"It's not the people, it's the religion" == nice...

See, the problem is that the only publicly-acceptable alternative to signs like this seems to be saying (as does a source in the article), "But Islam is really all about peace!".

I want an option "C": Okay, a lot of Muslims are down with the whole peace thing, but a not-insignificant subset are either actively practicing, supporting, or condoning violence in the name of Islam, and that's a big problem.

Oh, and the first person to say, "But what about abortion clinic bombers?" in response to this comment wins the Tokyo Tom Lack of Proportionality Award.

But remember, Islam is all about peace. And brainwashing little kids to fight the Jews. But mainly, peace.

Really, Apo, if that video showed Christians teaching little kids that abortion is murder, you'd be all over it. In fact, you were all over it. Why give stuff like this a free pass? Hamas brainwashes toddlers to pick up AK-47's and kill, but you'd rather snark at a Christian for a typo in criticizing the religion Hamas represents.

More Islamickey goodness here.

GB, next you can explain how blacks really do commit more crimes than whites. We'll wait.

Really, Apo, if that video showed

You know the real difference there? One of them is halfway around the world, in the middle of a long-running civil war, and the other is people who live right here beside me and my children. I hope you'll understand why one matters more to me than the other.

I don't get the meaning of #5.

Anyway, ABC News reports that the peace just keeps on coming:

Christians in the tribal Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan have received threatening letters from Taliban groups informing them that they must convert to Islam within 10 days or else.

You know the real difference there? One of them is halfway around the world, in the middle of a long-running civil war, and the other is people who live right here beside me and my children. I hope you'll understand why one matters more to me than the other.

But the people who live right there beside you and your children are not, in point of fact, trying to kill you and your children.

...and if Islamic extremists were only to be found halfway around the world, only fighting a civil war, I'd be less concerned with them, too.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Neither the halfway around the world part, nor the civil war part.

next you can explain how blacks really do commit more crimes than whites.

Had a big honky of a teacher (also the baseball coach) in HS do exactly that In class. Fantastic. He eventually got canned for looking the other way when kids on the team would drink after away games. Peach of a fellow.

We do have Muslims here in North Carolina, dude. A fairly sizable population, even. Terrorist attacks here amount to, um, none ever. Would you like for me to say that the Taliban are bad people? Because they are, but it's really beside the point.

We do have Muslims here in North Carolina, dude. A fairly sizable population, even. Terrorist attacks here amount to, um, none ever.

Huh. I never saw any in L.A. either. Somethings clearly amiss.

It's not all that surprising that people who live in and enjoy a place aren't so keen to attack it (even though that's not always the case).

But the miracle of modern transportation means that people who haven't settled down in a particular location can still travel there to blow it up. Granted, no one is likely to trek to NC to fight the Great Satan. Wouldn't really score the big PR boost. Maybe if you lived in New York, London, or Madrid, you'd be more concerned about Islamic terrorism?

Before someone keenly observes that the would-be jihadists in the link in #13 didn't "live in and enjoy" Fort Dix, bear in mind that "a place" can refer to a city, state, or country.

How about if we notice that "For all of the suspects’ talk of Holy War and martyrdom, investigators said there is little indication that they were devout – or even practicing – Muslims. There are no mosques in Cherry Hill and leaders at nearby Muslim houses of worship say they had never seen the suspects..."

As an exercise GB, look up the number of bombings and shootings in this country in the last 25 years by anti abortion Christians, and compare it to the number of attacks by Muslims.

By number of incidents, or by body count?

investigators said there is little indication that they were devout – or even practicing – Muslims.

Except for the part about having "no clear motivation other than their stated desire to kill United States soldiers in the name of Islam" and "declar[ing] themselves eager to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah".

“When it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying to attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad,” Eljvir Duka, 23, who also went by the nickname Elvis, is quoted as saying in the complaint. His elder brother, Dritan Duka, who is 28 and known as Tony, said at another point that “as far as people, we have enough.”

