hit both points.

UPDATE: Half Sigma makes the same mistake.

4 comments:

Jason Coleman said...

Whoa Brother, you're putting quite a few words in my mouth.

I said the Moonbats were out in force. Notice I didn't say the Democrats are out in force. I am specifically referring to that most far left of the nutjobs in our political spectrum. Those that are blaming the victims and blaming the United States for people strapping a bomb to themselves and boarding a double decker bus.

You accuse me of lumping these far fringe elements in with the rest, when I in no way shape or form did so. You're not being very practical, but rather reading something you WANT to read that simply isn't there.

I recognize quite clearly that there are right wing nutjobs and liberal loony moonbats, do I think that either of these groups represent the entirety of either party, NO. In fact I've joined with key democrat leaders many times over to appeal to their centrist members. Unfortunately, the moonbat fringe through Soros, MoveOn.org and finally Howard Dean have captured the party and led it to it's solely opposition stance.

Furthermore, what in the hell are you talking about "better themselves"? The Arab world was at one time the most advanced and enjoyed the highest quality of life possible, now most of the Arab world is plunged into a neo-bronze age culture with modern weaponry. Do you honestly believe that the terrorists involved in this bombing did so in an effort to "better themselves"??? Perhaps you feel that a culture with NO rights for Women, no freedom from religious law and where stonings are public entertainment is a culture out to "better itself". To any logical human, bettering themselves does not involve a bomb-vest.

Also, you mention that the Muslim world does not wish to export Islam at the point of a sword to all peoples of the world. You're sorely mistaken my friend. The Islamic Revolution is frequently touched upon by terrorist leaders, the government of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Zahwahiri, etc etc. Islam is a universalizing religion, it's goal is the subjugation of all mankind to the will of Allah. There is no place in Islam for acceptance of anyone who does not follow Islam. Read your Koran again, friend. It's convert them or kill them, there is no "peaceful coexistence" option (there is a "slavery" option, though, for infidels and believers alike).

You accuse me of branding the whole religion, and I do, most certainly. I'll continue to do so until we see some outrage in the Muslim community for the murder of Muslims and Non-Muslims in the name of a mislaid Jihad.

I know many "good moderate Muslims". Most are seriously in a conflict over their faith. These people live in places like Birmingham, AL, Australia, Iraq, Jordan, Russia and The Netherlands. Each that has tasted freedom has come to the conclusion that the Wahabbist and extreme Shiite and Sunni sects are mistaken in their world view, but they are the EXTREME minority, and watching their religion being hijacked by these extremists.

Yeah, So for all your "practicality" I see you standing at the top of that slippery slope that leads to calling terrorism a "police action", you are almost there. I also see you close to falling into the compassion and respect trap they've so eloquently laid. Your practicality in this case is seriously flawed. These people, the terrrorists, want us dead. The far left moonbats believe that the Muslims love them because they oppose the war (they do seriously believe this), and they believe that compassion and understanding will make the terrorists come to their senses and allow us to be good protestants or catholics, or maybe they will even accept the evil JOOOOOS!!! Who the moonbats will tell you planned 9-11 and knew about this London bombing beforehand.

Finally, I'll reiterate. You accuse me of attacking "the party", and that's BS. I used the word democrat ONCE, when I referred to President CLINTON's and Congress' call to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998. So know this, If I say Moonbat, I mean Moonbat. If I say Right Wing Nutjob I mean, Right Wing Nutjob.

All things have their extremes, in many cases, the Far Left has hijacked the Democrats, but if I wanted to go after the Democrats I would. I chose only to go after the far left that has long ago left the party of Jackson behind, in favor of an opposition model built on anti-semitism and hatred for anything centrist in America.

--Jason

Jason Coleman said...

And whoa again. No where did I lump "muslims" in with "muslim extremists" or "terrorists". Again you're reading something in that isn't there. More appropriately, when I write Muslim Extremeist, you only see Muslim.

In each instance save one I followed the word "Muslim" with "extremist" I was EXCLUDING MOST MUSLIMS, not including.

