Muslim Rape Capital of Europe Introduces Feminism Rating for Movies

sweden rape

Considering that Sweden’s rape problem which led to Stockholm being proclaimed the rape capital of Europe come from the Koran, not Transformers, I don’t think that a feminism rating for movies is going to solve anything.

Neither did making toys gender free, except to make the generation of Swedish men even less masculine, but the left needs its weapons of identity politics distractions to divert everyone’s attention from the barbarians at the gate.

“The goal is to see more female stories and perspectives on cinema screens,” said Ellen Tejle, the director of Bio Rio – one of the four cinemas to adopt the ratings system.

To receive an “A” rating, the film must have at least two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.

“If they want different kind of movies they should produce some themselves and not just point fingers at other people,” said Tanja Bergkvist, a physicist who writes a blog about Sweden’s “gender madness.”

Hynek Pallas, a Swedish film critic, also criticised the state-funded Swedish Film Institute – the biggest financier of Swedish film – for vocally supporting the project, saying a state institution should not “send out signals about what one should or shouldn’t include in a movie.”

Meanwhile here’s the real problem for Swedish women and it doesn’t involve who women in movies talk to and about what.

Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

And Sweden has predictably responded to these rapes with some harsh criminal penalties.

The six teenage boys put on trial for the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl represent a rainbow of Muslim diversity. There are Turks, Arabs and Africans.

Five of the teens were found guilty of aggravated rape by the Solna District Court on Friday, with the sixth guilty of attempted aggravated rape.

Five of the boys have been sentenced to over 100 hours of community service each.

But surely if they had killed her instead of gang raped her, the penalty would be more severe…

 Majed, a 17-year-old Iraqi immigrant, stabbed his sister Maria to death inflicting 107 wounds with two knives and a pair of scissors.

His sister had returned to Landskrona after she broke up from a forced marriage in Iraq. The Court also established that the brother on more than one occasions before the murder intimidated his sister and called her demeaning epithets like whore and slut.

“I thought the sentence was very strong, it was a very tough punishment. I do not share at all the district court’s perception of the seriousness of the offense,” says the 17-year-old’s  defense attorney, Mr. Jansson.

And the defense attorney got his wish. The 8 year sentence has been reduced to 4.

So yes. Let’s talk more Bechdel Test while promoting Muslim immigration.

An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape.” Apparently, he’s not the only one thinking this way.

“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid.

Can we get a feminist rating for that?

  • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

    Stop maligning Muslims!

    Lest you possibly cause “offence.”

    • Gee

      The only people that malign Muslims are Muslims via their actions and statements

  • Sara

    Thank you for this article. So Sweden opens its doors to the bottom-of-the-barrel misogynist cult and, thereby, destroys the lives of Swedish women. All the while, the so-called leaders and the compliant citizenry ignore the cause and sow the seeds of their own destruction. Stand up! Speak out! If you can’t kick them back to the 7th Century, at least deport them back from whence they came.

    • Boots

      The problem is even liberal Swedish women refuse to take a stand against the atrocities inflicted on them. Liberalism promoting cultural relativism is the problem. This is where the US is headed if liberals ever get their way on things like hate speech. Can’t tell the truth because it hurts their feelings.

  • al_kidya

    Islam, and all of its books, must be banned worldwide. There comes a time when the burning of books and the banning of cults is necessary to preserve the sanity of a world going evilly insane…sorry, but that is my politically correct statement.
    It’s either that or the passages must be totally transformed, and we know that isn’t going to happen.

    • Softly Bob

      No, don’t ban the books- make everybody read them. In fact, make everyone aware of what is really in them. Teach Islam, not as a religion but as a historical piece (the true history, NOT the revisionist version). Make successive generations realize just how vile, barbaric and evil Islam really is. Give Islam no quarter, no foothold and no escape. Expose Islam with the truth.

      • defcon 4

        That’s a nice idea, in theory, but the “educational” system in the US, the enemedia and our own politicians and law enforcement entities have been whitewashing and propagandizing islam so long it’s SOP.

      • MarilynA

        It will never get past the Muslim censors who are allowed to edit all mention of Islam in our text books to portray Islam as a Religion of Peace, instead of a cult of child molesting, woman hating, throat slitting , beheading, honor killing barbarians. It stands to reason it began in Africa where people really are the descendants of apes.

        • nas

          Do I detect a lil bit of racism in your last sentence?
          Peace

          • ziggy zoggy

            Racism? Only if the belief that humanity evolved from apes is racist.

          • nas

            “…Africa where people REALLY are the descendants of apes”.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Mankind originated in Africa, unless all population genetics research is wrong.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Stop being purposely obtuse, you dundridge. Marilyn was as clear as her/his cowardice would permit.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Unless she clarifies her comment we will never know – not that I care.

            She’s wrong about Islam coming out of Africa, though. Islamopithecines are native to the Arabian peninsula.

          • Omar Sharbash

            She’s a self-confessed racist. When are you coming out?

          • snow white

            Hey Omar, Muslims can say anything they want to about any and all non Muslims and it is common to hear them say “Jews are descendants of apes and pigs.” Why isn’t that racism?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Who said it isn’t, especially if decontextualised.

            But it’s discriminatory before it’s racist because being a Jew is to subscribe to a religion according to Islam.

          • Drakken

            Islam promotes jihad against us infidels, but just wait until us infidels give you a little taste of the Crusades to come.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Psychopath’s on the march. Piss off.

          • Rocky Mountain

            “decontextualized” Whooo ee! The Urban Dictionary won’t even help me with that one. Did you matriculate at Incomprehensible State U in the Department of Anti-American Studies? I hear their football program sucks but the girls synchronized swimming team might make the playoff this year!

          • Omar Sharbash

            Relatively obvious what it means. Can’t help you with this one.

            Any points to make or are you just a professional WUM.

          • Rocky Mountain

            There again you don’t even understand. I made the point – apparently completely opaque to you – that your use of academic jargon is an attempt to (1) try and demonstrate that you are well educated and therefore by your own standards intelligent; and (2) that you don’t even really understand it yourself because its one of those post-modernist Foucaultian things that have no meaning. Just like the apparent shaming acronym WUM which I have never heard of because you made it up.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Nothing not to understand; you don’t make any points in the first place.

            How do you know what my motives are? I accept the charge of bad writing, if that’s what you’re levelling at me, but why not contend with WHAT I’m (trying) to say instead of getting hung up on one word?

            Just so you know, what I meant by it is that, to derive general rules with regards treatment of non-Muslims from the ‘Jews are descendents…’ verse, or any other, whilst not understanding context will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. In this case, snow white understood reference to Jews as a racial one when it isn’t meant to be.

            I’ve never read Foucault and WUM is a well-known acronym.

          • Rocky Mountain

            I don’t level the charge of bad writing. However, whatever it is you’re talking about is more or less incomprehensible so I guess I should apologize for being thick, but I won’t. As far as “WUM” goes, I’m not British so “Bob’s your uncle” etc. etc.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Fair enough. Still think it makes sense, especially if you read the following paragraphs.

            Oh, and the WUM thing was just so you know I didn’t make it up.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Decontextualized?”

            Idiot.

          • Omar Sharbash

            http://mclean.harvard.edu/

            You’re welcome.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Just another phony neologism that only scumbags use.

            Fuck you very much.

          • Omar Sharbash
          • ziggy zoggy

            So you want me to fuck you.

            islam means submission, and Christians like me rule the world, so that makes sense. Bit€h.

          • Brett

            Surely you must be aware of what a moron you appear to be?

          • Rocky Mountain

            It gets to be weird when the only way I can see how you are insulting somebody is going to the ‘urban dictionary’ via Google. However, according to that source you’ve got it wrong as ‘dundridge’ refers to a bureaucrat that uses petty and or contradictory rulings to enforce and maintain his/her power. But I guess ‘sources’ don’t really count when you are utterly confined to your own personal universe.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Used the word in allusion to his pedantic reading of MarylinA’s quite obvious racism which she later confirmed.