The men in question obviously believed they were acting in the name of Islam. Who are we to tell them they aren't Muslim enough?

Just as a reminder, I'm not condemning all Muslims or all of Islam. I'm pushing for the right to choose an "option C".

I can't believe I've been sucked into this dumbassed argument. GB, if it was a Muslim group putting up a sign that misspelled "Christians" in the process of denouncing them, I'd have put up the same post with almost the exact same wording. But don't let me get in the way of you getting your denunciation on.

The problem is, when Christians get stupid, you know it because they do it in English. You have no idea what's being said in mosques or on Islamic websites and television in Arabic languages. (Well, unless you watch videos like the one I posted, or read Memri.org, but whatever.)

For that matter, it's naive to assume that no terrorism in my backyard = no problem. When Islamic "charities" in America raise money, do you suppose any of that money finds its way into the pockets of Hamas and various other terror groups? Well, it does.

Dave Barry once wrote:

The value of advertising is that it tells you the exact opposite of what the advertiser actually thinks. For example:

If the advertisement says "This is not your father's Oldsmobile," the advertiser is desperately concerned that this Oldsmobile, like all other Oldsmobiles, appeals primarily to old farts like your father.

If Coke and Pepsi spend billions of dollars to convince you that there are significant differences between these two products, both companies realize that Pepsi and Coke are virtually identical.

If the advertisement strongly suggests that Nike shoes enable athletes to perform amazing feats, Nike wants you to disregard the fact that shoe brand is unrelated to athletic ability.

If Budweiser runs an elaborate advertising campaign stressing the critical importance of a beer's "born-on" date, Budweiser knows this factor has virtually nothing to do with how good a beer tastes.

It's hard to resist viewing the constant refrain that "Islam is a religion of peace" in this light.

Honestly, GB, I couldn't care less about Hamas and Hezbollah or their sources of funding. For that matter, I'm not much concerned about the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, or whatever Maoist group is fighting in Nepal. I understand that it's standard Republican procedure to loudly and indignantly proclaim, whenever anything is pointed out, that there's somebody else in the world that's worse. And while it may indeed be true, I fail to see what difference it makes or why y'all are so attached to that rhetorical technique.

Honestly, GB, I couldn't care less about Hamas and Hezbollah or their sources of funding.

Okay, well, that's an honest difference between us, then. Fair enough. But I do share your lack of concern about the IRA (which swore off terrorism ages ago), Tamil Tigers, etc. Mainly because they aren't part of of a larger movement dedicated to attacking and subjugating Western nations.

And — hey! Cool mural! (Be sure to scroll right to see the whole thing.)

The notion that there is an Islamic movement devoted to "subjugating" Western nations has left the real of political disagreement and entered the real of pure fantasy.

GB, some of us prefer Option D: "be it recognized that all major religions and ideologies have violent adherents and are involved in conflicts, and that should be talked about, but there's a difference between justified criticism, demonization and just flat-out stupid hysteria." It's easy to recognize someone falling for the latter two routines when, say, they straightfacedly cite MEMRI as a source. (But then, you also fell for the "faking Imams" story, so not surprise.)

That is a cool mural, though.

And 25 is absolutely right.

If Christianity's a religion of peace, and the U.S., as the rightwing claims, is a Christian nation, then why does the U.S. start wars of choice? Our military academies are full of evangelicals.

In terms of body count? The deaths still count if they're the result of air supremacy. In terms of talking of crusades? Pretty sure I heard that word from the President.

In terms of brainwashing of children? It's not uncommon for military families to dress the wee babies in camo-patterned onesies.

I'm sure you're capable of distinguishing between Christianity and Christianity pressed into the service of militarism. Is there are particular reason you can't see that with Islam?

It's easy to recognize someone falling for the latter two routines when, say, they straightfacedly cite MEMRI as a source.

What's your problem with Memri? They translate actual statements and broadcasts from Arabic sources. If you've got a problem with the content, don't blame them.