Not very "practical" to strip away my qualifying terminology and then accuse me of painting with a broad brush now, is it?

So I'll give you the point that "Iraqis" and some other Muslims are trying to make life better for themselves. Your implication that I don't believe this by twisting my words is disconcerting, you're accusing me of being too general, yet what you do is strip away my specifics so you can make your accusation. Not very "practical".

--Jason

William said...

I am sincerely sorry if you took any of this as a personal offense. I'm not here to go pundit hunting but rather to figure out how best to run this country. I'm glad you're willing to actively discuss this, but a more reasoned tone would be preffered. If I misinterpreted something, just say so, I don't want to get hung up (or offend) on issues that can be resolved with a phrase or two.

Now back to the issue. The issue at hand (as I see it) is stereotyping groups & the root cause of terrorism.

I am very pleased that you agree that it is unwise to let the extremists define an entire group, I'm sorry if that was your position from the beginning. I agree that the democratic party is in shambles right now as well, which is bad for all of us as the conservatives thus have a lower bar to aspire to.

You seem to have taken the better themselves out of context. The ones who get bettered are not the terrorists, extremists, or Arabs. Nay, those that are bettered are the priests for whom this is a livelihood, and more importantly the dictatorships that use them to distract their populaces from real issues, like the fact that they live in an economically stagnated dictatorship. Just like Nazism was a product of the times and an intense propaganda machine, so to is Islamic extremism. Yes, at one time the Muslims (like the Christians) did go on a crusade to conquer the infidels, but they aren't at it anymore. The current Jihadists are pawns being pushed forward to accomplish purely political goals by regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other malcontent oil-fattened dictators. I would liken this to a much much much (to the tenth) more extreme version of Bill Frist's use of God to justify his positions.

Now, you say that you aren't lumping all Muslims together (good), but then you go and say, and I quote:

"you mention that the Muslim world does not wish to export Islam at the point of a sword to all peoples of the world. You're sorely mistaken my friend."
I suspect that by "Muslim World" you mean those various dictators and dictator-supported groups, in which case we're in agreement in all except their goal. I say that they're merely maintaining their regimes (Saudi princes live the good life), you think they're all driven by an Islamic doctrine of expansionism. Viewing history, I'll stick with my take. Here's the antecdote: Europe. All the dictators (at the time called monarchs) maintained that their regimes were sanctioned by God, put a ton of money into Christianity to maintain the status quo, and even conquered most of the world in the name of brining God's word to the infidels. As we all know now (and as many knew then), it was nothing of the sort. They were out to maintain their regimes and expand their countries, using religion as an excuse for lapses in logic ("Why do you have everything and I have nothing?" "Because God said so"). With much time and pain, Europe outgrew this. I say that we can still skip the majority of that stage and bring Islam into the modern world, and that it is in our strategic interest to do so.

Alright, you seem to have another reconcilable disagreement here:

"You accuse me of branding the whole religion, and I do, most certainly. I'll continue to do so until we see some outrage in the Muslim community for the murder of Muslims and Non-Muslims in the name of a mislaid Jihad."

Brand no more. A Google search for "moderate Muslims" immediately turned up this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131580,00.html

Ok, next point. You seem to go on another rant against "moonbats" but seem to still be equating the words "Muslims" and "terrorists", perhaps a mistake, perhaps you will correct it or defend it depending on your response to my arguments. I say terrorist= scum of the earth. Muslim= another human. Go hug a Muslim, I won't condemn you because he/she's a Muslim. Hug a terrorist & I will condemn you.

Next point, yes I think I've addressed the whole opposition party in shambles issue.

Okay, since your most recent comment trumps the other, I hope you're renouncing the "branding the whole religion" thing.

When I said "bettering themselves" I was not referring to the heroic efforts of the Iraqis and other Muslims, but that's been explained as well.

Now the whole attack on practical. We have a practical method (See Treatise) of finding the best policies, and we subsequently produce practical policies. This doesn't mean every word uttered is practical. It means the end product is. I notice you did not attack that end product, so stop calling things impractical, please.