            Read the world in an article by Dawkins and had to guess it’s meaning because, where I am, Urban Dictionary is blocked.

            But fair’s fair, replace dundridge with any pejorative you like.

          • Rocky Mountain

            I avoid Dawkins at all costs unless you mean Brian Dawkins of ESPN and the Philadelphia Eagles fame.

          • benabo1machal

            Apes don’t behave that humans do.
            When was the last time that you heard of an Ape dropping on Atomic bomb on two ciities

          • Drakken

            The muslims should keep that in mind when they wage jihad on us infidels.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Pakistan has a bomb. Iran would already have one if not for epochal international collusion to stultify it.

            Which races get your back up the most?

          • Drakken

            Keep that in mind Omar, for when Iran pushes for that nuke, their cities will burn. Which races? Islam isn’t a race, I despise islam and muslims period.

          • Omar Sharbash

            If you’re not racist, why not take a second out of your schedule to write against benabo1machal’s comment instead of going after Muslims only?

            No, their cities won’t burn, you melodramatic fool. At least, not in the way you imagine.

          • Drakken

            I am a Western Culturalist, but you go ahead and keep throwing out that race card like so much confetti.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Asked you a question.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Are you a gay stalker? You have all the characteristics. If you’re in love, just send an ecard, fruit loop.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved tens of millions of lives.

            Monkey.

        • Omar Sharbash

          Why not have some courage and reveal yourself for what you are, a racist.

          • MarilynA

            Calling me a racist doesn’t intimidate me. I have been called worse than that. I am a proud racist homophobe. My mother told me that she figured out where black people came from when she was just a little girl. After Cain killed Abel, he was cast out of the Garden of Eden and went down into the land of Nod. Since there were no people there he mated with apes. According to the Bible, black people are the descendants of Cain. Do you have a better explanation?

          • Omar Sharbash

          • Omar Sharbash

            May I ask why you’re a racist?

            We are ALL products of evolution.

          • Drakken

            Oh look! Haji be calling the infidel a racist, sorry haji but that dog don’t hunt no more, GTFO of the west while you still can, soon, you will be given the choice of coffin or suitcase. Deo Volente!

          • Omar Sharbash

            Sure.

          • Guest

            Why not have some courage and reveal yourself for what you are?

          • Omar Sharbash

            What do you want to know?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Why don’t you, hypocrite? There is no such thing as a racially tolerant islamopithecine.

          • Omar Sharbash

            You’re really stupid. You think Newton proved God’s existence. LOL.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You’re really stupid. You think you can trick Westerners into believing islamopithecines are human.

          • Hill

            Racist?

            What racism? Where?

            Islam is not a race. It is a religious and cultural lifestyle choice.

            Why not have some courage and work on expanding your intellectual capacity, you ignorant troglodyte.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Nice of you to join us.

            She admitted in reply to my comment that she’s racist. I’ve quoted it [her reply] below.

            ‘Calling me a racist doesn’t intimidate me. I have been called worse than that. I am a proud racist homophobe. My mother told me that she figured out where black people came from when she was just a little girl. After Cain killed Abel, he was cast out of the Garden of Eden and went down into the land of Nod. Since there were no people there he mated with apes. According to the Bible, black people are the descendants of Cain. Do you have a better explanation?’

  • Veracious_one

    Five of the boys have been sentenced to over 100 hours of community service each.
    If this had occurred in a Muslim country the rapists would have been honored…

    • Softly Bob

      100 hours community service instead of hard jail time is one step closer to honoring them!

      • Veracious_one

        absolutely!!!!

      • Kyle Karlin

        This is what happened in Montana and in Iowa men who raped women and in one of these cases it was a 14 year old to 30 days jail and in the other case house arrest. extremist Christianity has been the same in many ways as radical Islam. There is a problem with rape in this country without Islam and in many cases the women who have come out whether in the military or not have been to blame the victim. Look up the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church and their scandal with sexual abuse in their churches on 20/20. This is only one case of rape or sexual assault in Christian Fundamentalism that is public. This is a widespread part of our culture to put the blame on the victim.

        • Rocky Mountain

          While I’m sure there are many people who claim to be Christians who have raped or otherwise sexually molested girls, women, and boys the difference is that the Church doctrine and senior leaders do not officially sanction it unlike Islam. And while we’re on the topic, let’s get a count of atheist rapists.

        • ziggy zoggy

          There is no Baptist rape wave and Christianity does not promote rape at all.

          Attempt to equate Christianity to the rape culture of islam: DENIED.

          • Omar Sharbash

            If that’s the case, as Sam Harris says, Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice.

            You fit right in.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Leave it to an islamithecine to make a senseless and pretentious comment. It’s funny when you simians try to seem intelligent.

            You should buy a ticket to Sweden. Apparently, you animals are allowed to rape blue eyed blondes over there and still collect welfare in your free house.

          • Drakken

            Keep up the great work muzzy, your just making your time here in the West tick away.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Said the white Christian in North America. Rapists.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Over 90% of rapists in America are Black. Of course, every rapist here is a criminal. Where you live, rape may be legal. If your crappy country is islamic, it’s definitely legal.

            Do you enjoy rape for the sake of lust the way an animal does, or do you also get off on hurting women?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Keeping true to yourself, always missing the point. LOL

          • ziggy zoggy

            Another non reply from taqiya boy. Do you rape boys too?

        • Drakken

          Your living proof that you just can’t fix stupid, not even with duct tape.

    • defcon 4

      Yep, like the Love Jihad practiced by muslimes in Pakistain, Nigeria and Bangladesh

    • Drakken

      Lucky for the sub human muslim savages that they didn’t rape one of mine, for nothing in this world would stop me from hanging these sub human filth from a lamppost with a pigs foot shoved in their mouths.

  • Veracious_one

    Allowing pious Muslims to make the rules in your country is never a good idea…

    • defcon 4

      Q: What’s the difference between a “pious” muslime and a shirker?
      Q: the quality of their lies.

  • benabo1machal

    Nothing quite compares to the American Imam, who declared that if he isn’t allowed to molest females that if would be a violation of his religious rights

  • cacslewisfan

    These people are hell bent on committing suicide and there is no way to convince them to fight for their lives. God help them, they are beyond help from mankind.

  • defcon 4

    Raping najjis kaffir women isn’t a moral issue in islam. After all muhamMAD did it and like the Australian imam said western women dress like uncovered meat, so they deserve what they get.

  • nas

    I find the title a little islamophobic but I guess it’s for boosting the reading rates.
    Rape is condemned by islam, period.
    Some (dangerous) imams all over the world say crazy things, that’s a fact.
    100 hours of community service is an invitation to young brainless people to do the same.
    I would suggest let them spend 100 hours in a maximum security penitentiary so they could “feel” what is like to be raped. And that’s my nice muslim part speaking.
    Peace.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Rape is condemned by islam, period.”

      Rape is defined differently by Islam. Period. Western rape is no problem for the rapist according to Islam and Western definitions of rape.

      Islamophobia = Critical discussion of Islam.

      • Omar Sharbash

        And the definition of rape in Islam is what?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Porking a camel without thanking allah when you’re done.

          • Omar Sharbash

            $hit for brains.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So you camel Humpers don’t even give thanks to your fictional moon god? Do you at least kiss the camel when you’re done?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Rape in Islam is similar to our definitions but placing blame on the individual that incited the lust. That inverts most Western notions of accountability and is not how our laws are written. We don’t allow people to excuse their behavior by pointing to the object of their lust.

          Although people try that here too. It’s just against the law to do so. It’s not that Muslims are fundamentally different, but sharia gives them justifications for doing (or getting away with) things that are clearly unlawful in the West.