Comments like 26 and 28 exhibit the failure to make meaningful distinctions that is the hallmark of apologists for Islamic extremism. To blithely claim that hey, all religions get into wars, as if that settled the issue, or to contend that the presence of Christians in the US military somehow means that our foreign policy is a religious one, designed to spread Christianity by force, is just silly and wrong. And it ignores the consistent pattern of Islam-driven conflicts time and again, in place after place around the world.

It's not necessary to think that "All Muslims are evil" in order to recognize that Islam is pulling far more than its weight in the religious-conflict area, and to wonder whether the way in which Islam is taught and practiced by some of its adherents might be one of the reasons why.

After claiming that Hamas and Hezbollah are part of a movement that aims to subjugate Western nations, I'd be careful about tossing around accusations of not making meaningful distinctions.

Just sayin'.

Boy, that link criticizing Memri is a real laugher.

So lemme get this straight: All the content on Memri is either:

(1) bought and paid for by Israeli secret agents, who sneakily "plant" it in the Arab media (although how they manage to "plant" live discussion shows on Arab television is not explained), or

(2) "cherry-picked" from the Arab media to make Muslims look bad.

I would say (2) is the whole point of Memri, and it's a worthy one: to show the Western world the kind of commentary and content that the Arab world would rather it not hear about. If Memri is cherry-picking from the Arab media, well, that's one tree with an awful lot of cherries.

How about just admitting that there's plenty of hatred coming out of the Islamic middle east? Really, blaming everything on the Jews is kind of old hat.

#31: They may not ever succeed in doing it, but that the more aggressive proponents of Islam would like to see it spread across the world, and see the nations of the west become Islamic, is beyond doubt.

Of course, that clip of an imam speaking on Arabic television comes from Memri, so he's probably a Mossad undercover agent.

I should note that the imam in the second link in #33 is not himself proposing to conquer the White House for Islam, he's talking about how other imams say that kind of stuff, which he personally disagrees with.

We Jews are sneaky that way.

Yes, GB, cherry-picked intelligence is completely trustworthy, as the discovery of Saddam's massive cache of WMDs proved beyond a doubt. And any criticism of that practice is "blaming the Jews."

Why do you bother with the political stuff when you're so fucking inept at it?

...option "C": Okay, a lot of Muslims are down with the whole peace thing, but a not-insignificant subset are either actively practicing, supporting, or condoning violence in the name of Islam, and that's a big problem.

I actually agree with this statement. However, are you implying that the word about fundamentalist Islamic militarism hasn't gotten out yet? There's a large portion of the US who looks over their shoulders for Al Qaeda every time there's a loud noise.

Re: 35, DS, a piece of military intelligence (for example, a report of Saddam's cache of WMD's) may or may not prove to be true. However, someone saying something on TV is a true fact in and of itself: The person actually said what he said. Hence the two cases are not analogous.

Why do you bother with logical argument when you're so fucking inept at it?

See, the thing is you probably know that cherry-picking intel involved selectively using true events ("instances of Saddam's government being unsavory or nasty") to present a false picture ("Saddam's government had a WMD program and was in league with al-Qaeda"). Which means you probably know your appeal to "logical argument" is illogical and deceptive. I don't believe you're as dim as you pretend to be, which leaves the option that you're arguing in bad faith.

To blithely claim that hey, all religions get into wars, as if that settled the issue, or to contend that the presence of Christians in the US military somehow means that our foreign policy is a religious one, designed to spread Christianity by force, is just silly and wrong.

No, I'm saying that your argument that the wars in the mid-East are primarily about the desire to spread Islamic theocracies are about as well-founded as the claim that the U.S. is on a mission to spread the light of Christian democracy.

There are many reasons for violence over there. A particular brand of Islam is a contributing factor. But to say blithely that the problem is just radical Islam ignores, well, reality. Saddam was a secular power. The many different factions fighting each other in Iraq? Lots of different secular agendas.