Thankyou for contributing. I think you can be a very reasonable person when you're not angry like this.

Jason Coleman said...

Ya, know, I wrote and wrote, addressing each and every point you brought up, but in the end, I realized some things.

You obviously don't understand Islam from a scripture sense. I think you may benefit from reading the Koran. Islam cannot tolerate infidels. Islam allows believers and slaves, non-believers must be converted or slaughtered in the name of Allah. You seem to miss this in your defense of Islam.

I'll defend Islam too, but only when they respect my right to worship who I choose, how I choose, where and when I choose. The Islamic Revolution has but one goal, a worldwide universal presence for Islam. I cannot cotton to this and until their leadership reconciles Islam with other religions in the world and denounces the killing of non-believers in holy jihad, I have to remain a staunch opponent of Islam.

Islam and Muslims are TWO different things. Just like "the Muslim World" is different from the "Christian World". Muslims, the people, may or may not be good human beings. Islam is a bad religion. The "Muslim World" is the set of circumstances, defined by Islam, under which Muslims live.

The Muslim world want's to destroy the Non-Muslim world, whether it's in Russia, NYC, London or Darfur, Islamic extremists are taking their holy book and trying to shove it down everyone's throats. It's high time you realize this, because you're coming awfully close to blaming the victims yourself with your comments.

Comparing European Monarchies to 50 year old Islamic states, is quite the reach. Perhaps you want to rethink that analogy. Because it's apples and oranges. Likewise is Nazism and Islamofascism a difficult comparison to make, even if it does boost your google score and sound good when people make the comparison, it's incorrect. If you want to compare something in history to Islamofascism, you need to look at Imperial Japan.

You claim that Islamic nations in question have been merely trying to maintain their regimes. Maintaining your regime does not involve repeatedly picking a fight with the U.S. or other Western nations, it does not entail highjacking ships, blowing up airplanes, suicide bombings of buses or genocide and slavery run amok. These are NOT ways one "maintains a regime", however they are ways that you export Islam via the point of a sword.

I don't blame the Muslim, I blame the Imams, who created this religion to oppress people, declare women as chattle, ignore property rights and human dignity. Yes, I blame Islam, I do not blame the Muslim. I most certainly blame the Muslim extremist who wants to make Islam the world's religion.

You made mention of the AIC via the Fox News link. You may as well have used your cousin Vinnie as an example of Muslim leaders coming out against terrorism.

The AIC was formed as public relations group to portray Islam to the American public as a postive force. It's a sham of an organization as far as it's connection to mainstream Islam is concerned. It can barely (even if it stretches the truth) say that it represents even one half of one percent of worldwide Muslim population. Lets see a cleric in a Muslim nation begin to speak out, lets see calls (outside of Iraq) for an end to Jihad and an embrace of trade to bring the region forward. Oh wait, I'll bet you didn't know this, but Capitalism is also an anethema to Islam. Ooops.

I applaud you for your Treatise, but I'm afraid that I won't let your impractical suggestions and comments slide. You're advocating that we approach the problem with understanding and compassion for the Muslim. I'm sorry, but that's APPEASMENT, and Appeasement has never worked and will never work.

Islamic Extremism needs to be shown the door at the point of an M-16 or Enfield, or more hopefully an AK. This is an enemy that will dig in and be certain in their devine purpose. It took not one but two atom bombs to get the Japanese to crawl up out of their holes and join the sane world. We're dealing with the same mentalities here. They don't look at us as human, they don't care about the level of atrocity or loss of innocent life because of their view of us.

It's going to get alot uglier and rightly so, and I'm sorry but your touchy feely compassionate approach isn't going to work. We've been pussy-footing around the region for too long and now it's just a matter of time before they get ahold of something biological or nuclear that renders this whole conversation moot.

As for your "practical policies" I commend you for the effort. But as long as I have my statements twisted, misrepresented and any qualifiers stripped only to be followed by an attack on my generality, I reserve the right to call your contribution impractical.
It's tit for tat.

--Jason