          Any culture or ideology that allows the actor to blame the object of lust is going to create incentives for giving in to base impulses such that lead to rape.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Your expansion doesn’t quite align (in tone) with the curt proclamation I first responded to.

            Value judgments made assigning more/less responsibility to women for their own rape, I sense, is neither here nor there; the end-point is that Islam sanctions capital punishment for rapists – arguably as significant a deterrent as there can be – and rapists are defined as those who force unwelcome sexual penetration.

            I would be suspicious of reports describing punishments meted out to raped women, only because I have see many articles pertaining to such that are ahistorical: the burden of proof is heavy and, very often, too difficult to satisfy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >’Western rape is no problem for the rapist according to Islam…’

            “and ask, how?”

            Because it’s so easy to for the man to escape punishment by blaming the woman. In theory it’s against sharia, but if you can transform rape in to something else, the effect is the same as I’ve described. It’s not a problem for the man unless he gets caught in some political situation or he has a conscience that induces him to confess.

            “As an aside, I would be suspicious of reports describing punishments meted out to rape victims, only because I have seen many articles pertaining to such that are ahistorical; the burden of proof is heavy and, very often, too difficult to satisfy.”

            What terrifies a Westerner like me for the sake of the victims is that when the victims report honestly what happened it’s easy to punish them for adultery or whatever if the man denies the story. I don’t know how often it happens either, but individual justice doesn’t seem easy or even possible to ensure for women under sharia, not according to Western expectations.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Hmmm. If I’m being honest, I don’t know enough about the Islamic legal system and its enactments should a man simply deny accusations. However, I know I agree with favourable judgement being extended to purported victims, so would find it troubling if it’s as simple as you say it is in Islam to ‘escape punishment’.

          • Omar Sharbash

            ‘Because it’s so easy to for the man to escape punishment by blaming the woman.’

            Sorry to bring this up again, but wanted to highlight the fact that these rape stories are reported from the West, countries not governed by Shariah. That considered, it becomes harder to support the claim ‘(Western) rape is no problem’ because they feel they can get away with it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your comments are not wrong, but not fully recognizing the underlying arguments, which are I admit more complex than we have articulated here. Let me think about the best way to summarize…

            Let me start by saying that unless one gets excited about the actions of Mohamed, I don’t think Islam is itself a root cause of rape. But unfortunately having stories where it goes unpunished, where men are never seemingly accountable for what we call rape, this goes against Western values.

            I think the biggest area of concern is the examples in the Islamic texts where non-Muslim women are raped, taken as hostage and so forth without being condemned. And if you’re a migrant that is told to reject the host culture, and all of your heroes have been involved in warfare and taking sex hostages, it seems logical that rape statistics among these migrants will be higher. And that happens to hold true a lot of the time.

            The biggest problem here eventually goes to lack of assimilation. Not total “Star Trek” assimilation but reasonable assimilation as other migrants often do. You come here because you think it’s superior.

            If one comes here because one thinks we’re inferior and in need of dramatic change, that’s a hostile reason and one should therefore expect a hostile reply.

            And when we notice crime statistics it’s our orientation to examine causes. That’s yet another reason why tolerance of the opinions of others is so crucial. Debate is healthy if we have healthy attitudes about debate.

          • nas

            Placing the blame on the victims is not what sharia says. But I am sure you can find some (sick) imams, who “represent” islam, that are going to accuse non islamic behaviors to justify (supposedly) muslims’s unforgivable acts.
            The title of the article is not criticizing islam, it basically says there is a worldwide “muslim rape” phenomenon, which capital is Stockholm and – at the beginning of the article – the Koran is considered the cause of it.

            Peace.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Placing the blame on the victims is not what sharia says. But I am sure you can find some (sick) imams, who “represent” islam, that are going to accuse non islamic behaviors to justify (supposedly) muslims’s unforgivable acts.”

            It doesn’t “say” that but it enables it.

            “The title of the article is not criticizing islam, it basically says there is a worldwide “muslim rape” phenomenon, which capital is Stockholm and – at the beginning of the article – the Koran is considered the cause of it.”

            You might not appreciate the tone of the article but I read it as implying that Islamic texts and culture are possibly or probably an important reason for such high rates. Not responsible for all rape or even responsible for all rape committed by Muslims.

            It didn’t get in to all of the arguments. Is it hate for the infidel? Is it because men find it easier to escape accountability relative to modern Western laws and judicial procedures? These are things we should look at, rather than have POTUS go to the UN and state that the future does not belong to those that slander someone that may have influenced all of this. Underlying it all, I think the attitude you see in the counter-jihad movement is directed at least as much at the enablers of all this chaos, deception and political correctness “shaming” as it is anywhere else. The discourse gets extreme because the denial gets thicker and deeper. People get angry.

            This section is called “the point” I think because it wants to push people to discuss things. I could be wrong about that. But regular readers do get a more complete and even somewhat balanced view when they read all of the articles on frontpagemag rather than just “the point” here and there. We’ve had it up to here with “workplace violence” explanations.

            And if it causes people like you to add nuanced views to the discourse, I think that’s a good thing.

          • Drakken

            You muslims can deny the truth until Armageddon, it still doesn’t change the fact that where ever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exception.
            Deo Volente.

    • ziggy zoggy

      nasty,

      “Rape is condemned by islam, period.” YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

      koran 4:24 – “And all married women are forbidden to you except those whom you own as slaves.” The rape of any captive is allowed – and practiced – by Mo and his men after every community is overrun and captured. On one occasion he had over 900 Jewish men kneel in front of a ditch before he and his men cut their heads off and kicked the bodies in the ditch. Then all the women were gang raped after watching their husbands, fathers and brothers, etc. get butchered.

      Hadith, volume 5, book 59, number 459 – “So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said ‘how can we do coitus interruptus before asking allah’s apostle who is present among us?’ We asked about it and he said ‘it is better not to do so, for if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist.’” His men wanted to gang rape the captives without ejaculating in them but lil’ Mo told them to rape them with no worries.

      • Omar Sharbash

        The context is obvious, Gump.

        • ziggy zoggy

          The context is that I’ll Mo and his followers were genocidal serial rapists.

      • nas

        Intercourse with slaves is allowed not rape. Harming slaves in any way is forbidden.
        Anybody can interpret the verses and the hadith the way it suits his point of view.
        Why all this anger Ziggy?

        • Drakken

          It is bloody demonstrated by you muslims savages every bloody day.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Intercourse with slaves is allowed not rape. Harming slaves in any way is forbidden.”

          Sex involving coercion is considered rape in the West. It’s going to be rare (though theoretically possible) for a slave to consent to sex with master.

          Please don’t make us go in to gory detail here.

          “Anybody can interpret the verses and the hadith the way it suits his point of view.”

          Which makes it a great tool for rapists.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Nasty,

          After every massacre, Iil’ Mo and his animal crew would rape all the female and most boy captives, who were forced into slavery. Mo announced that every captive woman’s marriage was annulled. The women did not ask for it. They did not ask to be raped and they did not ask to be slaves. Mo and the zoo crew forced themselves on helpless women. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF RAPE, YOU PIECE OF ISLAMOPITHECINE $HIT. And islamopithecine males are encouraged to beat all women – slaves, wives, daughters and relatives. There are multiple koran, hadith and sura passages I can quote.

          Why do you think your crude lies work here, Achmed?

    • solinkaa

      Nas, it might condemn rape of muslim women as only muslim women are considered human in islam; nevertheless, 100 hours in a max security prison is a fabulous idea. Pax.

    • Drakken

      Funny how raping your own is condemned, but raping the infidel is regarded as ok. Wait until one of you haji’s rape the wrong man daughter and he hangs you from the nearest lamppost with a pigs foot shoved in your mouth. Let the Balkans on steroids begin!