A particular brand of Islam is a contributing factor.

Good enough for me. That's all I'm saying, really. That Islam, as practiced by some, is a contributing factor to violence and conflict.

Saddam was a secular power.

The existence of a secular power does not invalidate the presence of many Islamic powers.

The many different factions fighting each other in Iraq? Lots of different secular agendas.

Funny, then, how the major split is Shiites vs. Sunnis.

The major split in Ireland was Catholics and Protestants; in Croatia and Serbia, it was Catholics and Orthodox. But in neither case was it really about theological differences. Same with Iraq.

Fine. But majore conflicts along sectarian lines with secular underpinnings like those still don't explain the pathological need of Muslims in various places throughout the Middle East and Asia to stamp out tiny outposts of other religions that could not concievably be a threat to the Muslim community's access to natural resources, political power, etc. Almost by definition, in an Islamic state, you're not going to see a whole lot of religious diversity. Yet historically Christian states in Europe are now riddled with communities of recent Muslim immigrants, and the large non-Jewish population of Israel continues to grow larger. Only Islamic nations are aggressively hostile to those of other religions.

On the surface, this phenomenon might seem to have something to do with Islam, but I'm guessing it's really all the fault of the Jews. I don't immediately see how, but give me time; I'll figure it out.

Ack. "majore" s/b "major".

All right, time for more funny: Stephen Colbert's very first Korean music video.

GB, did I merit the Lack of Proportionality Award for (1) asking you to clarify whether your "what's wrong is wrong" position had a cultural component (circumcision/mp3s) or (2) the relative rarity of public dissebt by generals tends to attract attention to what they have to say when they DO dissent, and in surprisingly large numbers? In either case, my view is certainly one against absolutes, and for rational consideration.

Isn't your real point that I just don't see how clearly right you always are (because of my relexive bigotry)?

42: still don't explain the pathological need of Muslims in various places throughout the Middle East and Asia...

Various communities of various kinds have shown the "pathological need" to stamp each other out across both Asia and Africa. (Hindu militants are pretty high-profile and active.) What I don't understand is the pathological, absolute need some people have for Islam to be singled out as Worse Than Everyone Else.

Yet historically Christian states in Europe are now riddled with communities of recent Muslim immigrants

... brought over by Christians out of the pure goodness of their hearts, and not for economic reasons! And Europe is so tolerant now that this is in no way generating a vicious anti-immigrant movement complaining about impending "dhimmitude" and "Eurabia"! Thank God for that, that would have been really dreary.

and the large non-Jewish population of Israel continues to grow larger.

Which demonstrates superior tolerance, just like apartheid South Africa's large population of blacks did! Whereas, of course, the vicious and intolerant inherent nature of Islam is demonstrated by such recent historical events as the Holocaust.

(No wait, that last bit's not right. Where did that happen again?)

#45: You got it for comparing downloading MP3's to footbinding.

Aaaaand, the thread is Godwinned.

...as if it wasn't already with the repeated "you're blaming the Jews" refrain.

...but you were blaming the Jews! At any rate, Godwinning only happens when you invoke the Nazis, not the Jews. I can see how you would get those two mixed up.

Specifically, in #26, you linked to a denunciation of Memri that accused it of being a sham organization used by Israeli agents to plant hate-filled stories in the Arab media.

51: you linked to a denunciation of Memri

Yes, bad Ha'aretz! What a bunch of terrible anti-Semites, reporting the news like that.

Ha'aretz reported one initiative by Israeli agents, and the site you linked to turned it into a general denunciation of the accuracy of the thousands of articles posted on Memri. Not the same.

#48
You mean I got it for pointing out that foot-binding and mp3 downloading are NOT comparable - and suggesting they shouldn't both be placed in the "what's wrong is wrong" category. Presumably you agree but didn't want to touch the more difficult issue of circumcision.