  • Spasmolytic

    Rape problem? I doubt it. Keep in mind, this is the same man hating country that wants guys to sit while they urinate. Sweden is a prime example of feminism run amuck.

    • ziggy zoggy

      So is the bloody woman in the photo a misandrist liar? They can’t all be liars. Not in a country teeming with islamopithecines. Other European countries have the same problem. Maybe the Swedish rape figures are compounded with phony claims but not every single one. No way.

      Just out of curiosity, are men supposed to sit even when they’re alone in a bathroom? And I thought it was bad here because self absorbed €unts want men to put toilet lids down.

      • Spasmolytic

        I’m not disputing the claims by this woman but the feminist matriarchy in Sweden has been known to normalize deviant behavior. They more or less demonize all men for what a few do.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Yeah, I looked that story up yesterday. Next thing you know Swedish women will demand their “men” be neutered. They’re already self neutered anyway.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Sweden is taking in at least 22,000 more Syrians now. Should be a party.

  • Rudy

    A society ruled by females is a society about to go extinct.

  • Texas Patriot

    It’s a bizarre twist on the notions of tolerance and multiculturalism when a major European nation permits and excuses the widespread gang rape of its women by Third World immigrants. My overall view is that the horrors and devastation of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War have left Europe as a burnt out hulk and a wasted derelict which no longer has any values to fight for. And of course it is the weakest members of their culture who will suffer first.

  • jack

    The religion of peace strikes again. At the heart of Western civilization, and wins.

  • hiernonymous

    It would be more intellectually honest to point out that our concepts of rape in the West has undergone rapid and radical transformation over the past few generations. Here’s an excerpt from a 1918 American primer by Bernarr MacFadden (Womanhood and Marriage) intended to prepare women for marriage:

    With the development of the idea of personal freedom has come the feeling, on the part of many women, that they should have the right of ownership of their own bodies — in other words, that they should have the privilege of choosing whether or not they will acquiesce in their husband’s desire for entering into the physical relationship of marriage.

    Since, however, it has been for so long a time an accepted idea that the husband’s right over the wife’s body was inherent, it is advisable for any young woman who takes the other point of view to make her attitude thoroughly understood by her future husband before she definitely takes upon herself the obligations of the marriage state.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “It would be more complete to point out that our concept of rape in the West has undergone rapid and radical transformation over the past few generations. Here’s an excerpt from a 1918 American primer by Bernarr MacFadden (Womanhood and Marriage) intended to prepare women for marriage that reveals a great deal about our own attitudes in the recent past:”

      Complete? Sure, I’ll buy that. However you seem to be forgetting that our concern is dealing with present day issues and looking for solutions.

      Therefore that doesn’t help very much when we’ve decided that for today and the future that we don’t want people raping others. We are concerned…excuse me, I am concerned about people using the examples of the prophet from 14 centuries ago.

      Muslim’s definitions for rape only change when individuals are influenced by modern cultures and ideas. The Islamic texts and traditions have the strong potential to pull them back 14 centuries.

      And second, you psychopath, how can you consider her a legitimate wife when obviously she was terrorized and taken captive? She had no say at all.

      Your argument as applied to the conversation is barely valid. But thanks for reminding us that cultural values do change over time. Some times.

      • hiernonymous

        “…excuse me, I am concerned about people using the examples of the prophet from 14 centuries ago…”

        But you’re assuming that they are. Since attitudes toward women and rape have been remarkably similar the world over, and their evolution toward more liberal standards has followed similar patterns, it would seem more productive, if you are actually concerned about women and rape, to focus on those factors that are … salient?

        For example, some of the most horrendous examples in recent times have come, not from the Muslim world, but from India.

        It seems that you are focused, laser-like, on a minor factor.

        “And second, you psychopath, how can you consider her a legitimate wife when obviously she was terrorized and taken captive?”

        Sounds like he was following the law laid down by God Almighty to his people (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Has Deuteronomy been excised from Christian and Jewish holy books, or should we be wringing our hands about the dangerous examples that threaten to pull us back 24 centuries?

        10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “But you’re assuming that they are. Since attitudes toward women and rape have been remarkably similar the world over, and their evolution toward more liberal standards has followed similar patterns, it would seem more productive, if you are actually concerned about women and rape, to focus on those factors that are … salient?”

          Absolutely salient when probing for connections between Islamic theology and behavior.

          No doubt people jump the gun and attribute each “Muslim rape” to Islam. Obviously this is not the case. It is however always salient to look for root causes in any violent crime or any important event.

          If you try to answer these questions in a more balanced and intellectually honest way, your perspectives will be more influential when you present them.

          Then again, you actually think that passages of Leviticus are somehow essentially the same as texts calling for the emulation of a 14th century warlord. So there’s that too. But any progress would be laudable.

          • hiernonymous

            “If you try to answer these questions in a more balanced and intellectually honest way…”

            Again, excellent advice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Let’s see if you can act on it honestly. I’ll remain skeptical for now.

          • hiernonymous

            “Let’s see if you can act on it honestly.”

            You could do that, or you could reflect. It’s your time and attention. Regards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Is this the part where I claim that you can’t read well?

            You know, since “we” are so intellectually honest…

          • hiernonymous

            “Is this the part where I claim that you can’t read well?”

            It’s the part where you posture; I can’t begin to guess what form that will take. Good night.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “For example, some of the most horrendous examples in recent times have come, not from the Muslim world, but from India. It seems that it would be more productive to try to find out what those societies have in common and figure out how to mold attitudes toward women, rather than railing against a religion.”

          It would be more productive for some. Here we’re looking at Islam because people in the West haven’t woken up to the idea that some groups of Hindus or Indians plan on migrating to the West in order to make their culture and values preeminent.

          “Unless, perhaps, you believe the Indian examples suggest that religion (not a particular religion) is part of the problem?”

          There are no sacred cows here. Criticize anything you want. But don’t use legitimate criticism illegitimately.

          I’d say that dogmatic adherence to any belief that involves uncertainty is dangerous. Whether we’re speaking about global warming or the belief that God wants you to become a vigilante of some kind. Recognize uncertainty first before you proceed. In anything. Then use the best reasoning you can muster and never assume you’ve eliminated uncertainty unless you can prove it.

          There are atheists that are far more dangerous than the average theist. And there is far too much diversity within theologies to make such a statement any use at all. And I mean that literally. Such a statement as you phrased it is as close to useless as it gets.

          • hiernonymous

            “It would be more productive for some. Here we’re looking at Islam because people in the West haven’t woken up to the idea that some groups of Hindus or Indians plan on migrating to the West in order to make their culture and values preeminent.”

            Had a look at the immigration figures recently?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Had a look at the immigration figures recently?”

            Some immigrants come here legally to support the “American dream” and its founding ideas.

            I fully support that. Others, not.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Sounds like he was following the law laid down by God Almighty to his people (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Has Deuteronomy been excised from Christian and Jewish holy books, or should we be wringing our hands about the dangerous examples that threaten to pull us back 24 centuries?”

          Can you show anyone or any text that promotes the idea that this passage was ever to be applied in the post-messianic world, or outside the context in which it was delivered?

          It’s not the words, it’s the ideas behind the words. If you’re concerned purely about word manipulation you should be attacking dictionaries. Those must be the most dangerous books of all. Or maybe it’s the ideas and teachings that come from those words? Context matters or it doesn’t. If context doesn’t matter then we need to ban all words. Otherwise try to learn a bit more about what you’re talking about if you want to have conversations that illuminate rather than obscure the most relevant and important ideas.

          • hiernonymous

            Of course context matters. But you’ve argued that Islam is uniquely violent because of the violent ideas contained in its scripture. However, we see many of the same terrible ideas expressed in Jewish and Christian scripture. This suggests that your focus on those scriptures as the source of key differences – to the extent that you insist that matters such as economics, colonial experience, current power politics, etc, are not “salient” – is badly misplaced.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course context matters. But you’ve argued that Islam is uniquely violent because of the violent ideas contained in its scripture.”

            It’s uniquely violent because of how the ideas are fully developed today. Not just “dangerous ideas’ but dangerous in how some pious Muslims apply those ideas today, for example emulating the “prophet.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “However, we see many of the same terrible ideas expressed in Jewish and Christian scripture.”

            There are “terrible ideas” everywhere. When you want to discuss the implications try to be more organized with your arguments. We’re looking at how these ideas are applied today by Muslims.

            “This suggests that your focus on those scriptures as the source of key differences – to the extent that you insist that matters such as economics, colonial experience, current power politics, etc, are not “salient” – is badly misplaced.”

            It is absolutely salient because we have shown that there are plenty of jihadis that commit murder and mayhem and then justify their violence with Islamic texts as well as citing historical applications to show that they are observing fundamental Islam as it should be observed today, according to mainstream Islamic views.

            Your defense boils down to something akin to “using the Force.” These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

            We’ll decide on that. I’ll decide for myself. Thanks anyway for your spiritual advice.

          • hiernonymous

            “It is absolutely salient because we have shown that there are plenty of jihadis that commit murder and mayhem and then justify their violence with Islamic texts as well as citing historical applications to show that they are observing fundamental Islam as it should be observed today, according to mainstream Islamic views.”

            You mean a la General Boykin? Our God is stronger than their God?

            When different groups of people commit similar acts or use similar tactics to accomplish similar goals, it stands to reason that one looks for the similarities, not the differences, among those groups when trying to grapple with why they do what they do.

            When it comes to any of the issues you’ve raised – terrorism, suicide bombing, rape – one can find places in the non-Muslim world where those problems are as bad as or worse than they are in the Muslim world. “Jihadis” have nothing on the Tamil Tigers when it comes to suicide bombing. Interestingly, while there are points of commonality among suicide bombers and suicide bombing campaigns, religion is not one of them. The most (ahem) salient of them is that they tend to occur in countries that are either occupied by foreign powers or by a government widely perceived as illegitimate.

            When the U.S./NATO occupied Afghanistan, there were no suicide bombings while operations were focused in the North and West of the country, which were just as Muslim as any other place, but when we began pushing into Pashtu country, their unsuccessful military responses were then followed by more successful suicide bombings. Pashtus are not more pious, religious, or observant than any other group in Afghanistan.

            The Tamil Tigers had contact with Hizballah, and initially borrowed some of their techniques. They’ve launched more suicide attacks than Islamic Jihad or Hamas. But they’re a secular group – and they’re primarily Hindu. We never gave them a lot of press because it wasn’t Americans they were fighting against.

            The techniques for recruiting suicide attackers aren’t terribly different, and involve making someone believe that they’re doing something special – becoming part of an elite, doing something useful with a life that hadn’t seemed to have much use.

            The obvious point is that whether one is enticed with 72 virgins or the promise of posthumous fame as a nationalist patriot or simply the approbation of a new peer set, the specifics of the enticement are not the “root cause” of the suicide attacks or the violence in general. If you are genuinely interested in figuring out why there is so much violence in the Muslim world, your choice to focus on Muslim ‘ideology’ seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You mean a la General Boykin? Our God is stronger than their God?”

            Nope. Extremely bad example. You’re reaching unless you can show me how that or similar statements incite anyone to do anything unlawful or unjust in any sense.

            Unless you reject that whole “due process” thing and want to say that Western civilization as a whole is no better than any other, including totalitarian societies that decide matters based on dogmatic religious laws.

            If that’s your position it would be good to know.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re reaching unless you can show me how that or similar statements incite anyone to do anything unlawful or unjust in any sense.”

            Boykin cast the Iraq war as a religious war of a Christian nation against Satan. Such terminology tends to break down respect for legal restraint – after all, one doesn’t compromise with The Devil. What did he incite? It’s hard to say, but he was the DCSINT during the Abu Ghraib scandal. We know that the perpetrator of the Mahmadiya massacre cited pervasive derogatory and dehumanizing language as a contributing factor in his crimes, saying that he didn’t see the Iraqis as human.

            Totalitarianism was a Western concept, or had you forgotten? It was coined to describe Mussolini’s Fascism, and the totalitarian model was very much a child of the West (even in the Soviet Union, which derived its brand of totalitarianism from the work of two Germans working in the UK). If you’re going to make aimless rants about Western civilization as a whole, you need to account for and embrace Western civilization as a whole.

            What did Boykin incite? It’s hard to be certain, but he was the DCSINT during the Abu Ghraib scandal. We know that the perpetrator of the Mahmadiya massacre cited pervasive derogatory and dehumanizing language as a contributing factor in his crimes, saying that he didn’t see the Iraqis as human.

            “If that’s your position it would be good to know.”

            Why?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Boykin cast the Iraq war as a religious war of a Christian nation against Satan. Such terminology tends to break down respect for legal restraint – after all, one doesn’t compromise with The Devil. What did he incite? It’s hard to say, but he was the DCSINT during the Abu Ghraib scandal. We know that the perpetrator of the Mahmadiya massacre cited pervasive derogatory and dehumanizing language as a contributing factor in his crimes, saying that he didn’t see the Iraqis as human.”

            There are plenty of Westerners that need correction in their ideology. I’d have to see the details before commenting. But one of the pitfalls of a free society is that we have people acting imperfectly.

            But his alleged failure in leadership doesn’t justify ignoring the role of ideology. If anything it supports my contentions that ideas count.

            I just don’t know what he said and whether his speech was protected or not. Certainly on the battlefield we should not be inciting soldiers to violence with any collectivist rhetoric.

            But at the same time we all know that throughout history, once a commander has his orders, we don’t have much control over what’s said to get the troops fired up. What’s most important is due process and finding out who broke the law, and deal with lawbreakers as we always have. Or I should say as we always should have; according to our laws.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Totalitarianism was a Western concept, or had you forgotten? It was coined to describe Mussolini’s Fascism, and the totalitarian model was very much a child of the West (even in the Soviet Union, which derived its brand of totalitarianism from the work of two Germans working in the UK). If you’re going to make aimless rants about Western civilization as a whole, you need to account for and embrace Western civilization as a whole.”

            Totalitarianism was and is a Western concept, and that’s why we have the lexicon for criticizing it. We didn’t “invent” totalitarianism. We “invented” criticism of it.

            “If you’re going to make aimless rants about Western civilization as a whole, you need to account for and embrace Western civilization as a whole.”

            I do embrace all the relevant facts according to importance. Because we in the West value due process and protect criticism, it’s easier for the body politic to keep these malicious tendencies in check in the West. I never once said we’re superior humans in any way. Our ideology and lessons from history lead us to be a superior civilization, unless you reject those values. Some of those traditions hold us back. But on the whole, we’re better. We also borrow from other cultures as well. We’re shameless about that.

            But all of this talk seems more like psychological counseling than trying to work out what we need to know about the effects of Islamic ideology as it exists in the world today.

            OTOH ideas like “socialism” and “communism” might kill us. We’ll see what lessons can be gleaned as we go.

          • hiernonymous

            “OTOH ideas like “socialism” and “communism” might kill us.”

            And they’re Western!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And they’re Western!”

            Well yeah. That’s my point. The only way out of this is striving for objectivity and intellectual honesty. And trying to hold others to that as well.

          • ziggy zoggy

            REALITY CHECK, HIERO:

            Only Islam commands and practices rape, murder and pillage. Only islamopithecines practice that doctrine.

            References to the past are meaningless false argumentation.

          • hiernonymous

            So today, currently, non-Muslims don’t practice rape, murder, or pillage? Just trying to be clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And they’re Western!”