For this tactic of dodging difficult points, I am establishing the GaijinBiker.Slippery Dick Sophistry Award.

There's no real point in arguing with GB. But:

At this moment, Iraq, a predominantly Muslim country, is occupied by the US military. Civilian deaths from the war are in the hundreds of thousands; refugees are in the millions.

Last summer, Israel invaded Lebanon, a predominantly Muslim country, killing thousands of civilians (more than in the whole history of Palestinian terrorism against Israel), displacing as many as a million, and causing billions of dollars in damage. Israel had also invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982, occupying parts of the county for 18 years after the latter.

The US has supported or fomented coups in many of the most populous Muslim nations, including Indonesia (against Sukarno in 1967), Iran (Mossadegh, 1953) and Pakistan (Bhutto, 1967). Where are the predominatly Christian countries whose governments have been forcibly overthrown by Muslims?

And of course just a hundred years ago, most of the world's Muslim countries were literally subjugated -- colonized -- by European countries, with varying degrees of brutality. (As is often pointed out, the first use of poison gas against civilians was carried out in Iraq, by the British.)

I don't doubt that Christianity and Islam, both as doctrines and as actual groups of people, contain comparable potential for violence against perceived others and enemies. But you have to go back several centuries to find a point where the ledger of violence doesn't overwhelmingly list Muslims as the victims of intercommunal violence, and Christians as the aggressors.

Under the circumstances, for a Westerner to fear subjugation by Islam is quite simply insane. For a Muslim to fear subjugation by us, not so much.

Slippery Dick

I don't have this problem because I'm circumcised.

Oh come on. It's not like the born again Fundamentalist Christains running this clusterflock have called it a holy war against Islam or anything.

Ha'aretz reported one initiative by Israeli agents, and the site you linked to turned it into a general denunciation of the accuracy

The site I linked said it raised serious questions about MEMRI's accuracy and veracity. Which is obviously true, and hardly a recitation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Give it a rest.

There's no point in arguing with lemuel pitkin, but as Cala pointed out in #39, "Saddam was a secular power", not an Islamic ruler.

Moreover, I am pretty sure Israel's attack on Lebanon had something to do with a Hezbollah attack on Israel in which Hezbollah killed and captured Israeli soldiers. (See Wikipedia). But by all means, don't let me stop you from enjoying your made-up version of history. Whatever makes you happy.

FWIW, I agree w/ GB that Islam is a problem - just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and nonreligious isms like communism and countless sects of the same have proven to be. Religions have historically been great uniters of societies, but that makes them great dividers as well. Like Europe up through WWII and the.Cold War.

So what's the best way to deal with powerful centripetal forces like religions? To aggressively attack them at their root, so that their adherents circle the wagons, cling more closely to them, and perceive others groups as enemies?

Yeah, let's go for that, and feel good about while we do.

#57
Um, aren't circumcised dicks MORE slippery? Has anyone done survey? How about a show of hands here?

Did I say circumcised? I meant circus-sized.

I don't doubt that Christianity and Islam, both as doctrines and as actual groups of people, contain comparable potential for violence against perceived others and enemies.

You know, lemuel, I actually agree with you on that one. The thing is, Christian/Western nations have pretty much gotten over the whole "kill the non-believers" thing. The coups you list so impressively, as well as the era of colonialism, however regrettable they may have been, were motivated primarily by geopolitical concerns, not by the desire to win souls for Jesus. Therefore, casting Western military actions as part of some crusade for Christ, as Cala tried to do in #28, is wrong.

Yet various factions within Islam today don't seem to have made that crucial step towards cutting people some slack on the whole religion thing. Religion really does seem to be the primary motivation, or one of the primary motivations, behind their violence. That's the key difference I see.

Consider: Muslims are able to settle down and live quite comfortably in the US, Britain, and other Western nations, even after both those nations were attacked by Islamic terrorists. Compare that phenomenon to the virtual impossibility of members of other religions living, thriving and worshipping openly in Muslim states. Now, tell me again who's got the religious intolerance problem.