            Late breaking news….

          • hiernonymous

            “Totalitarianism was and is a Western concept, and that’s why we have the lexicon for criticizing it. We didn’t “invent” totalitarianism. We “invented” criticism of it.”

            Well, really, we did invent totalitarianism. The totalitarian concept of the state is in stark contrast with previous authoritarian approaches.

            As far as “Islamism as totalitarianism” goes, I try to keep an open mind. Certainly, the evangelical religions try to spread their doctrine, tolerate no other dogmas as legitimate, and find themselves inordinately concerned with heresy and apostasy. Christianity bears similarity with totalitarianism in particular to the extent that it holds one accountable, not only for one’s acts, but for one’s private thoughts – that aspect is positively Orwellian. Islam is more pragmatic in that respect, dealing with actions rather than thoughts, but it also incorporates elements of the state more directly into the religion. It would be difficult to justify describing any of the previous Muslim entities – the Ottoman Empire, or the various caliphates, as ‘totalitarian.’

            “But on the whole, we’re better.”

            Whatever that is supposed to mean, or justify.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, really, we did invent totalitarianism.”

            BS.

            “The totalitarian concept of the state is in stark contrast with previous authoritarian approaches.”

            Our approach was and is a lot more sophisticated. Because our civilization is a lot more sophisticated than previous “totalitarian” civilizations.

            Advances in technology only lead to more effective means of achieving sovereignty. Totalitarianism is in effect total sovereignty of the leadership.

            There is no true totalitarian civilization. It’s a term that helps us classify tendencies and even ideologies.

            Constantine did not have a totalitarian regime only because it was not actually possible. He had to contend with other powerful forces. But he didn’t give up power for the sake of a constitution or ideals of the state. In theory he was somewhat regulated by the senate.

            Constantine did have a totalitarian regime because he reserved the right to make any ruling as he saw fit. His power was not truly mitigated by any formal process. He could do what he wanted to do and most of the time he did.

            He wasn’t the first. However we do have better documentation of Western “totalitarian” regimes. This is probably again due to our early recognition of the importance of criticism.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

            The word itself is perhaps deceptive. Authoritarian might be more accurate but these are all relative terms.

            But advanced technologies make despotism more feasible. The more advanced the society is, the higher the potential for despotism.

            That’s why “democracy” without a strong constitution, especially these days, is risky. It’s just too easy to manipulate people and then to abuse them.

            Even today in America things are getting a bit more authoritarian than ever before.

          • hiernonymous

            Totalitarianism is about much more than the exercise of power and the limits – or lack of limits – on that exercise. It also has to do with goals. Traditional authoritarianism is satisfied with compliance; totalitarianism is not – it demands active buy-in, and actively seeks to detect and enforce that buy-in. What would make Constantine totalitarian or not was not whether he was free to exercise authority, but the degree to which it was important to him to control the thoughts and actions of his subjects.

            “The word itself is perhaps deceptive. Authoritarian might be more accurate but these are all relative terms.”

            The whole point of coining the term ‘totalitarian’ was to contrast the emerging fascist states with the simple authoritarianism of the past. One might argue that the French Revolution was, for a time, totalitarian in its goals.

            Be that as it may, the fascists, Nazis, and communists represented a wholly different phenomenon from the autocrats of the past – even those monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Totalitarianism is about much more than the exercise of power and the limits – or lack of limits – on that exercise. It also has to do with goals. Traditional authoritarianism is satisfied with compliance; totalitarianism is not – it demands active buy-in, and actively seeks to detect and enforce that buy-in. What would make Constantine totalitarian or not was not whether he was free to exercise authority, but the degree to which it was important to him to control the thoughts and actions of his subjects.”

            You’re getting in to psychoanalysis. We don’t even know what he intended with his fusion of Christianity and politics. There’s plenty of evidence that he met your definition as well. But I use the terms more loosely than you do.

            “The whole point of coining the term ‘totalitarian’ was to contrast the emerging fascist states with the simple authoritarianism of the past.”

            Well that’s fine but I don’t agree with some of the distinctions. I believe it had more to do with means than attitude or ideology.

            “One might argue that the French Revolution was, for a time, totalitarian in its goals.”

            I don’t disagree.

            “Be that as it may, the fascists, Nazis, and communists represented a wholly different phenomenon from the autocrats of the past – even those monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right.”

            Yes and no. Ideology and technology change, but I think some times we read too much in to those factors when we ask questions about humanity and government. Some times as you know ideology is just the superficial argument but the motives are something else. And there are many factors that determine end results that historians record for us. We don’t really know that much for certain. We must deduce quite a bit.

            I don’t believe that man has evolved in the sense that many moderns do. I think our apparent evolution is an evolution of culture and ideology. We have techniques that help us live in more luxury and we have modern discoveries along with texts of the ancients to cull what we think is best. Of course we have an advantage then.

            It’s easy to make the argument that we’re superior because Darwinism implies it and the ancients aren’t around to defend themselves.

            I just don’t think human nature has changed at all. Civilizations change, and humans change in their interactions and circumstances, but not in their base nature. And if I’m right, it means that ideology and the ethical application of technology are more important than we often recognize.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As far as “Islamism as totalitarianism” goes, I try to keep an open mind. Certainly, the evangelical religions try to spread their doctrine, tolerate no other dogmas as legitimate, and find themselves inordinately concerned with heresy and apostasy.”

            It makes little difference if one religion calls for you to remain stubborn in the debate (intolerance) and the other will kill or jail you for dissent. It’s purely about tolerance. Because “tolerance” in itself is a litmus test for civilization.

            Where have I heard that before?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Christianity bears similarity with totalitarianism in particular to the extent that it holds one accountable, not only for one’s acts, but for one’s private thoughts – that aspect is positively Orwellian.”

            Christianity is non-coercive. Classifying it as “totalitarianism” is a bogus attempt at false equivalence by playing word games.

            Christianity teaches that you are to hold yourself accountable. How is that totalitarian in any sense? If it is, it’s also extremely liberal at the same time. Huh.

          • hiernonymous

            I suppose that depends on whether you actually believe in your religion. How is the threat of eternal damnation for non-compliance with the religion not coercive?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How is the threat of eternal damnation for non-compliance with the religion not coercive?”

            Ah, but Christianity does not threaten eternal damnation for lack of “compliance” of anything but faith (or lack of) in Christ’s redemptive gift. If you accept this, it’s a gift. If you don’t accept it, it’s not coercive.

            Obviously there is potential for abuse, but as people have learned more about the true, whole content of the texts, the trend has been clearly towards the recognition of how important liberty is in the teachings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Islam is more pragmatic in that respect, dealing with actions rather than thoughts, but it also incorporates elements of the state more directly into the religion.”

            It’s also collectivist. Which is why they care more about acts than thoughts because they want to regulate your behavior at least as much as they want to regulate their own. They don’t care about your thoughts because they don’t care about you. They care about what you do.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It would be difficult to justify describing any of the previous Muslim entities – the Ottoman Empire, or the various caliphates, as ‘totalitarian.’”

            Well, there was liberty in political power by using Islamic texts against the caliph. These regimes are totalitarian in many senses because nobody has any true liberty outside of their wits and personal power. They had no real guarantees of liberty.

            There is no real world “pure totalitarian” civilization or sovereign. It’s a classification or label that can be challenged by comparing to others. There’s no real acid test for determining totalitarian. Perhaps any civilization that does not have a constitution and strong courts to guarantee individual rights could today be classified as totalitarian.

            I guess you have to take it case. Even sovereigns with weak constitutions can easily be classified as authoritarian. I’d say that if you have no constitution to guarantee liberty of subjects or citizens then you have an authoritarian sovereign.

            There’s a degree of subjectivity in applying such labels.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Whatever that is supposed to mean, or justify.”

            It’s a confession of my bias, that I think I support rationally. It’s not like I haven’t given a lot of supporting arguments already.

            I’m not dogmatic about it. I do have a lot of supporting arguments and as you can see already you’re free to challenge them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Me: “Unless you reject that whole “due process” thing and want to say that Western civilization as a whole is no better than any other, including totalitarian societies that decide matters based on dogmatic religious laws. If that’s your position it would be good to know.”

            You: “Why?”

            It would help me understand some of your views.

          • hiernonymous

            “It would help me understand some of your views.”

            Pity you didn’t try to understand them before attempting to discredit and pigeonhole them.

            Ready! Fire! Aim!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I aim very precisely whether or not the target cooperates.

            Specifically in rhetoric one can challenge an antagonist with a list of alleged implications.

            Therefore you have no real evidence that I prejudged anything. It’s not like you’re even cooperating now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The most (ahem) salient of them is that they tend to occur in countries that are either occupied by foreign powers or by a government widely perceived as illegitimate.”

            Perhaps in war college. Here we’re seeing what we can discern about Islamic ideology and dogmatic belief, and the behaviors those things support when taken together.

          • hiernonymous

            In other words, it’s no longer about ‘saliency’ – you want to discuss the impact of Islamic ideology, however tangential or trivial that impact may be as a root cause of violence. Sounds like what you’re doing is not so much “discerning” as confirmation bias, but knock yourself out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The obvious point is that whether one is enticed with 72 virgins or the promise of posthumous fame as a nationalist patriot or simply the approbation of a new peer set, the specifics of the enticement are not the “root cause” of the suicide attacks or the violence in general.”

            The root cause is not “using virgins to entice” or any other fragmented elements. It’s the dogmatic worldview as a whole, or at least certain elements as a chain, and we discuss the details – that you trivialize by trying to separate then from other dogmatic beliefs.

          • hiernonymous

            And, as I’ve pointed out, that “dogmatic worldview as a whole” is not shared, in whole or part, by the Tamils, yet the Tamils manifested violence in nearly precisely the same form as the “jihadists.”

            You keep insisting on the ‘saliency’ of the underlying religious dogma without explaining why organizations with dissimilar dogma but similar political and economic problems manifest their problems in so similar a manner. You clearly believe that it must be so, but the objective facts are not consistent with your insistence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, as I’ve pointed out, that “dogmatic worldview as a whole” is not shared, in whole or part, by the Tamils, yet the Tamils manifested violence in nearly precisely the same form as the “jihadists.””

            First, I never once claimed that Islam is the only dogmatic worldview that can lead to such behavior. Second, it’s even possible under certain circumstances that rational people would turn to “terror” as a tactic if they truly are threatened and reason that these tactics are justified.

            But this transnational revenge terror is beyond anything else in history that I’m aware of. Jihadis flying around to regions where they don’t even speak the language, convinced that “Islam is under threat” and that they must give their life for it. Many of these people, in spite of all the denial, are killing others and themselves for ideological reasons. As the aggressors.

            The Tigers saw themselves as liberating a legitimate oppressed people, even if you want to say that they were wrong. Jihadis are fighting for a totalitarian religion. Not in one part of the world, but any part where they were once victorious (or held sovereignty). They’re “Civilizationalistic” if you want to coin a new term. They want to dominate ever larger territories because of religious beliefs. Of course there are other factors in the same way that there were many reasons for accepting help from the Soviet Union. But in the end they lined themselves up with an empire that wanted to take on the West. Some might have just wanted to get along in the world while others wanted to destroy all capitalism.

            The better we understand all of this, the better we can come up with solutions.

          • hiernonymous

            “But this transnational revenge terror is beyond anything else in history that I’m aware of. Jihadis flying around to regions where they don’t even speak the language, convinced that “Islam is under threat” and that they must give their life for it.”

            No, it’s not that new. Baader & Meinhof conducted a campaign of terror in Germany on behalf of the Vietnamese and Palestinians. The Cold War saw soldiers of fortunes on all sides of the political divide participating in proxy wars. Heck, I remember a major who taught at the Academy who used to regale us with stories of his adventures while on leave in Mozambique. Russian anarchists from the People’s Will crossed into the Ottoman Empire and launched a terror campaign aimed at provoking European intervention on behalf of the Armenians.

            Interestingly, it was U.S. policy, not the Qur’an, that sparked a good deal of the international flavor of ‘jihadism.’ We actively encouraged mujahadiin to travel to Afghanistan to take part in jihad against the Soviet Union (echoing, in a sense, Lawrence’s attempt to use the Arabs in a proxy war against the Ottomans). Having provided training, resources, and weapons for that excursion, the veterans of that war returned to their homes (where they were known as ‘Afghans’) only to ply their new trade against their home governments. If you’re actually trying to understand the root causes of the international flavor of some of the jihadists, you’ll find some surprising actors.

            There are other chickens that came home to roost. Sayyid Qutb was a very dark Egyptian who studied in Colorado. His exposure to Western Civilization included being referred to by language that would cause my post to be moderated, being denied access to places like theaters on account of his race, etc. Qutb was a bit of a puritan on his own account, but it’s hardly surprising that he returned from his stay in America with memories of a society that he didn’t have any reason to describe in terms of its superior ‘due process.’ That’s not to overstate the case – 9/11 isn’t a direct result of Qutb’s mistreatment at the hands of Jim Crow America – but there’s enough of that in there to be worth thinking about.

            “The better we understand all of this, the better we can come up with solutions.”

            What sorts of solutions does your understanding of the situation suggest?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What sorts of solutions does your understanding of the situation suggest?”

            The more honest we are, using rational arguments, the more we an all find ways to live together or live apart.

            We’re so much stronger now that the only reason some think they can defeat us is that deception works on us so well.

            At some point we can then focus more clearly on the underlying material reasons for some of the conflict.

            I’m not confident that there is a clear path to any Utopian future, but I am confident that we can ramp down the conflict when we’re all more sober about analyzing the threats.

            And you may not think so, but there are a few that come here and they might not agree with everything that’s said, but they understand the complaints people have a little better than before.

            Anything that helps build mutual understanding will provide a foundation for a more peaceful future. Which is why the UN has a role in the world. But so do I. And the UN has no sovereignty over me.

          • hiernonymous

            “At some point we can then focus more clearly on the underlying material reasons for some of the conflict.”

            Well,wait – that’s the only reference I’ve really seen in this post to solutions. Your actual argument doesn’t seem to support the idea that ideology is the underlying cause of Middle East violence; it seems to be that you’re afraid that we will be insufficiently militant in our approach to solving these problems if we allow the Muslims to allay our fears by tricking us into thinking they are not homicidal maniacs bent on our destruction.

            “I’m not confident that there is a clear path to any
            Utopian future, but I am confident that we can ramp down the conflict when we’re all more sober about analyzing the threats.”

            What makes you think that an “Islam is evil!” approach represents being more sober about analyzing the threats?

            “And you may not think so, but there are a few that come here and they might not agree with everything that’s said, but they understand the complaints people have a little better than before.”

            Why else would I come here? I doubt that you’re persuadable.

            “Anything that helps build mutual understanding will provide a foundation for a more peaceful future.”

            Sure. We fear the unknown. I’ve actually lived in the Middle East, which is why I question your presentation of Islam and its practice. The people I know sure didn’t believe the things you suggest, nor were they any more prone to violence, deception, etc, than my neighbors in any other country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well,wait – that’s the only reference I’ve really seen in this post to solutions. Your actual argument doesn’t seem to support the idea that ideology is the underlying cause of Middle East violence; it seems to be that you’re afraid that we will be insufficiently militant in our approach to solving these problems if we allow the Muslims to allay our fears by tricking us into thinking they are not homicidal maniacs bent on our destruction.”

            I think you’re projecting your own fears in to the conversation and drawing false conclusions.