FWIW, I agree w/ GB that Islam is a problem - just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and nonreligious isms like communism and countless sects of the same have proven to be.

See, there you go with the failure to make distinctions problem. Will you not admit that maybe militant Islam is a slightly bigger problem than, say, militant Shintoism?

Therefore, casting Western military actions as part of some crusade for Christ, as Cala tried to do in #28, is wrong.

What percentage of the American electorate would you bet voted for George Bush because he was a good Christian man who would protect the Holy Land from the towelheads? 20%? Now, I don't think America's exactly the Papal States here, but you have to admit that sans Christian radicalism, Bush probably doesn't win in 2004.

Do you think that's a greater percentage than, say, the number of Iraqis under Saddam who wanted a theocracy? Does Bush wrap his rhetoric in talk of crusades and apocalyptic imagery? Think so. If that's not the face of authentic Christianity, and I think we'd both agree it's not... why does bin Laden get to be the face of Islam instead of, say, Turkey? Or any of the 2 million Muslims living in the U.S.? Or any of the hundreds of millions on the planet not involved in violence?

Why is Islam *fundamentally* violent, rather than just contingently so?

I don't doubt that Christianity and Islam, both as doctrines and as actual groups of people, contain comparable potential for violence against perceived others and enemies.

You know, lemuel, I actually agree with you on that one. The thing is, Christian/Western nations have pretty much gotten over the whole "kill the non-believers" thing. The coups you list so impressively, as well as the era of colonialism, however regrettable they may have been, were motivated primarily by geopolitical concerns, not by the desire to win souls for Jesus.

And I actually agree with this. it would be silly to try to draw an exact parallel between Christianity and Islam. My point is just that in modern times the great majority of violence between "Islam" and "the West" has been perpetrated by the latter upon the former, something that hysterical fears of terrorism tends to obscure. (as does the odd choice of word "regrettable.")

Muslims are able to settle down and live quite comfortably in the US, Britain, and other Western nations, even after both those nations were attacked by Islamic terrorists. Compare that phenomenon to the virtual impossibility of members of other religions living, thriving and worshipping openly in Muslim states.

I also agree with this as a general rule, altho there are exceptions: it's certainly easier to be a Christian in Lebanon than a Muslim in Israel, for instance. But the key question is, what's the reason for this difference?

You think it's because "we" are inherently more tolerant than "they" are. I think it's because of a specific set of institutions and practice that have developed over centuries that allow ordinary people in Western countries to effectively defend themselves against the power of the state. But put Americans, Christians, Westerners in a context where they are no longer constrained by those institutions, where they have power over people without the means to resist them that citizens of 1st-world countries do, they'll behave every bit as brutally and intolerantly as Muslims or anyone else.

GB, of course our relationship with Islam is the more pressing issue. Sorry that you found my attempt to bring context to the problem irrelevant/confusing.

Your approach is definitely more emotionally satisfying than my bigoted and rational attempt to tease out the institutional frameworks for our ages-old murderous tribal suspicions and conflicts.

Okay, it's all the fault of Islam and those who manipulate it because of an inherent hatred of our freedoms and of other peoples of the Book. So where do we do from there? Militarily defeat all.Muslim nations, kill their leaders and convert them to a peace-loving materialism?

Seriously. What would you suggest we do, other than Bush/Cheney's productive use of a trillion dollars to make the rest of the world hate us while undermining limited government and civil rights at home?

#63
Apo, can you put your hose away, before somebody gets hurt?

More circumspection, less circumcision, I always say. But I AM curious about relative slipperiness, though I suspect we're all cut dicks here.

Well now, hmm.

apo, surely you can see that the fact that Palis and other Arabic speakers use devilishly difficult tongues is not something that should be blamed on the diligent but confised MEMRI interpreters, but rather on those Arab devils.

And how can we possible trust such people to correctly translate their own language?