            What I’m saying essentially is that when our comprehension of the underlying causes more accurately fits with reality, we will have a much greater potential to act effectively.

            Fight ideas with ideas. Deal with material causes as they truly exist rather than making false assumptions to account for causes that in reality are ideological.

            What’s wrong with developing a more sophisticated paradigm to analyze cause if it’s more accurate?

            The only rational fear of this that anyone could have is the fear that people might be less tolerant of the truth than they are of the lies. That’s no reason to subvert progress.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You keep insisting on the ‘saliency’ of the underlying religious dogma without explaining why organizations with dissimilar dogma but similar political and economic problems manifest their problems in so similar a manner.”

            It’s only similar to you because people some times become inspired by others that don’t necessarily share their values. Tactically we borrow from others even if we reject their ideology. Many materialistic factors are similar around the world. I never once said that terror can only come from Islamic ideology. It can come from anywhere. What I’ve said is the better we can understand it, the better we can deal with it.

            Look at it this way: The reformation in “Christian” Europe happened because harsh critics finally rose up with the means to challenge the traditional interpretations. They were not able to do that by looking for purely materialist explanations behind Rome’s desire to run the world.

            Why tie our hands behind our backs? The reformation was a battle over ideology between people that all claimed to follow the same texts. The difference is that Islam claims to have superior knowledge or relationship with God or whatever, but they believe they can justify their disrespect and hatred for all other religions. Why not confront them intellectually more vigorously?

            When Westerners run from the debate, it has the potential to make them feel that much more confident that Allah wants them to carry on with global sharia or whatever dominance they can come up with.

            We should not let them dictate values to us. We are a strong civilization because of traditions that value empirical truth over dogma. Generally speaking. At least our laws have been able to support those that do take that approach. Why change the very things that made us great?

            I haven’t denied any relevant facts. I’ve agreed that it’s complicated. All I’ve said is that to dismiss ideology as salient is to fall in to the biggest trap that’s been set for the West in modern times. It’s the only way to defeat us. And they know it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you are genuinely interested in figuring out why there is so much violence in the Muslim world, your choice to focus on Muslim ‘ideology’ seems to be putting the cart before the horse.”

            As if all of your materialistic theories aren’t already dominant among our political leaders. Yet they haven’t done well at all in managing the problems. Maybe their ideas are incomplete.

          • hiernonymous

            “As if all of your materialistic theories aren’t already dominant among our political leaders. Yet they haven’t done well at all in managing the problems.”

            Their primary purpose isn’t managing the problems in question. U.S. strategy has focused on maintaining access to the Suez Canal, securing oil production and transit, and obtaining and maintaining military bases in the region. Our approach to terrorism has been to keep its manifestations in check, not address its root causes. Indeed, our heavy involvement in the Middle East is one of the great irritating factors in the issue, and “managing the problem” would involve making compromises in our military agenda that no administration has been willing to make.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Their primary purpose isn’t managing the problems in question. U.S. strategy has focused on maintaining access to the Suez Canal, securing oil production and transit, and obtaining and maintaining military bases in the region.”

            These are complex issues and the question is whether we’re looking at all of the critical factors. If there are any critical factors being neglected by us, that’s where enemies exploit us and they became salient due to that blindness.

            “Our approach to terrorism has been to keep its manifestations in check, not address its root causes.”

            I think because a lot of people thought we’d make better progress with the plans they created based on what I’m suggesting are incomplete assumptions.

            “Indeed, our heavy involvement in the Middle East is one of the great irritating factors in the issue, and “managing the problem” would involve making compromises in our military agenda that no administration has been willing to make.”

            Why should the middle east be more sensitive and angry than other regions of the world where we’ve applied our help and leadership?

            Part of the answer is that those who are not angry, those who do appreciate the practical aspects of a positive relationship with us don’t have strong cover for publishing those opinions. Again because of Islam, anyone can be attacked for being “against Islam.” even if it’s not literally true. Not having any sensible process to discover the truth is yet another part of the problem with this totalitarian ideology. Not having traditions and laws that protect critics, etc.

            Bush failed in the middle east by taking advice from the wrong people about how to support “democratic” institutions and governments during regime change. He should have looked to our history with Japan. That’s imperfect because Shinto didn’t also dominate other countries that might rebel against program that was overtly similar. Still, there were valuable lessons that might have given us better ideas about how to proceed.

            I think it’s a good idea to be prepared for future decisions because the so-called war on terror is not winding down in any sense. We’re winding down our opposition to those who want to attack us and that is supposedly going to appease them.

            I don’t’ think it’s worked even once in 14 centuries unless the jihadis didn’t plan to use the time to build their own strength. But not only that, appeasement doesn’t even work in the short term for us because the belligerents just keep funding and directing their proxies to attack and then shrug their shoulders.

            We need to wake up to the realities of what’s going on. The more people do learn the nuanced truth, the more focused we’ll all be on finding effective solutions rather than imagining a free for all war of civilizations where all you see are vigilantes rising up. I don’t think many people actually want that. Nor do I think that it will just dissipate simply because the US decided to “play nice” and roll over. That’s delusional.

            We’re stronger now and they know it. We have a chance to reason our way through a lot of it. Hiding our heads and showing our rear ends will just keep this state of war going longer than necessary.

          • Drakken

            Well then, it is quite bloody obvious that east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. Islam no matter the form is incompatible and diametrically opposite of the western value system. Anyway you cut or slice it, islam and the west are headed for a culture clash or world wide proportions.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”

          Obviously in any context that the average person today can imagine it, this sounds horrible. OTOH if at the time this text was valid the world was chaotic and dangerous enough, beyond what we can imagine, this might have been calling for mercy.

          I’m not worried because I know for certain that nobody in Christianity has ever been able to legitimately use this passage to advocate such behavior. I concede to a degree of uncertainty about it’s application at the time but I also point out that it is absolutely irrelevant to Christianity other than as historical perspective.

        • Drakken

          Obviously you forgot that Sir Charles Napier put a stop to seti when he famously said, you go ahead and practice your traditions, and along side it I will build my gallows and practice our traditions. Keep that in mind muslim.

          • hiernonymous

            Are you sure you want to bring up suttee? It rather spoils the “Islam is uniquely violent” ambience.

            As long as we’re exchanging tangential quotes from the subcontinent, do you recall the (disputed) quip attributed to Gandhi when asked what he thought of modern civilization?

            “Keep that in mind muslim.”

            Okay, Klansman.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Klansmen don’t want to subjugate and murder humanity. Not that there are any klansmen here.

            Islam is evil and so are you.

          • ziggy zoggy

            He hanged enough to stop seti as a social norm. Napier was cool as fuck and should be a role model for us all.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Attitudes towards women and rape are similar the world over? ONLY ISLAM PROMOTES RAPE AS A CULTURAL NORM. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, YOU LOWLIFE.

          And your Deuteronomy quote isn’t proof of a rape culture nor of a moral equivalence between Judaism, Christianity and islam.

          I suggest you look at some of your namesake’s horrific paintings. If HeII exists, you are going there.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Omy Sore@ss,

    A cockroach is more evolved than you.

    • Omar Sharbash

      • ziggy zoggy

        UU:::::::::::::D~ ~~ ~(:

        Does that make you hungry?

        • Omar Sharbash

          ————

  • Omar Sharbash

    No, I’m not convinced.

    Striking a relationship between Islam and the ‘problem’ – by appealing to ‘background noise’ – needs a lot of hard work and, even then, is tenuous, at best.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Your objections are reasonable. And rape is very complicated so I understand where you’re coming from.

      People in the West feel a lot more comfortable if the stream of ideas are unequivocal about things like rape. We’re very sensitive to anything that might seem to excuse it under any circumstances.

  • Brett

    Surely you must be aware of what a moron you appear to be?